Thanks to the votes of Labour MPs, David Cameron handily defeated a rebel backbencher’s wrecking amendment to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

Former children’s minister Tim Loughton tabled an amendment that would have allowed heterosexual couples to form civil partnerships. Right now, they are only available to homosexual couples. Loughton argued that it is unfair to discriminate against heterosexual couples, and he claimed that allowing them to enter into civil partnerships would encourage many of Britain’s cohabiting couples to formalize their relationships.

“Cohabitation is the fastest-growing form of family in this country, and we need to recognise that our society is changing, whether or not we approve,” he said.

“People choose not to get involved in the whole paraphernalia of formal marriage for a variety of reasons: it is too much of an establishment thing to do; it is too much of a religious institution for some, and even if done in a register office, it has religious connotations; there is a patriarchal side to it; it is a form of social control—there are a whole load of complex motives as to why many of our constituents do not go down the formal marriage route,” he continued.

Cameron opposes extending civil partnership rights to opposite-sex couples on the grounds that it could undermine the institution of marriage, and if Loughton’s amendment had passed, it could have proved fatal to the bill’s progress.

To add to Cameron’s woes, many Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs are known to support heterosexual civil partnerships. In the lead up to the vote, there was rampant press speculation that Cameron was headed for defeat, and some papers predicted that as many as 150 Tory MPs could defy Cameron and vote for the Loughton amendment.

In a bid to steal the rebels’ thunder, Culture Secretary Maria Miller tabled an amendment of her own that would provide for a comprehensive review of the Civil Partnerships Act 2004. Increasingly worried Tory whips repeatedly asked Labour to support their amendment, and at the eleventh hour, Labour leader Ed Miliband agreed to vote against the Loughton amendment in exchange for a commitment to begin the review as soon as possible.

The Loughton amendment was ultimately defeated by a vote of 375 to 70, while the government’s amendment passed 391 to 57. The Labour amendment regarding the timing of the review was subsequently agreed to without a division.

Image credit: David Cameron via Facebook

The article Gay Marriage Bill Survives ‘Wrecking’ Amendment appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The British House of Commons voted to legalize gay marriage by an overwhelmingly majority of 400 to 175 despite a major rebellion by Conservative MPs.
Although Britain has allowed same-sex couples to enter into civil partnerships since 2004, Prime Minister David Cameron has long stated his belief that they should be entitled to full equality before the law.

In late January, the government introduced the Marriage (Same-Sex Partners) Bill into Parliament’s lower house. The legislation would allow same-sex couples to marry in religious as well as civil ceremonies, though a much-vaunted “quadruple lock” would ensure that no religious organization would be forced to solemnize same-sex unions. The Church of England was particularly anxious about the bill, fearing that since it is the state church, it could be forced to host gay weddings. However, the bill specifically states that the church can continue to pass legislation that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman (under the terms of an act passed during the reign of Henry VIII, ecclesiastical laws must always yield to secular law).

But while the move to legalize gay marriage proved popular with his Liberal Democrat coalition partners, it exposed bitter divisions within Cameron’s own party. Last weekend the chairs of 20 local Conservative groups presented Downing Street with a letter urging the Prime Minister to delay the vote, claiming that the government had no mandate to redefine such a key institution.

They also claimed that Cameron’s support for gay marriage would lead to an exodus of local party members, a finding echoed by a recent poll commissioned by opponents of gay marriage that reported that 20 percent of Conservative voters would vote against the party in the next election due to its stance on the issue.

As is typical with matters of this sort, the leaders of all three major parties allowed their MPs to vote according to their consciences. Over the weekend, the British media reported that up to 180 Conservative MPs might ultimately vote against the bill. In the end, 139 voted against and 30 abstained. The dissenters included two Cabinet ministers (Environment Secretary Owen Paterson and Welsh Secretary David Jones), as well as three junior ministers. Defense Secretary Philip Hammond and Attorney-General Dominic Grieve both abstained.

The debate on the bill was often quite emotional. Openly-gay Conservative MP Mike Freer urged his colleagues to support the bill. “I am not asking for special treatment. I am simply asking for equal treatment.

Speaking in opposition to the bill, Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale claimed that the government was entering “Alice in Wonderland territory.” Instead of redefining marriage, he called on ministers to “withdraw the Bill, abolish the Civil Partnership Act 2004, abolish civil marriage and create a civil union Bill that applies to all people, irrespective of their sexuality or relationship. That means that brothers and brothers, sisters and sisters and brothers and sisters would be included as well.”

Meanwhile, his colleague Matthew Offord warned that the bill represented a slippery slope that could lead to the legalization of polygamous relationships. Referring to the law on marriage, he said that “another government can simply change the definition to include as many partners as they want.”

The bill will now receive clause-by-clause scrutiny from a Public Bill Committee, and when it returns to the full House, MPs will have another chance to vote on it. Then it goes on to the House of Lords, where it may face stiffer opposition. While it is highly unlikely that peers would reject the bill outright, they may try to kill it by passing amendments that the Commons are unlikely to accept. If that happens, there could be a lengthy period of ‘ping pong’ as the two houses try to iron out their differences. If agreement cannot be reached, the government may have to reintroduce the bill in the next parliamentary session and use the Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949 to override peers’ objections.

Image Courtesy :  Robyn Ramsay

The article MPs Vote Overwhelmingly for Gay Marriage appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The British House of Commons has voted in favor of legislation that would allow women to succeed to the throne on equal terms with men.

As the law stands now, a woman can only ascend the throne if she does not have any brothers. However, in 2011, David Cameron announced that the prime ministers of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms where Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State had agreed to let daughters inherit on an equal basis. From henceforth, the Crown would go to the eldest child, regardless of sex.

