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!.

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!.

“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!.

The prodigious rise in the UK’s unemployment rate has recently led the government to intervene to make people either earn or learn. Britain’s government has set aside £1 billion to help the record number of unemployed nationals. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg recently said that youth “contract funds” will help create internships and apprenticeships in the country.

A youth contract program, starting in April 2012, will provide 4.1m work places over three years for young people, including wage subsidies of 160,000 pounds for jobs and 250,000 pounds for work experience placements. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne’s economic statement mentioned that there will be payments to employers to encourage 20,000 apprenticeships under the program.

Clegg said that unemployment is economic waste and a slow-burning social disaster. The Office of National Statistics said unemployment among youth aged 16-24 has flared up in an unusual fashion in recent years, reaching 1.02 million in the third quarter from 67,000, the highest level since recorded in 1992. Further the office said the unemployment rate in this category is 21.9 percent and has continued to be so from last year.

Unemployment in the UK is on the rise according to Office of the National Statistics which presented that there were total of 2.62 million are left unemployed in the second quarter, highest since 1994, and this has brought the unemployment rate to 8.3 percent in the UK, which has been a jolt to UK’s economic recovery.

According to Chris Williamson, Chief Economist at Markit, “Labour market data will raise concerns that the UK Economic recovery is fading away.” Three factors have played havoc in the UK: rise in unemployment, weak earnings, and ultimately, inflation. Due to the rise in unemployment, uncertainty in the job market and inflation, situations have been created where it looks like the incomes of the households have been squeezed.

Unemployment is the key element that provokes weakness in the economy and if inflation is accompanied for a considerable time, then this might potentially lead to stagflation. And perhaps there are chances of economic doddering in the short-term because of Euro Zone Crisis but this is not exhaustive.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCED), Europe is in recession and Britain will follow in 2012. OCED called on the Government to pump up resources to mitigate the impact of raising unemployment. The Government needs to consider easing the programme of fiscal spending cuts so as to revitalize and strengthen economy by the way of increasing public spending.

The article Rising Unemployment: OECD Predicts UK Recession by 2012 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!.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg unveiled plans on Tuesday to transform Britain’s House of Lords into an elected body.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Clegg said that “People have a right to choose their representatives. That is the most basic feature of a modem democracy.”

“Our second Chamber, which is known for its wisdom and expertise, is none the less undermined by the fact it is not directly accountable to the British people,” he continued.

Currently, most of the 789 members of the House of Lords are appointed for life, but there are also 26 Church of England bishops and 92 hereditary peers.  Clegg’s plans would see the Lords reduced to 300 and 80 percent of its members would be elected for 15 year terms.  In order to avoid duplicating the mandate of the Commons, members of the Lords would be elected using the single transferable vote system.

The other 20 percent would be appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.  Twelve representatives of the Church of England would continue to sit in the reformed Lords.  Rather than impose reform in one fell swoop, the government proposes phasing elected members in over three five-year electoral cycles.

The draft bill published today will be scrutinized by a joint committee of peers and MPs, and it could be a year before the committee makes a final report.  The proposals could ultimately be derailed by the Lords themselves if they refuse to pass the bill.  Theoretically, the government could use the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 to force the bill onto the statute book, but reports over the weekend suggested that they would be unlikely to do so.

Labour’s constitutional affairs spokesman Sadiq Khan criticized the proposals, calling them “a dog’s dinner, with nobody happy at the outcome—not even the Lib Dem activists, whom the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to appease.”

Any proposal to create a largely-elected House of Lords would not only anger large numbers of peers but also has the potential to upset Britain’s constitutional applecart.  The primacy of the Commons has been a settled matter since the passage of the Parliament Act 1911, but if the Lords ends up being predominantly elected, its continued subordination will be much harder to justify.  Although Clegg maintained that a reformed Lords would continue to be a revising chamber, the specter of US-style legislative gridlock looms large over the government’s proposals.

The article Nick Clegg Unveils Plans for Lords Reform appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In another sign of strife at the heart of Britain’s Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has threatened to instruct his MPs and peers to vote against the Health and Social Care Bill unless it is substantially altered.

In its current form, the bill gives local doctors more control over the health budget and introduces greater competition into Britain’s nationalized healthcare system.  Critics, including the opposition Labour Party, argue that the bill could lead to the backdoor privatization of the National Health Service.  Doubts have also been raised regarding the ability of local doctors to make effective budgetary decisions.  Because of a torrent of opposition to the bill, the government is proceeding slowly and a date has yet to be set for the bill’s final consideration by the House of Commons.

Speaking on the BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show, Clegg asserted that the government’s decision to slow down the bill’s progress was more than just a political stunt.  “This is not a cosmetic exercise. There will be substantial, significant changes to the legislation.  As far as Government legislation is concerned, no bill is better than a bad one, and I want to get this right. Protecting the NHS, rather than undermining it, is now my number one priority,” he said.

He went on to say that he could not ask Liberal Democrat peers and MPs to vote for the proposals “unless I personally am satisfied that what these changes do is an evolutionary change in the NHS and not a disruptive revolution.”

In the aftermath of last week’s failed Alternative Vote referendum and massive Liberal Democrat losses in the local government elections, Clegg has come under pressure to differentiate himself from his Conservative coalition partners.  By adopting a tough stance on the NHS reforms, he no doubt hopes to mollify the increasingly jittery members of his own party.

Clegg’s intervention puts the Conservatives in an awkward position.  If they cede too much ground to the Liberal Democrats, it will increase dissatisfaction among rank-and-file Tories, many of whom are just as hostile to the coalition as their Liberal Democrat counterparts.  At the same time, if the Liberal Democrats all vote against the bill, it would likely fail to pass and the coalition would be dealt a blow from which it would be difficult to recover.  The coming weeks will likely see a great deal of behind-the-scenes horsetrading as the coalition tries to thrash out a compromise that will satisfy both camps.  David Cameron and Nick Clegg will have their work cut out for them as they try to steer the coalition between Scylla and Charybdis.

The article Nick Clegg Threatens to Derail NHS Reforms 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!.