maxattacks

Archive for the ‘Constitutional Reform’ Category

Not quite yet Alex

In Britishness, Constitutional Reform, Ramsay's F Word on 25 February, 2010 at 11:15 am

Alex Salmond

The First Minister for the Scottish Parliament, Alex Salmond, has published a draft bill for a referendum on Scottish independence. Voters will have the choice between greater powers or keeping the statues-quo and independence or staying apart of the UK.

Don’t get me wrong, I do believe if Scotland can economically survive on its own and the Government wants to push through a referendum on independence fair enough, that’s for the Scottish people to decide. But, this should only come when we are clearly out of the woods

Max

A new politics?

In Conservative Party, Constitutional Reform, Elections, Liberal Democrats, Ramsay's F Word on 2 February, 2010 at 9:41 pm

In the wake of the expenses scandal, all the major parties claimed they would re-invent British politics. Here is one such action that well frankly, is quite brilliant. Electoral reform by changing the old FPTP system to an AV system. Now personally I think this is a brilliant idea, to sum it up quite simply, the new system will not only retain MP’s strong links to their constituencies but they will for the first time all achieve over 50% of the vote (sort of) through a system preference making, vis-a-vis (that’s probably not the right context but hey, lol) better representation.

While the Lib Dems welcomed this is as a start (which is fair enough) the Tory’s were the helpful selves again with Conservative chairman Eric Pickles said, “Gordon Brown avoided a leadership election, bottled a general election and now wants to fiddle the electoral system,” (yawn).

Max

Hang on?…Did they just contradict themselves..again?

In Britishness, Conservative Party, Constitutional Reform, Europe, Ramsay's F Word, Tories, Tories' Porkies on 2 December, 2009 at 3:10 am

Well I dunno about everyone else, but there has been a many a facebook update from BUC”F” members on the subject of the SNP’s attempts at Scottish independance being along the lines of “Remember Salmond, we are stronger together than apart”..now for the majority of BUC”F” members, they are in fact Eurosceptic…do you think that is a little bit of a contradiction…again? Pro-unity at home but self-interest abroad

Scottish Independence?

In Britishness, Constitutional Reform, Ramsay's F Word on 30 November, 2009 at 10:06 am

First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond is due to publish a white paper on Scotland’s constitutional future, which could pave the way for an independence referendum.

What do we think?

Max

Kiwi Republicanism

In Constitutional Reform, International Politics on 29 November, 2009 at 5:08 am

I’m speaking to you as a former royalist. That’s right, whilst down here in one of Her Majesty’s many Dominions, I’ve gone over to the over side. This blog has seen royalist v. republican rents before – normally crashed by the Tories ad their charming loyalist sentiments, with Comrade Guise leading the charge for the revolution. Ah… the memories.. But i’m coming at it with a kiwi slant. Oh yes.
 
Why? Well having been long torn on the Republic issue (emotionally drawn to royalty – but with no logical or rational justification for being so), republicanism down ‘ere seemed a different matter. What’s the big deal I figured – It’s not as if you’re the ones who have to pay for them – and you only have to see them every couple of years. Republicanism isn’t as big here in NZ as it has been in Australia. For a long time it has been kept off the political agenda by more pressing issues (as is always the case with any constitutional reform; see Lords, House of.).

But regardless of whether one believes in the institution of Monarchy, or in the hereditary principle at all, what swings it for myself is the idea that choosing ones own head of state is a fundamental part of nationhood. Her Majesty may be Queen of New Zealand, but she is not a New Zealander – nor is a monarch of the Windsor line ever likely to be so. SO I’m a New Zealand republican – whilst remaining undecided in the Motherland. For those prone to yelling “traitor” (I often do, it’s rather fun) here’s another fact to sway you: All immigrants to NZ, including those from the UK, are required to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen as part of becoming a citizen. As a natural-born UK citizen, I have never had to do anything remotely similar to this – not even a reasonable pledge of allegiance to the nation, or to the state, a la USA. It seems somewhat bizarre that were I to repatriate myself halfway across the globe I should have to swear allegiance to one institution I thought I’d left behind.
 