After lengthy negotiations with the various Commonwealth governments, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg introduced legislation to make the change official. But in addition to doing away with male-preference primogeniture, the Succession to the Crown Bill also makes other adjustments to the law of succession. Notably, members of the Royal Family will no longer be barred from succeeding to the Crown if they marry a Roman Catholic. Also, the requirement to seek the monarch’s consent before marrying will be limited to the first six people in the list of succession. Presently, every descendant of George II is supposed to obtain the sovereign’s permission to marry; if they fail to do so, their marriage is null and void. Under the new law, those who marry without the monarch’s consent will only forfeit their claim to the throne.

Before the Commons began their debate on the general principle behind the bill, MPs expressed frustration at the government’s proposed timetable for the law’s journey through Parliament.

“We spend hours debating the taxation of lorries and other such matters, which get a full day allocated for Second Reading, whereas the succession to the Crown is to be dealt with in a truncated Second Reading debate, a brief Committee stage, and then one day for the remaining stages,” said Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg. “That seems to me to be an insult to the nation, to our sovereign and, indeed, to Parliament.”

Rees-Mogg also argued that the Commons should be able to extend the scope of the bill. He pointed out that if an heir to the throne were to marry a Roman Catholic, he or she would be expected to promise to do everything in their power to see that their children were raised in the Roman Catholic faith. But the sovereign is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England, so they cannot be members of the Roman Catholic church. Rees-Mogg maintained that, if a Roman Catholic ascended the throne, it would be best to allow an Anglican regent to handle ecclesiastical matters.

“That is an entirely logical extension of what is proposed in the Bill and time ought to be allowed to debate it, because when we start these changes and decide that in this modern age we need to be more politically correct and allow Catholics to marry into the throne, we have to consider the consequence.”

But despite the misgivings of a number of MPs, the government’s timetable was ultimately agreed to by a voice vote. Since the opposition Labour Party also backed the timetable, there would be little chance of defeating it.

During the actual debate on the bill itself, the vast majority of speakers declared their support. However, some MPs questioned the government’s decision to require the first six heirs to the throne to obtain the monarch’s consent before marrying. “I simply do not understand why the monarch would want to retain the right to forbid somebody to marry and to declare their marriage null and void because consent was not granted,” said Labour MP Chris Bryant.

“On what basis would they refuse to grant consent—because someone involved was illegitimate, not wealthy enough, a commoner or an actress?” he continued.

But Clegg defended the government’s decision, saying that it was right for the monarch to have a say in the marriages of those who were most likely to inherit the Crown. “Having been in consultation with the royal household over a prolonged period, we feel that that strikes the right balance.”

Conservative MP Ben Wallace expressed concern about the bill’s effect on the Duchy of Lancaster. He claimed that the duchy would continue to be governed by male-preference primogeniture, so a female heir to the throne might not inherit its multi-million pound property portfolio. But Clegg dismissed his concerns, saying that the bill was only concerned with succession to the Crown and Parliament could deal with the issue of other titles later.

Several MPs also voiced concern that, although the bill allowed members of the Royal Family to marry Roman Catholics, Roman Catholics would still be prohibited from ascending the throne. But given the lack of political will to disestablish the Church of England, it seems likely that the religious requirement will remain for the foreseeable future.

After giving the bill a second reading, the House immediately resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House to discuss the bill in detail. Although several backbench MPs moved amendments based on concerns raised during the second reading debate, the only amendment that was actually passed was a minor technical change moved by the government. But MPs will have another opportunity to propose amendments during the bill’s report stage on January 28.

The article MPs Back Succession Changes appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

When Lord Hill of Oareford takes up his new role as Leader of the House of Lords, he will also take up the historic office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. But what is the Duchy of Lancaster, and why is its chancellor a member of the Cabinet?

The Duchy of Lancaster is essentially a source of private income for the British monarch. Its origins date from the 14th century when King Edward III conferred the title ‘Duke of Lancaster’ on Henry of Grosmont as a reward for his service in the Hundred Years’ War. At the same time, Lancaster became a county palatine, which meant that its duke would enjoy considerable autonomy within the kingdom. When Henry died without a male heir, the title was conferred on his son-in-law, John of Gaunt, who happened to be the younger son of Edward III.

John’s son, Henry of Bolingbroke, inherited the title upon his father’s death. When he eventually took the throne of England, the Duchy of Lancaster merged with the Crown. The new king decreed that the duchy would always remain separate from the rest of the Crown’s holdings. In 1760, George III agreed to let Parliament have the revenues from Crown lands in exchange for a fixed payment called the Civil List. But the Duchy of Lancaster was not part of the deal, and it remained the monarch’s private property.

The chancellor is the duchy’s chief administrative officer, though much of the day-to-day business of running the duchy is delegated to the Duchy Council. The chancellor does, however, advise the Queen on a number of appointments within the duchy, including High Sheriffs and certain ecclesiastical positions. Although the Queen appoints the chancellor on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, the chancellor is accountable to her, and not Parliament, regarding the duchy’s affairs. The uniquely personal nature of the relationship is reflected in the fact that, unlike the rest of the Cabinet, the chancellor receives the seals of office during a private audience with the Sovereign.

Since the chancellorship itself has few duties, its occupant is free to act as a sort of Minister without Portfolio. The three most recent chancellors, however, have combined the job with the leadership of the House of Lords. Because the position of Leader of the House of Lords has no statutory basis, its occupant is not actually entitled to a salary. Therefore, in order to pay the leader, they must be given another office that actually draws a salary. Fortunately, the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 provides salaries for a number of sinecure offices (including that of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) for that very purpose.

Of course the Leader of the House of Lords is not the only one in this predicament. The Government Chief Whip in the Lords also holds the office of ‘Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms,’ while junior Government Whips in the Commons are appointed to an assortment of positions in the Royal Household. Even the Prime Minister ultimately derives his authority (and his salary!) from the sinecure office of ‘First Lord of the Treasury!’

