HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
It's been a topic that has now dragged on for over 100 years in the UK. There is a broad consensus that the UK's second legislative chamber, the House of Lords, is in need of reform to become more representative, but how this should be achieved has not yet been agreed upon. Proposals generally debate whether a completely elected chamber should be the goal- but then what would differentiate it from the House of Commons to justify its existence, and ensure that one House has more clout than the other?
My personal view is that the House of Lords should be based on a very original concept, with its membership composed of three types of lords/peers: Peoples' Peers, Life Peers and Society Peers.
Peoples' Peers: These would be elected through proportional representation on a UK-wide basis. So if 38% of votes for Peoples' Peers were for the Labour party, approximately 38% of the Peoples' Peers would come from this party. If 8% of votes came from UKIP then they would receive approximately 8% of the House of Lords' Peoples' Peers. As many smaller parties, and their supporters, complain that the First Past the Post System excludes them in the House of Commons, then not only would the House of Lords give them a chance for representation, but would also allow them to establish themselves as credible parties to lead the country and perhaps boost their success in General Elections. They could serve 7-year-long terms (without term limits, as term limits remove the incentive of working hard for the next election)
Life Peers: These would be appointed by the government on the basis of great service to the country in some respect. For example, it is likely that not only former Prime Ministers and high-ranking Civil Servants would be appointed, but also influential inventors, entrepreneurs, scientists and athletes would similarly be appointed for a life-long term (unless their position is revoked due to a scandal).
Society Peers: These would be representatives of various organisations within the UK, thus representing the public in a new and different way. Whilst representatives in the House of Commons reflect the areas people live in, Society Peers would reflect aspects of peoples' lives. So Society Peers could represent religions, causal pressure groups, employers, trade unions and other organisations which include a minimum quota of members, e.g. at least 100,000. Thus representatives of the Church of England, Trades Union Congress and the National Health Service would have seats as Society Peers. The basis of their election/appointment could be decided by the organisations they represent.
I believe this would represent British public opinion in new and original ways, offering even more of the diverse experiences and perspectives of members that the current House of Lords is already praised for today. Its unique configuration would justify its existence and avoid challenging the House of Commons, which it would by sharing a system that is too similar.
The current system doesn't really cause any problems for the public, but there is certainly room for improvement. However, if we're going to bother reforming the House of Lords, let's make it worth doing!
Monday, 23 April 2012
Sunday, 1 April 2012
GALLOWAY ON THE FALKLANDS
Controversial Respect MP George Galloway recently made some interesting points regarding the Falkland Islands. Initially sceptical, I was surprised to find that he offered an alternative, yet rational respective on the Falkland Islands' future. Mr Galloway highlighted how the Falklands issue undermines Britain's valuable economic ties, not only with Argentina, but much of Latin America in the short-term. He also drew attention to how the global balance of power is shifting, meaning a repeat of the British victory in the Falklands War in 1982 is becoming increasingly unlikely in the face of a stronger and more united Latin America. Meanwhile support from the USA and EU is likely to be less straightforward for Britain in this scenario.
I believe Galloway's suggestion of bribing Falkland Islanders to relocate to Britain to placate Argentina would be humiliating for Britain, and unfair to the Islanders who would be forced to change their lifestyles due to the whims of politicians. However, his alternative idea of making more compromises and cooperation with Argentina over the Falklands seems much more pragmatic. As the issue of oil around the Falklands seems to have motivated the recent resurgence in tensions, perhaps it would be sensible to negotiate a share of the profits with Argentina, and maybe greater cooperation between Argentina and Britain when Falklands policies are likely to affect Argentina. This would sensibly alleviate tensions with Argentina, and improve Britain's ties with Latin America- and without humiliating Britain on the world stage. What remains awkward however is any concession of sovereignty, with Argentina wanting to make the Falklands part of their country; whilst the Islanders themselves want to remain entirely British, which seem to be mutually exclusive objectives. Hopefully the aforementioned compromises would be enough, though maybe some arrangement to demonstrate shared official control would be more accommodating, with an Argentine Governor working in partnership with the British Governor of the Islands.
Controversial Respect MP George Galloway recently made some interesting points regarding the Falkland Islands. Initially sceptical, I was surprised to find that he offered an alternative, yet rational respective on the Falkland Islands' future. Mr Galloway highlighted how the Falklands issue undermines Britain's valuable economic ties, not only with Argentina, but much of Latin America in the short-term. He also drew attention to how the global balance of power is shifting, meaning a repeat of the British victory in the Falklands War in 1982 is becoming increasingly unlikely in the face of a stronger and more united Latin America. Meanwhile support from the USA and EU is likely to be less straightforward for Britain in this scenario.
I believe Galloway's suggestion of bribing Falkland Islanders to relocate to Britain to placate Argentina would be humiliating for Britain, and unfair to the Islanders who would be forced to change their lifestyles due to the whims of politicians. However, his alternative idea of making more compromises and cooperation with Argentina over the Falklands seems much more pragmatic. As the issue of oil around the Falklands seems to have motivated the recent resurgence in tensions, perhaps it would be sensible to negotiate a share of the profits with Argentina, and maybe greater cooperation between Argentina and Britain when Falklands policies are likely to affect Argentina. This would sensibly alleviate tensions with Argentina, and improve Britain's ties with Latin America- and without humiliating Britain on the world stage. What remains awkward however is any concession of sovereignty, with Argentina wanting to make the Falklands part of their country; whilst the Islanders themselves want to remain entirely British, which seem to be mutually exclusive objectives. Hopefully the aforementioned compromises would be enough, though maybe some arrangement to demonstrate shared official control would be more accommodating, with an Argentine Governor working in partnership with the British Governor of the Islands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)