Despite any banterous and wholly good-natured put downs I may engage in, New Zealand is no longer a colony. It seems entirely appropriate for it to take the final step into full-fledged nationhood that  is choosing its own head of state. For an issue that would have left me confused and torn back home, here it seems simple as.
 
The website of New Zealand Republic can be found http://www.republic.org.nz/. There is also an obligatory Facebook

Comrade Nash, BULS member (in exile, NZ).

Peter White

In Constitutional Reform, Ramsay's F Word on 28 November, 2009 at 6:22 pm

As you may know, candidate for Havering council, Peter White, recently described the Queen as “a parasite and milks this country for everything she can.” Now while the choice of language is unacceptable, obviously, putting that aside, do you think he has a point? Is there a place for the Monarchy in 21st Century Britain?

Max

Queen’s Speech

In Constitutional Reform, Health, Labour Party, Women, equality on 16 November, 2009 at 6:12 pm

I think the policies outlined in the Queen’s Speech are a real indication of which party really cares about the people of this country.

For the financially disadvantaged: – a savings gateway

For young people: – the ambitious aim of eradicating child poverty by 2020 will be enshrined in law, in order to force the incoming government to protect Britain’s youth at all costs.
                          – the widening of access to apprenticships
                          – early action for poorly performing schools

For minorities: – representation and respect for example through kosher and halal options of meals on wheels
                      – increase in positive action and closing the gender pay gap

For the sick: – further improvements to Labour’s NHS

For us all: – greater access and openess through strengthening local governments, constitutional reform and increasing the transparency of party donations
               – security from the whims of banking elites through greater government control

I know who I’ll be voting for.

Suzy


Electoral reform more likely?

In Constitutional Reform on 11 April, 2008 at 8:04 pm

A while back I suggested that electoral reform may look a little more likely. If AV was brought in it would serve one purpose: it would screw the Tories over big time.

A perfect example can be demonstrated by Labour asking the Lib Dems for help in beating Boris. (It was always going to happen!). A Labour/Lib Dem agreement could potentially help keep a Tory out of power.

If this is pulled off successfully I don’t doubt I would increase Brown’s appetite to look into electoral reform for the future…

 

 

Hot topics:…electoral reform

In Constitutional Reform on 28 March, 2008 at 6:01 pm

A compelling case here from Brighton Regency Labour Supporters for some reform at least.

Luke Akehurst has also commented on this.

It just seems to me that AV would help Labour/Liberal Democrats and actually screw over the Tories big time…

Time to get serious on…

In Constitutional Reform on 27 March, 2008 at 11:26 am

Constitutional reform is a particular bug-bear for me and it was suggested that I should write something negative about the Government.  I was thinking about commenting on this story about Fiona Gordon but it seems petty and irrelevant.  Frankly, if there’s a problem in staffing arrangements at Number 10 I don’t think it’s anyones business, we should focus on policy and actual results.  Which is why I want to write about the Government’s action on constitutional reform.

As the Guardian reports, the Government is ready to propose significant electoral changes, allowing polling stations to open on weekends and people to have a second vote.  It would be interesting to see some data on whether an alternative voting system would actually significantly alter the make up of the commons, votes would be redistributed until one candidate has over 50% so I’m guessing it would only be affective in marginal seats.   

This is a really important issue for me and many others, the House of Lords, in particular, needs some urgent reforms.  The Government are apparently proposing to elect the upper-chamber by using proportional voting.  An excellent idea that should have happened years ago.

The problem with constitution reform is that Labour attempts to represent the voice of progress and the Tories the voice of the status quo.  Labour has constantly allowed its radical proposals to be watered down by Tories in both chambers and opt to create large-scale commissions to investigate the issue.  We don’t want commissions or committees anymore, we need some positive results, if we really want the public to trust politicians again lets get serious about constitutional reform before it’s too late.