The article Why Will Lord Hill Be Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Lord Strathclyde has resigned as Leader of the House of Lords, ending a 25-year career on the front bench.

In his resignation letter to David Cameron, Lord Strathclyde wrote that “when I was invited to join the government by Margaret Thatcher in 1988, I never believed it was a career for life. I didn’t expect it would consume me for as long as it has or that I would one day lead the Lords and sit in a Cabinet.”

“The Lords is an extraordinary and vigorous place, but recently I’ve been considering a change of direction,” he continued. “I started my working life in the private sector and at some stage always hoped to return, I would now like to do so. While I have the highest respect for the privilege and duty of public service, I do not see a political career as the cap of everything and would like, while there is still time, to take up other threads of my life and other interests.”

Lord Strathclyde has been the Tory leader in the House of Lords since 1998 when his predecessor, Viscount Cranborne, was sacked for entering into secret negotiations with the Labour government over their proposals to expel the hereditary peers. When the Tories entered into a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats in 2010, Lord Strathclyde retained the leadership and received the sinecure office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in order to let him sit in the Cabinet.

Lord Strathclyde’s time in government has not been particularly easy. The Lords have defeated the government on more than 50 occasions since 2010, and the House’s burgeoning size has led to frayed tempers. Thanks to an influx of newly-created peers when the coalition took power, there are now 775 members of the House of Lords, putting its longstanding tradition of self-regulation under increasing strain.

To thank Lord Strathclyde for his lengthy service, Cameron has asked the Queen to appoint the peer to the Order of the Companions of Honour. The same honor was given to Sir George Young, Lord Strathclyde’s counterpart in the Commons, after he briefly stepped down from government last year.

Downing Street also announced that Lord Hill of Oareford will succeed Lord Strathclyde as Leader of the House of Lords and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Lord Hill is a relative newcomer to the Lords, having only entered the chamber in May 2010. Since then, he has served as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools in the Department of Education. According to reports in the British media, Lord Hill tried to resign during last summer’s reshuffle, but Cameron was not paying attention and simply told him to “keep up the good work”!

Image Courtesy : UK Parliament

The article Lord Strathclyde Resigns as Leader of the House of Lords appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Downing Street has announced that the Bishop of Durham, the Rt. Rev. Justin Welby, is to succeed the Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. Dr. Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury when the latter steps down at the end of this year.

“To be nominated to this post is both astonishing and exciting,” said Bishop Welby. “It is something I never expected, and the last few weeks have been a very strange experience. It is exciting because we are at one of those rare points where the tide of events is turning, and the church nationally, including the Church of England has great opportunities to match its very great but often hidden strengths,” he continued.

Educated at Eton and Trinity College Cambridge, Bishop Welby spent eleven years working in the oil industry. By the late 80s, he had become an executive at Enterprise Oil Plc and was earning a six-figure salary. But in 1987, he decided to leave the corporate world and become an Anglican priest.

After receiving a degree in theology from Cranmer Hall in Durham, he served as a curate (assistant parish priest) at All Saints Chilvers Coton with St Mary the Virgin Astley, in Nuneaton from 1992 to 1995. In 1995, he received his own parish, St. James, Southam, and in 1996 he was also given the neighboring parish of St. Michael and All Angels, Ufton.

In 2002, he became a Canon Residentiary at Coventry Cathedral and was extensively involved in reconciliation work in Africa and the Middle East. Much of his international work focused on Nigeria, where he attempted to diffuse the conflict in the Niger Delta.

Bishop Welby left the Diocese of Coventry in 2007 in order to become Dean of Liverpool Cathedral. During his time in Liverpool, he worked tirelessly to strengthen the cathedral’s ties to the local community.

Four years later, Bishop Welby was promoted to the Bishopric of Durham. Durham is one of the preeminent dioceses in the Church of England, and its bishop is automatically entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. Although Bishop Welby has been in Durham for less than a year, he gained recognition for his contributions in Parliament, and he was appointed to the Joint Select Commission on Banking Standards. In the church’s General Synod, he worked to prevent a schism over the admission of women to the episcopate.

Bishop Welby is commonly regarded as a member of the evangelical wing of the Church of England, which tends to stress traditional interpretation of the Bible. However, at a press conference held to announce his appointment, he lent his support to the ordination of female bishops. “I will be voting in favor and join my voice to many others in urging the Synod to go forward with this change,” he said.

As one might expect given his evangelical sympathies, Bishop Welby opposes the government’s plans to legalize gay marriage, calling it a complicated issue “and not one to be handled today, off the cuff.” At the same time, he has roundly condemned prejudice and discrimination against LGBT people.

“We must have no truck with any form of homophobia in any part of the Church,” he said. “I am always averse to the language of exclusion, when what we are called to is to love in the same way as Jesus Christ loves us. Above all in the Church we need to create safe spaces for these issues to be discussed in honesty and in love.”

Bishop Welby was chosen by the Crown Nominations Commission, a church body made up of bishops, clergy, and lay people. The selection process is highly secretive, and the commission’s deliberations are not made public. Ultimately, the commission presents two candidates to the Prime Minister, who then makes a formal recommendation to the Queen. Since 2007, Downing Street has always submitted the commission’s first choice to the monarch.

The process of installing Bishop Welby in office will be complex and arcane. Once the Archbishopric of Canterbury is vacant, the Queen will order the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury Cathedral to elect a new archbishop. At the same time, she will also recommend that they elect Bishop Welby. By law, the Dean and Chapter must elect the Crown’s nominee. That election will then have to be confirmed by a commission of senior bishops appointed by the Queen. From that point on, Bishop Welby will legally be Archbishop of Canterbury.

