After two days of grueling debate, the House of Commons voted to give the controversial House of Lords Reform Bill a second reading, but the bill faces an uncertain future after ministers were forced to scrap their proposed timetable for further debate.

The House of Lords Reform Bill would transform the chamber into a 450-member body whose members are 80 percent elected/20 percent appointed. The Church of England’s General Synod would also elect 12 bishops to sit in the reformed House of Lords as Lords Spiritual. Members who are not Lords Spiritual would serve for a single 15-year term.

The House of Commons spent two days debating whether or not to give the House of Lords Reform Bill a second reading. A second reading debate is concerned with the general principles behind the bill, and an affirmative vote allows the bill to progress to committee stage. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg began the debate by saying that the bill was about “fixing a flawed institution.”

“We believe that the people who make the laws should be chosen by the people who are subject to those laws,” he continued. “We are only one of only two countries in the world —the other being Lesotho—with an upper parliamentary chamber that is totally unelected and instead selects its members by birthright and patronage.”

“At the heart of the Bill is the vision of a House of Lords that is more modern, more representative and more legitimate—a Chamber fit for the 21st century,” he said.

Speaking for the opposition, Labour MP Sadiq Khan endorsed the broad principles behind the bill. “The Labour party remains very much in favour of reforming the second Chamber and will support the Bill on Second Reading,” he said. However, Khan went on to warn that “our support for giving the Bill a Second Reading should therefore not be taken as a blank cheque.”

He went on to identify a number of areas where Labour felt that the bill needed major work. He felt that clause 2, which declares that the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 will continue to apply to the reformed House of Lords, would not be a sufficient safeguard to ensure the Commons’ primacy.

The Parliament Acts to which Khan referred prevent the Lords from blocking legislation indefinitely. They can, however, still delay it for a year. A year is an eternity in politics, and few governments would want to wait that long to see their proposals become law. In practice, it is usually a moot point since the House of Lords usually defers to the Commons before the Parliament Acts come into play. But it is far from certain that a predominantly elected chamber would feel the need to show the same deference. “Why should elected Members of the second Chamber be bound by conventions that bind a Chamber of hereditary and appointed peers?” asked Khan.

“The Bill recognizes that conventions may evolve, and assumes this will happen of its own accord during the transition phases. We believe that that is too passive and is a dangerous position. The obvious questions requiring clarification include the following. What is the position on the Salisbury-Addison convention about Bills and the prevention of manifesto commitments? What about the convention that the Lords does not usually object to secondary legislation? More than 1,000 pieces of secondary legislation go through Parliament each year; the Parliament Acts do not cover this,” Khan continued.

Khan also objected to the fact that the reformed House of Lords would still have appointed members. “By allowing some Members still to be appointed, the Deputy Prime Minister is weakening his own arguments for having elected Members in the second Chamber.”

In addition, Khan castigated the government for its refusal to allow a referendum on its proposed changes. “[Nick Clegg] said a referendum was not needed because proposals to reform the House of Lords were in all three main parties’ manifestos. The manifestos said very different things, however. While Labour and the Lib Dems called for a wholly elected second Chamber—albeit Labour wanted a referendum as well—the Conservatives sought only to find consensus.”

As the debate wore on, the scale of Conservative discontent became increasingly apparent as backbencher after backbencher rose to voice their opposition to the bill. Conor Burns, a ministerial aide to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, went so far as to quite in order to vote against the bill. Another ministerial aide, Angie Bray, was sacked when she too voted against the bill.

Although the bill ultimately received a second reading by a vote of 462 to 124, the government chose not to move the program motion that would have set out a timetable for its future progress. Labour had announced that it would not support the motion because it did not allow enough time for debate, and there were enough Conservative rebels that the motion would have failed without Labour’s support.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Downing Street has set up a special team to negotiate with the rebel backbenchers over the summer. Prime Minister David Cameron is said to have told his MPs that he is willing to consider a range of concessions, from reducing the number of elected members to allowing more time for debate. If he cannot win over more of his backbenchers, he is said to be willing to completely scrap the bill when Parliament returns from its summer recess.

Image Courtesy of  The Prime Minister’s Office

The article Lords Reform Bill Gets 2nd Reading, Faces Uncertain Future appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Global Alliance for Zimbabwe applauded British Prime Minister David Cameron’s call for fostering the growth of democratic culture in Zimbabwe, and echoed fully his appeal to the international community to ensure non-violent, free and fair elections later this year.

“Advocating for a peaceful, prosperous, and free Zimbabwe is our daily mission, and we agree with Prime Minister Cameron that non-violent, free and fair elections are the essential first step,” said Chairman Roy Bennett.

“For this reason, members of the international community will be gathering in Washington, DC on April 19, 2012 to learn more about the rampant human rights violations in Zimbabwe, and how they can help to eradicate them,” Bennett continued.

For nearly thirty years, Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF have ruled Zimbabwe with ruthless, destructive focus. Employing torture and terror to maintain control of the citizenry, they’ve confiscated private property, dismantled once thriving businesses, and shuttered all but state-controlled media. Thousands have been killed, tens of thousands have been raped or maimed, and hundreds of thousands have been forcibly removed from their homes.