Some lines should never be crossed

In Conservative Party, Constitutional Reform, Europe on 27 November, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Having recently consulted a lawyer over a practical issue closely related to the hot-topic of Freedom of Speech, I was extremely relieved to find that I am covered by a number of fundamental protections under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR – pictured in all its splendour) and the Human Rights Act.  Under Article 10 of the former, I have a right to freedom of expression.  This means, amongst other things, that if I wish to express what I think is wrong with the world, I can express that without fear of repercussions.  It also means, thankfully, that if I consider someone else acting in a deplorable and abhorrent way, I may express my disdain of this, providing that expression is not both untrue and defamatory.

Looking at the ECHR, its articles protect me in a number of ways, not least in a right to life, liberty, security, fair trial, private life, thought, conscience and religion and to protest.  The ECHR, amongst other things, also prohibits the death penalty, torture and slavery.  The ECHR was enshrined in UK law by Labour under the Human Rights Act 1998, which the Conservatives are currently promising to repeal, should they form a government.

The rights that are afforded me under this convention are, in my humble opinion, truly wonderful, and I find it upsetting that my fellow comrades want to cherry-pick parts of it that seem convenient to their particular cause at some particular time.  We already have controls on Freedom of Speech, prescribed by law, and these have been articulately outlined in another comment.  The most recent post on this issue says “if we let the likes of the BNP spread their views to the Oxford Union they may just appear to becoming mainstream. They are not mainstream and we shouldn’t let them be.”  I concur.  But why should we do this by eroding the fundamental principles we should be protecting.

I have seen the rhetoric of “those who died in the holocaust didn’t die because their arguments were not as good,” used twice in this short debate.  It is absolutely true, but that doesn’t make it remotely relevant.  The reason over 6 million people died in the holocaust was precisely because Hitler’s regime (and for some of the time, the German people) did not observe the fundamental principles which would have prevented it.

I’d like to conclude by going slightly Lennonist (note the spelling).  Imagine, for just a moment, that rather than expend our energy in protesting against free speech when we don’t like what’s being said, we promote to the hilt the very principles espoused by the ECHR (see above), to the extent that our citizens appreciate them and we take them for granted as easily as we do our right to breathe.  Would we need to get into a paranoid frenzy over disgusting scum like Griffin and Irving?  Would we have seen the rise to Nazism in Germany in the late 20s/early 30s?  Would we have even had the circumstances which ultimately resulted in that?

I think next time we go out to fight against something, we should spend a little bit of our time considering just what we’re fighting for.

, ,

The end of the Union?

In Constitutional Reform, National Politics on 28 October, 2007 at 7:46 pm

I’m not convinced despite what Harriet says.

It looks like the Tories are going to start running with the slogan: English votes for English MPs and the real problem I have is that it seems to make a lot of sense…

Since devolution issues such as health and education have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. England, as such, has had no jurisdiction over the governance of those two countries. It therefore seems a little weird that Scots can affect English politics at the ballot box whereas the reverse can never really be true.

Admittedly tax and defence policy has, and always should, be retained at Westminster. However the position of Scottish MPs has become slightly questionable. What right, one may ask, do they have to vote on policies that will never affect their own constituencies. The answer, I fear, is that they are propping up the majority.

Politics in the Pub – that’s how I view the world. If you can’t convince a few blokes down the local of the merits of a policy then it ‘ain’t gonna work’. In no English pub I know will this ever make sense. Scottish MPs vote on things that affect England but English MPs have no say on Scottish matters. That is what this boils down to.