The article Justin Welby to Be Archbishop of Canterbury appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

David Cameron flew to the middle east on November 5 for a three day trip, aiming to promote British businesses. The prime minister visited the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to try and showcase the NHS, boost British defence exports to the area and also discuss the unrest to the region Iran is causing.

The most talked about aspect of the trip, however, was his aim to sell weapons to both countries. If successful, his trip could provide a vital boost to the UK’s economy and defence industry, which is worth 5.4 billion in annual exports.

Last year, exports to the Gulf Coast were up by 18% and the government is attempting to continue this trend. Mr Cameron is hoping to sell as many as 100 Typhoon jets during his trip, according to the Daily Telegraph, and this deal could be exactly what BAE need after their failed merger with EADS.

However, the visit has caused concern with human rights groups. Amnesty International said David Cameron shouldn’t be attempting to sell weapons to any countries with such questionable human rights. Amnesty are also doubtful that any assurance either country give to the UK is credible saying “assurances often don’t amount to much.” To prove how likely it is that these weapons will be used to commit human rights abuses, Amnesty highlighted the Saudi Arabian air force operations in North Yemen in 2009, where they killed hundreds/thousands of civilians. Despite calls from Amnesty International, no proper investigation took place into the events. It is likely to have been the UK supplied weaponry that were used in these attacks.

The Human Rights Watch, in their world report 2011, said how “Human rights conditions remain poor in Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah has not fulfilled several specific reform promises.” The European parliament is also critical, releasing a resolution concerning the human rights situation in the United Arab Emirates. In the resolution the European Parliament say how it “expresses great concern about assaults, repression and intimidation against human rights defenders, political activists and civil society actors” and goes on to say “the evidence indicates that national security is the pretext for a crackdown on peaceful activism designed to stifle calls for constitutional reform and reform on human rights issues”

In the face of such evidence, detailing the lack of human rights in both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates one has to wonder why the UK are still attempting to sell weapons and jets to both countries.

The gorvernment claims that it is reducing the risk of arms exports being used for human rights abuses. It is an advocate of the Arms Trade Treaty, that would ensure that no trade in weapons would be allowed if there was any risk they would be used in violations of international human rights.

Its actions belie this though. The Foreign and Commonwealth office lists Saudi Arabia as a cause for concern in its 2011 report. The UK trade & Investment website meanwhile makes no mention of human rights abuses instead mentioning how Saudi Arabia has been “Designated a ‘High Growth Market’ by UK Trade & Investment”

If the UK was truly committed to protecting human rights, if it was committed to creating and following an international Arms Trade Treaty as it says it is, then it would not sell weapons to countries with poor human rights and a history of using UK weapons to repress or kill citizens. Instead it seems to be focusing more on reducing unrest in the middle east and boosting its economy.

Image Courtesy : The Prime Minister’s Office

The article David Cameron’s Arms Deals with Middle East Concern Human Rights Groups appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

David Cameron gave a speech in London November 23, in which he said that he will be “tough but intelligent” on crime. He said crime should not be viewed in terms of black and white, either lock them all up or let them go. Cameron instead called for rehabilitation and tougher sentences for those who continually re-offend and do not reform.

Currently only those who are in prison for a year or longer are offered rehabilitation while in prison. However in his speech, Cameron said that he wants rehabilitation to be offered to all those who are in jail, in order to target those who are consistently serving short sentences and then re-offending. He said, “Prevention is the cheapest and most effective way to deal with crime.”

This speech by Cameron on rehabilitation for criminals comes a week after the UK Drug Policy Commission published a report titled: “A Fresh Approach to Drugs.” One of the recommendations of this report is to “… make the criminal justice system more focused on recovery.” The report also says, “sending to drug users to prison without appropriate support either inside or on their release may lead to a a higher risk of death” or “reduced risk of recovery because their treatment is disrupted.” It stresses the need for proper rehabilitation to stop criminals from re-offending.

Cameron then went on to say he wants to see payment by results spread right across rehabilitation and that “… with payment by results your money will go into what works.” This is similar to another of the recommendations within the UKDPC’s report. The report highlights the fact that there are many drug treatment programs that simply do not work and says they should no longer be supported. With Cameron’s payment by results scheme, those rehabilitation programs that do not work will receive no money, therefore cutting off the support that these defective programs receive. However, this could lead to companies ignoring those deemed to be too hard to reform, and instead lead them to focus on reforming the criminals who are easy to rehabilitate, in order to make more profit.

What Cameron also failed to mention in his speech was just how he plans to afford to pay for those programs which have promising results. At the moment, with a lack of details about when it will happen or where the money will come from, this approach to crime that he has outlined appears to be more of a wish list for how he would like to deal with crime than what he actually plans to do.

However if he was to follow a few more of the recommendations outlined in the UKDPC’s report, such as reduced sanctions for possession of drugs by making it a civil rather than criminal offense, then the money to make this a reality could become available. Making possession a civil problem means anyone found guilty would be fined or sent to drug awareness sessions rather than be sent to jail. The report says changing this “could potentially result in less demand on police and criminal justice time and resources,” thus helping to reduce the 3 billion pounds currently spent fighting drugs each year.

If they were to make the possession of drugs a civil offense, then the lesser strain on police time and resources could potentially save billions, thus freeing up money to be spent on Mr. Cameron’s payment by results plan. Not sending criminals to jail for possession could also result in prisons having more spaces available, which could be used to house those re offenders which Cameron say should be given longer prison sentences.

Image Courtesy of The CBI

The article Cameron Pledges to Get ‘Tough But Intelligent’ on Crime appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

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!.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with the English Prime Minister David Cameron to discuss the Eurozone crisis. Both leaders support a two-speed approach to the future of Europe.