“During the Zimbabwe elections of 2008, our citizens voted overwhelmingly for a new democratic government. In the face of organized beatings, mob attacks, rapes, murders and torture, the people of Zimbabwe stood strong and united in their opposition to Mugabe and ZANU-PF.

Sadly, it was not enough,” said Bennett. “Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF refused to recognize the results of the election and punished those who opposed him. Since the 2008 election, atrocities in Zimbabwe have continued, with military henchmen using violence and intimidation to maintain control of the country.

“During the aftermath of the 2008 election, International opinion was offended, but not inclined to intervene. This time around, we won’t be so timid about asking for the world to please pay closer attention. In our effort to bring awareness to the humanitarian crisis and focus international attention on upcoming elections – to proactively advocate for non-violent, free and fair elections in 2012 – we strive also to seek, summon, and coalesce International outrage with which to pressure Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF to end abuses and free Zimbabwe.

“With your help, we envision a peaceful, prosperous and free Zimbabwe that is an example to the region, the continent and the world of how a country, and its people, can thrive when good governance, the rule of law and a democratically-elected government are allowed to exist,”

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/

The article David Cameron Articulates Vision for Zimbabwean Elections appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

“This will be the year Britain sees the world and the world sees Britain,” UK Prime Minister David Cameron said in his New Year’s speech to the British nation.

Many believe that 2012 will be a year of economic uncertainty for the United Kingdom. Indeed, with the rising unemployment rate and the European financial crisis, nothing is certain. “There are fears about jobs and paying the bills,” the prime minister said in the New Year video message. “I know how difficult it will be to get through this — but I also know that we will.” This year seems to be a critical year for the global economy as the euro enters its most vital year to date.

Recently, Mr.Cameron vetoed a proposal to issue an EU financial transactions tax, saying that “Unless the rest of the world all agreed at the same time that we are all going to have some sort of tax then we are not going to go ahead with it.” However, according to the Wall Street Journal, the Prime Minister said that the government’s plan to lessen the country’s budget deficit will result in some protection from the current euro-zone debt crisis, stressing that changes need to be made in order to seize growth opportunities outside of Europe.

The Guardian reported that the economy is expected to expand by merely 0.7% this year. Tony Dolphin, the chief economist of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said,

“If the economy does find itself back in recession, it is likely to have to find its own way out of it. There are ultimately only three solutions: the government decides to increase public spending or overseas demand for UK output increases substantially, or UK households and companies are given some reason to spend more.

The first is not going to happen, the second is extremely unlikely, and so we are left with the third. But with no prospect of tax cuts or lower interest rates, it is not clear what in the short term the catalyst for more spending by the private sector will be.”

Despite the current economic situation, there are still several reasons to be hopeful. London will be hosting the Olympic games from July 27 to August 12. The Britons will also be celebrating the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee this June, marking Queen Elizabeth II’s reign of 60 years.

The Prime Minister believes that regardless of the struggles the country is facing, 2012 will be a turning point for the UK. He said, “It must be the year we go for it—the year the coalition government I lead does everything it takes to get our country up to strength.”

Rosli Othman / Shutterstock.com

The article Will 2012 be a Move Forward or a Step Back for the UK? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Every so often, the British media will run a story about how the government of the day is considering amending the laws governing the succession to the Throne. Nothing is ever done, however, and the story quickly fades from view. But David Cameron may be bucking the trend, for he has finally set in motion the ponderous process of changing the law.

At issue is the fact that the current law is perceived by many as discriminatory. Men take precedence over women. If William and Kate have a daughter, she can only inherit the Throne if her parents never have a son. Such gender discrimination is increasingly hard to justify, and there is widespread support for allowing women to succeed on equal terms.

Cameron also wants to end the prohibition against marrying Roman Catholics. The Act of Succession 1701 states that, if a person who is in the line of succession marries a Roman Catholic, they automatically forfeit their right to the Crown. On the surface, this looks like a straightforward issue of religious discrimination.

Critics have pointed out that the prohibition does not apply to a person who marries a Presbyterian, a Muslim, or even an atheist, and they see it as something of an anomaly that Roman Catholics are singled out in this manner. However, allowing a person who is married to a Roman Catholic to ascend the Throne could have unforeseen consequences because of the Roman Catholic Church’s rules regarding ‘mixed’ marriages.

Typically, if a Roman Catholic marries a non-Roman Catholic, the non-Roman Catholic person must agree to let any children be raised as Roman Catholics. This would be problematic because a Roman Catholic cannot ascend the Throne because of the monarch’s role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Although supporters of succesion-law reform argue that, because the monarch’s role in the Church is mostly ceremonial, there is no problem with a Roman Catholic becoming the titular Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Church of England continues to oppose such a move. Since there is little political will to disestablish the Church of England, Cameron’s reforms can only go so far.

Because the British monarch is also the monarch of fifteen other countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, any change to the succession law will require the unanimous agreement of those other countries. Cameron has written to the Queen’s other Prime Ministers to obtain their support for the changes, and it is likely the matter will be discussed further at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth later this month.
Zoran Karapancev / Shutterstock.com

The article David Cameron Eyes Royal Succession Shakeup appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.