It seems to me that it is in no-ones interest to break up the UK. Scotland will be relegated to the fringes of European politics and be invisible on the world scale. This is the ‘Globalised Age’; we have to compete with China and India. If the Scots choose to do it alone then I will wish them good luck. At the end of the day unity has been to the mutual advantage of both countries. A policy to break the union that has served us all well for 300  years is barmy. There are people in politics who take themselves seriously but are in fact a little bit loopy. You know who I mean, and we shouldn’t be afraid to say it.

However, confidence in politics is everything. (On an aside the biggest challenge facing the EU is building confidence among the voters. For 20 years it has neglected this task – hence the huge public scepticism about the advantageous role of  EU institutions) People, on both sides of the border, must have confidence in the Union. That means putting the positive case forward and that means addressing real flaws in the system. To avoid the minor issues allows the case against the union to snowball and while Labour buries its head in the sand like idiots the real idiots of the SNP may sound more reasonable.

In conclusion: accept there is a real issue at stake and put proposed changes to a referendum. Allowing English votes for English issues in the short term can be the base upon which we reinvigorate confidence in the Union for the long term.

British democracy

In Constitutional Reform, National Politics on 18 August, 2007 at 2:23 pm

I’m sure the Queen is a nice lady but…

In Constitutional Reform, National Politics on 7 January, 2007 at 7:43 pm

I don’t care what you say, we don’t need a monarchy. It’s one of the few areas, where I am arrogant enough not to accept a different point of view.

The one practical purpose she serves is to support with her authority the exercise of power by the Government, elected by us. She performs no constitutional safeguard as some people mistakenly believe – she cannot object to legislation. In short she is a waste of space and money.

The fact that the monarchy is part of our tradition as a nation should not deter us from seeking the demise of the institution, after all a brief look at the people that have occupied the throne should serve to prove that it is wide open to abuse and can become a vehicle for reactionary ideas. I have a far better way of how our new democracy should be organised.

Let us take a look at the Republic of Ireland. They have a President who is little more than a ribbon-cutter (much like our ‘Liz), and they serve a term of 7 years. The formal powers and functions of the President are prescribed in the Irish codified Constitution. The President, who does not have an executive or policy role, exercises his or her powers on the advice of the Government.

There are some specific instances where the President has an absolute discretion, such as in referring a Bill to the Supreme Court for a judgment on its constitutionality. The President appoints the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Houses of Parliament. This is where my view of our new democracy differs, which would look like this:

The make up of the Commons would remain the same, a new upper-chamber, a Senate would be created. Senators will be elected on a regional basis, bringing their numbers down to about 350 or even fewer. Someone who has been a member of a political party may not stand for the Senate although former members of pressure groups may do so. We would need to give the Senate real powers, not to mention a good salary, for instance Senators, unlike Peers, will be allowed to introduce private members’ bills. To be nominated to stand, Senators would need approval of 5 regional MPs as well as a certain number of individuals, schools, churches and other local institutions. They would have to be over the age of 35 and would serve the same 7 year term as our new President.

A nomination for President will occur every 7 years, after the election of our new Senators. They will need nominations from 50% of the Upper-chamber and 50% of the Commons. They would have no political barriers as the Senators do, except a President should be over 45 years old. This would be ideal in that a former Prime Minister or MP could stand for the Presidency. A President’s term (they can only serve one) would overlap with Parliament’s and so you could have a former Tory MP or PM presiding over a Labour Government. Unlike monarchs the President will have freedom of speech and their expertise could come in handy when a Government faces tough decisions. That is perhaps their main purpose, to act as an advisory figure to new, young Governments. Remember how almost no one in the 1997 Government had any previous experience – how on Earth did they know how to manage the Civil Service?

It is at this moment that I should probably add, that this is in no way Labour Party policy lest I be expelled – or worse, censured by my comrades on the committee.  (the author is currently sitting on two censures for his ludicrous views and would be booted off the committee under BULS “3 strikes and you’re out” rule – he is being considered for a commendation for this article, however – Ed)

Posted by Tom Guise, BULS Freshers Officer