Several leaders outside of the Eurozone, such as U.S. President Barack Obama, have urged Germany and the other participating nations to take immediate action on the crisis. Cameron stated, “I’m very clear that urgent action is needed to deal with the market uncertainty… [it] is about building firewalls and recapitalizing the banks.” Although Cameron has urged the Eurozone to solve this crisis, he has made it quite clear that he expects them to solve their own problems.

The United Kingdom and Denmark, although members of the European Union, negotiated agreements in 1992 to be excluded from the euro. Both countries wanted to maintain their own currency, which now appears to have been the best course of action.

Merkel has already admitted that the Eurozone crisis has been building over the last ten years and will not be solved in a day. Merkel stated, “now it will also take a few years to get things right again.”

Many economic experts have claimed that the Eurozone structure is faulty because seventeen nations are connected through a currency but are not coordinated with their budget plans. This lack of budget coordination is not a problem until a crisis such as the 2008 recession arises; now the weaker economies are dragging down the whole system. Merkel agrees that something must be done to integrate these nations better. “We need more Europe, we need not only a monetary union, but we also need a so-called fiscal union, in other words more joint budget policy,” she said.

European Union officials in Brussels want Germany, the strongest economy in the Union, to accept jointly guaranteed European debt and allow the European Central Bank to issue eurobonds. These eurobonds would help to regain some of the debt for the other countries as well as Germany, but Merkel worries that issuing these eurobonds would harm the German people and the German economy more. Before any kind of fiscal union is created in Europe, Merkel is insistent that there needs to be more stability from other European Union countries. Some experts claim that the integration cannot wait.

Another suggestion from the European Commission and European Central Bank is the creation of a central banking authority that would help alleviate concerns of excessive debt. Currently, Spain’s finance minister has claimed that credit markets are “effectively shut” to Spain at this time, making it impossible for them to get the billions in euros to rescue their banks. As of 6 June 2012, the European Commission has announced a plan for a “bank union” in Europe that would make it easier for countries like Spain to get credit.

Although many worry that Spain will need a bailout, Spain insists that they will not. Merkel has stated that Germany will not pressure Spain to take a bailout although the funds will be there if they are necessary.

The European Central Bank cannot provide bailouts due to the ‘no bailout’ clause of the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. However, starting in July there will be a 500 billion euro rescue fund known as the European Stability Mechanism.

Merkel has insisted on austerity measures in bailout countries such as Greece, but these measures have been met with great opposition. Many claim that what governments should be focusing on is growth. Merkel claims, “budget consolidation [aka austerity measures] and growth are two sides of one and the same coin.”

Currently a budget-discipline agreement is being discussed across Europe and has already been ratified in some countries. The Irish referendum vote in the previous week affirmed the agreement. Merkel’s coalition government in the German Parliament is working to get the two-thirds majority necessary to approve the agreement. However, the opposition party – which believes the debt crisis can only be solved by spending for growth – has also requested a financial transaction tax be added to the agreement or at least followed by Germany.

The United Kingdom, with London being the biggest financial center in Europe, is opposed to a Europe-wide financial transaction tax. Cameron stated that the tax would “simply [draw] those transactions offshore and to other places.”

On 7 June 2012 Merkel stated, “we need a political union first and foremost… step by step we must from now on give up more competences to Europe, and allow Europe more powers of control.” Although Cameron agrees that the Eurozone must become more integrated financially, his country is not a member of the Eurozone and would not have to deal with the consequences.

After meeting with Cameron, Merkel announced that she is tolerant of a ‘two-speed’ Europe, meaning that while the current Eurozone countries become more integrated fiscally and politically, other countries such as Denmark and the United Kingdom that use their own currency would still be a part of the Union but relegated to the edges. Merkel claims, “we have to be open. We always have to make it possible for everyone [to join]… but we must not stop because one or the other don’t want to come along just yet.”

Merkel says that one of the greatest aids for the European Union countries is to become more competitive. She claims that the economies will improve when they begin producing more on the global market.

An EU summit is planned for later in June and the leaders will discuss plans for a political union. However, according to Merkel, the decision and the arrangements will not be completed in one summit and more meetings will have to be planned.

The article Merkel Calls for Political and Fiscal European Union appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The tower that houses Big Ben at the Palace of Westminster is likely to be renamed in honor of Queen Elizabeth II after a majority of the Members of Parliament (MPs) gave their backing to the change.

The proposal was first made by Tobias Ellwood, a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Foreign Office. He tabled an Early Day Motion requesting that the clock tower be renamed the Elizabeth Tower in honor of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.

“Commemorating an iconic landmark as famous as Parliament is indeed a truly exceptional tribute and I am grateful that the majority of MPs believe the Queen deserves such an outstanding accolade,” he said.

“It therefore seems entirely appropriate for Parliament to pay tribute to Her Majesty with a similar honor, and in symmetry, to that bestowed upon Queen Victoria, by dedicating part of the iconic Parliamentary estate in her name,” he continued.

Forty MPs signed their names to the motion, and 331 MPs signed a formal letter of support, including the leaders of the three major parties. Prime Minister David Cameron said that “it is great news that so many MPs from across the House are backing what would be a fitting tribute to the Queen. I hope it will now move ahead.”

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that “the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee is an occasion that the whole country is keen to celebrate, and Members of Parliament are no exception. I hope the House applies [to Buckingham Palace] to name this historic tower after Her Majesty.”

Echoing the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Labour Party leader Ed Miliband said that “Queen Elizabeth has dedicated herself tirelessly and constantly to the people of Britain and the entire Commonwealth. Parliament has agreed that this is a fitting tribute to her life of service and I hope it can be confirmed as soon as possible.”

In addition to the party leaders, the proposal has received the backing of Theresa May, the Home Secretary; William Hague, the Foreign Secretary; Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary; and Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. They are joined by other prominent MPs, including former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, former Home Secretary David Blunkett, and Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls.

The honor mirrors that given to Queen Victoria when she celebrated her Diamond Jubilee in 1897. The King’s Tower which stood at the southwest end of the Palace of Westminster was renamed the Victoria Tower.

The House of Commons Commission, which is responsible for Parliament’s administrative affairs, will meet in a few weeks’ time, at which point it is likely to approve the proposal in light of the strength of cross-party support. Once the commission has given its stamp of approval, the proposal will be formally presented to Buckingham Palace. If the Queen agrees, a renaming ceremony would be held, which she would likely attend.

The article British MPs Want to Rename Big Ben in Honor of the Queen 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!.

On March 20, Britain’s Parliament presented Queen Elizabeth II with ‘humble addresses’ to mark the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne.

Humble addresses are the traditional means by which Parliament communicates with the Sovereign. In most cases, these are mundane affairs that take place without much ceremony. But since this was a special occasion, both Houses assembled in their entirety to hear their respective Speakers present their addresses.

Upon arriving at the Palace of Westminster, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were met by a host of dignitaries, including the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Lord Speaker, and the Speaker of the House of Commons. Both Speakers wore elaborate black silk robes adorned with gold lace and decorations.

But while the Lord Speaker, Baroness D’Souza, opted to wear traditional court dress (including knee breeches and tights) underneath it all, the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow chose to wear morning dress with a green House of Commons tie.

In addition to her husband, the Queen was accompanied by a number of courtiers, including the Countess of Airlie (one of her Ladies-in-Waiting), Colonel Dan Rex (her Equerry-in-Waiting), and Sir Christopher Geidt (her Private Secretary). Led by the Lord Great Chamberlain and his white wand of office, the royal party made its way into Westminster Hall, which is the oldest portion of the Palace of Westminster.

Because the House of Lords is technically the senior house, the Lord Speaker addressed the Queen first. “You have personified continuity and stability while ensuring that Your role has evolved imperceptibly, with the result that the Monarchy is as integral a part of our national life today as it was 60 years ago,” she said.

“We rejoice in this Jubilee and we give thanks for all that it represents,” she continued.

The Speaker of the House of Commons spoke next. “If, as Gandhi asserted, ‘the best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others,’ then Your Majesty must have found Yourself countless times over the past six decades.”

“You have dedicated Your life to others.  The daily example that You set, mirrored by our courageous armed forces of which You are Commander-in-Chief, is extraordinary,” he said.

Bercow, who has long been an avid supporter of gay rights, spoke of how Britain was “a land where men and women today are equal under the law and where Your people are respected, regardless of how they live, how they look or how they love.”

He went on to call Her Majesty “a kaleidoscope Queen of a kaleidoscope country in a kaleidoscope Commonwealth,” much to the apparent annoyance of Prime Minister David Cameron, who scowled at the Speaker.

When Bercow had finished speaking, the Queen thanked her Parliament for their addresses. In doing so, she paid tribute to her husband’s tireless support, saying “Prince Philip is, I believe, well-known for declining compliments of any kind. But throughout he has been a constant strength and guide.”

Referring to the elaborate stained-glass window that had been commissioned to mark her Diamond Jubilee, she mentioned that “the happy relationship I have enjoyed with Parliament has extended well beyond the more than three and a half thousand Bills I have signed into law. I am therefore very touched by the magnificent gift before me, generously subscribed by many of you. Should this beautiful window cause just a little extra color to shine down upon this ancient place, I should gladly settle for that.”

“We are reminded here of our past, of the continuity of our national story and the virtues of resilience, ingenuity and tolerance which created it. I have been privileged to witness some of that history and, with the support of my family, rededicate myself to the service of our great country and its people now and in the years to come,” she concluded.

Image Courtesy of  Zoran Karapancev / Shutterstock.com

The article Parliament Pays Tribute to Queen Elizabeth II appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, announced on March 16 that he will step down at the end of the year in order to take up the position of Master of Magdalene College at the University of Cambridge.

Originally from Wales, Williams had a distinguished career as a professor of theology before being elected Bishop of Monmouth in the Church of Wales in 1991. In 1999, he was elected Archbishop of Wales. Three years later, he was chosen to be the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, the most senior bishop in the Church of England and the titular head of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Williams’ appointment was controversial from the start. Liberals in the church rejoiced. As a professor, he wrote an essay entitled “The Body’s Grace” that revealed his opposition to the church’s traditional teaching on homosexuality, and a series of letters written during his tenure as Archbishop of Wales revealed his belief that same-sex unions could be just as holy as heterosexual ones.

But the conservative wing of the church greeted him with suspicion, and he was snubbed by the National Evangelical Anglican Congress in 2003. They let him lead prayers, but he could not speak or preach a sermon.

But it soon became clear that, whatever his personal views on the subject of homosexuality, Williams was determined to maintain church unity at all costs. In 2003, a gay priest named Jeffrey John was chosen to be an assistant bishop in the Diocese of Oxford. Other Anglican leaders objected to John’s appointment because of his longstanding relationship with another priest, even though it was a celibate one.

Fearing the dissolution of the Anglican Communion, Williams pressured John to withdraw his candidacy, and John ultimately acquiesced. Several years later, when John was being considered for the Bishopric of Southwark, Williams is widely believed to have vetoed his candidacy.

As the nominal leader of the Anglican Communion, Williams spoke out against the election of the openly-gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, and he was equally opposed to the Canadian Diocese of New Westminster’s decision to start blessing same-sex unions. But Williams was powerless to intervene, and he was equally unable to prevent conservative Anglican churches in Africa from trying to offer ‘alternative episcopal oversight’ to disaffected American parishes.

In a bid to keep the increasingly-fractious Anglican Communion together, Williams asked each autonomous province of the Communion to sign up to an ‘Anglican Covenant’ that would oblige them to consider the views of other provinces before doing anything that “may provoke controversy.”

Furthermore, churches that breached the rules could face disciplinary action, such as suspension from inter-Anglican bodies. But it now looks as if the Church of England itself may reject the Covenant. In order to proceed to a vote in the General Synod (the church’s lawmaking body), the Covenant would need to be approved by a majority of the 44 dioceses. So far, 17 have voted against it, and only 10 have voted in favor.

When announcing his resignation, Williams attempted to downplay the effect of the row over homosexuality. “It has certainly been a major nuisance,” he said. “But in every job that you are in there are controversies and conflicts and this one isn’t going to go away in a hurry. I can’t say that it is a great sense of ‘free at last.’”

Williams may yet see one last triumph before he leaves office. In July, the General Synod could approve legislation to allow the consecration of women bishops. But many Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals oppose the plan, and they could still make life difficult for Williams as he prepares to leave office.

Williams’ successor will be found through a complex process involving both church and state. A church body known as the Crown Nominations Commission will come up with a list of two names to send to the Prime Minister. By convention, the Prime Minister then forwards the first name on to the Queen, who formally approves the appointment.

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

The article Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams To Step Down 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!.

Britain is on the verge of obtaining approval for a set of reforms that would limit the ability of the European Court of Human Rights to overrule British judges in immigration cases.

Kenneth Clarke, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, told the Daily Telegraph that the changes were intended to limit the use of the court to serious matters involving major points of law. “What we are trying to do is get the role of the court sorted out, so that it deals with serious human rights issues of the kind that require an international court,” he told the Telegraph.

“We want the court back to its proper business as an international court which takes up serious issues of principle when a member state or its courts or its parliament, are arguably in serious breach of the [European Human Rights] convention.”

Ryan Rodrick Beiler / Shutterstock.com

The article Britain Seeks to Limit Human Rights Law Court’s Remit 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!.

The riots in Britain that began in London last weekend has spread throughout the country as rioters clashed with police in Manchester and Birmingham.

Prime Minister David Cameron cut short his vacation to return to a country that seemed to be on the verge of anarchy. As he called on the police to take a tougher stance against the rioters, there was talk of deploying rubber bullets for the first time on the mainland. Until now, they have only been used in Northern Ireland. It was also announced that the police presence in London would increase from 6,000 to 16,000 in a bid to crack down on the civil disorder gripping the capital. In addition, the Army’s emergency infantry battalion could be deployed if the situation worsens.

The riots began after a vigil on Saturday for a London man, Mark Duggan, who was shot during a police operation in north London. Since then, the situation has steadily worsened as the police tried to wrest control of the streets from marauding gangs of thugs. Although initial reports said that Duggan fired at officers, subsequent evidence has shown that that was not the case.

Much of London is now in a state of virtual lockdown, and many businesses are closing early so that their employees can get home before dark. Scotland Yard has come under scrutiny for its failure to rein in the rioters, with officers initially being told to watch and wait rather than proactively pursue the looters. But as public and political pressure mounted, the Metropolitan Police decided to change their tactics and take a more aggressive stance.

The escalating violence forced London’s Mayor, Boris Johnson, to return from his own holiday in order to attend to the situation. While visiting one of the areas hardest hit by the riots, Johnson was heckled by Londoners angry with the police. His attempts to deliver a speech were repeatedly disrupted by angry jeering from the crowds.

Although the increased police presence in London appears to have helped stabilize the situation in the capital, violence erupted elsewhere in the UK. In Manchester and Salford, rioters managed to stay one step ahead of the police as they burned and looted throughout the city. In Nottingham, a police station was firebombed, and there were reports that a gun may have been fired at officers in Aston, Birmingham.

It was announced yesterday that the House of Commons, which is currently in recess, is to be recalled so that MPs can debate the riots. This is actually the second time the Commons have been recalled this summer, as they were called back at the end of July in order to discuss the News of the World phone hacking scandal.

So far, almost 700 people have been arrested in London alone in connection with the riots.

Dale Mitchell / Shutterstock.com

The article Riots in Britain Spread Across The Country appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

David Cameron’s government has announced sweeping changes to the way in which Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II and her family are funded.

The main source of royal funding has historically been the Civil List, which originated in the 18^th century when George III handed the Crown Estate over to the government in exchange for an annual payment.  Nowadays, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio whose assets are worth an estimated £6.7 billion.  Although the amount of the Civil List is traditionally set at the beginning of each reign, the growth of inflation has meant that, during the present Queen’s reign, it has usually been adjusted every ten years.

Since 2001, the Civil List has been set at £7.9 million.  According to the monarchy’s website, 70 percent of that money goes toward staff salaries, while the remainder is used to defray the cost of official functions, such as royal garden parties and incoming state visits.

The monarchy also receives annual grants-in-aid from government departments.  For example, in 2009-10, the Department of Transport provided £3.9 million toward the cost of travel, while the Department of Culture, Media, and Sport provided £400,000 for communications and £15.4 million for the maintenance of historic royal palaces.  Additionally, the monarchy has supplemented these sources of income by drawing on a cash reserve that accumulated during a period of low inflation in the 1990s. In 2009-10, the reserve contributed £6.5 million, but it is expected to run out by 2012.

All this money is used for official purposes and should not be confused with the sovereign’s personal assets.  The Queen’s personal income is funded by the profits from the Duchy of Lancaster.

Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced that, starting in 2013, the Civil List and grants-in-aid would be abolished in favor of one annual payment called the “Sovereign Support Grant.”  This payment would be equal to fifteen percent of the profits from the Crown Estate during the previous two years.  As Osborne put it in his speech to the House of Commons, “the monarch will do as well as the economy is doing.”

Under the proposed formula, the Queen would receive £34 million in 2013-14, which is comparable to the total amount spent in 2009-10.  Furthermore, the fifteen percent formula will be reviewed every seven years by the Royal Trustees (the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Keeper of the Privy Purse) in order to ensure that it becomes neither too large nor too small.

In addition to consolidating royal finances, Osborne also said that the National Audit Office will be able to audit the assets used by the Royal Household for official purposes.  Furthermore, the monarchy’s finances will be subject to unprecedented parliamentary scrutiny, as the sovereign grant accounts will be laid before Parliament each year and the Public Accounts Committee will be able to hold hearings on royal finances.

MPs of all parties were broadly supportive of the government’s proposals, and there was unanimous praise for the Queen’s long record of service throughout her almost 60 year reign. However, the opposition Labour party’s financial spokesman, Ed Balls, expressed concern that, if the Crown Estate’s profits were to rise dramatically, it could create a windfall for the royal family that would prove damaging to their popularity. In such a case, he suggested that it would be prudent to allow the Royal Trustees to adjust the formula downward instead of having to wait the full seven years.

waynehowes / Shutterstock.com

The article British Royals Undergo Funding Shake-Up appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has courted controversy by criticizing the coalition government of David Cameron.

Writing in an issue of the New Statesman that he guest-edited, Williams said that “[w]ith remarkable speed, we are being committed to radical, long-term policies for which no one voted.”  Using the Education Bill as an example, he lamented the fact that many of the government’s policies were never discussed in the context of an electoral debate.

He also expressed concern that the government’s rush to transfer more responsibilities to the private sector could result in inequality and called on the government to decide which services were in need of “cast-iron guarantees of nationwide standards, parity and continuity” and then determine how those guarantees could be met even in a difficult financial climate.

Ministers were quick to respond to Williams’ article.  Speaking during a press conference in Northern Ireland, Prime Minister David Cameron said that, although he supported the archbishop’s right to make political interventions, “I profoundly disagree with many of the views that he has expressed, particularly on issues like debt and welfare and education.”

Business Secretary Vince Cable also came to the government’s defense, telling Sky News that “[t]he two parties of the coalition got substantially more than half the total vote at the last election and the public knew that we were going to have to embark on very difficult changes, connected with sorting out the massive budget deficit problem.”

Williams’ comments have received a mixed reception from other religious leaders.  The Bishop of Oxford, John Pritchard, came out in support of him, telling the Oxford Mail that he was right to “put his head on the block.”  Pritchard went on to say that “[t]here are cuts of all kinds of social provision, including social care and youth work. Social care is being pared back for vulnerable, housebound people and that is something I very much regret.”

On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, expressed support for Cameron’s government, saying that many Catholics believed that there was “a genuine moral agenda” behind the coalition’s program.

Williams’ intervention is simply the latest in a string of political interventions by Archbishops of Canterbury that stretch all the way back to St. Thomas Becket in the 12th century.  More recently, Robert Runcie famously clashed with Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s over a range of issues, including the Falklands War and urban poverty.

The article Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes David Cameron’s coalition government appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Britain will continue to use the first-past-the-post electoral system to select Members of Parliament after a proposal to switch to the Alternative Vote method was resoundingly defeated in a nationwide referendum.

When the final results were in, 12,570,539 had voted ‘No’ while 5,807,086 had voted ‘Yes.’

Voting reform has long been a priority of the Liberal Democrats and when they entered into a coalition government with the Conservatives last May, they extracted a promise from Tory leader David Cameron to hold a referendum on whether or not to change the method of voting.

Supporters of AV argued that it would reduce the number of ‘safe seats’ and make MPs more accountable to the electorate.  Furthermore, it would help ensure that future governments were actually supported by a majority of citizens.  The AV campaign also attracted the support of a large number of celebrities, including comedians Stephen Fry and Eddie Izzard.

Opponents of AV claimed that it would be expensive to implement and would give more power to politicians.  They also raised the specter of an endless series of coalition governments like those seen on the Continent.

The No victory is not unexpected since most recent opinions polls suggested that the pro-AV camp was headed for defeat.  Voting reform was seen as an example of ‘dog whistle politics’ that only a small segment of the population felt passionately about.  Also, the No campaign was bolstered by David Cameron’s vigorous intervention.

Cameron’s decision to come out so strongly against AV has led to tensions within the coalition government.  Many Liberal Democrat ministers had expected him to lie low in the interests of preserving unity in government and his robust engagement has led to accusations of treachery.  Last week, British media reported that Energy Secretary Chris Huhne got into a heated argument with David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne during a Cabinet meeting over what he saw as the unfair tactics of the No campaign.

The defeat of AV was not the only bitter pill for the Liberal Democrats to swallow.  Yesterday’s local government elections saw them lose almost half their councilors and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is likely to come under considerable pressure from grass roots elements of his party who have long been unhappy with the decision to enter into a coalition with the Tories.  Although it is unlikely that Clegg will face a serious challenge to his leadership, the BBC predicts that he will try to shore up his support within his own party by standing up to his Tory colleagues more often.  It has also been rumored that the Liberal Democrats may get a consolation prize of sorts in the form of a proposal to use proportional representation for elections to a reformed House of Lords.  But given the history of Lords reform, it is not at all certain that these proposals will ever make it off of the drawing board and Clegg may find that he is in for a rough couple of months.

UPDATE: The UK Electoral Commission has released updated voting figures for the AV referendum.  The Noes are now 13,013,123 while the Yeses are 6,152,607.

The article British Resoundingly Reject Alternative Vote appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.