News

The people of Britain could still be denied the right to elect all their legislators under proposals being drawn up in secret and reported in the press. Hundreds of years after democrats first demanded abolition of the House of Lords the government is still considering the option of having as many as 80 legislators appointed by the state and not elected by the people. And continuing discrimination against the majority who are not members of the Church of England has not been ruled out, with the right of that denomination still to appoint 26 legislators on the cards.

Proposals for reform of the House of Lords from a cross-party committee of MPs and legislators-for-life could be ready by the summer. If so they will be published in a White Paper and legislated for after the next general election.

The committee’s plans provide for 350 - 400 senators. Groups of 3 or 4 senators would represent 80 - 100 "multi-member" constituencies but would not be expected to help and advise their constituents in the way MPs do. They would serve a maximum of 3 terms of 4 - 5 years. The new senators would be elected in stages, gradually replacing the legislators-for-life.

Although the new legislators would be called Senator instead of Lord, the feudal title would still be awarded to what the Financial Times described as the "friends and donors" of the biggest political parties.

The last attempt to reform the second chamber were blocked by the legislators in the House of Lords. These legislators inherited their seats, bought them or were appointed by the state in return for services rendered. They will lose their final excuse for clinging to power if reform is included in the election manifesto of the party or parties that form the government after the next general election.

In a statement the Centre for Citizenship said that it would be unforgivable if Parliament again treated the British people like serfs, unfit for a fully democratic legislature. It was deeply disappointing that in Britain the basics of democracy were still questioned and that serious consideration was being given to continuing religious discrimination and the appointment of legislators who would represent themselves alone.

10:35 AM | | (0) | (0)

The number of chief executives of FTSE 100 companies that are "knights" has fallen to just 5 from 32 in 1984, according to a report in the Financial Times.

In 1984, when the FTSE was created, 40 per cent of the British CEOs of companies on the index used the feudal title. Now only 8.6 per cent do so.

Almost 79 per cent of the British CEOs belonged to a London club in 1984. Now only 31 per cent are members of the clubs long associated with prominence in Britain’s class system. Just two belong to the two most aristocratic of the clubs. In 1984 17 were members of these clubs.

In 1984 41 per cent had been educated at the elite universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Today the figure is 28 per cent.

The number of female CEOs is still only 2, having risen from 0 in 1984.

Richard Boggis-Rolfe of the head hunting firm that produced these encouraging figures told the Financial Times that it would be wrong to think that past chief executives were appointed because of their class rank rather than on merit. Traditional industries have been replaced on the index by natural resources, media and professional services companies.

The FTSE 100, known as the "Footsie", is a share index of the 100 most highly capitalised companies listed on the London Stock Exchange.

10:34 AM | | (0) | (0)

The supreme court has upheld a High Court ruling that the Communications Act 2003, which forbids "political" television advertisements, does not beach the human rights of British citizens.

The "law lords" agreed unanimously that there should be a "level playing field" for competing opinions. It believed allowing the buying of TV time would give unfair prominence to the beliefs advertised. There was a danger that citizens would be "conditioned" to accept opinions that were constantly repeated on TV.

The ban on political advertisements does not include the major political parties, which are given free TV time prior to elections. Print and Internet adverts are also free of state control.

This decision on an appeal by Animal Defenders International received little news media attention. The Financial Times gave it four column inches. This is not unusual in a country in which the people often accept that the interests of the state should take precedence over their rights. In such an atmosphere the patronising belief of the senior judges that it is the job of the state to protect its citizens from bamboozlement by suppressing free speech provokes little response.

07:54 PM | | (0) | (0)

"The BBC collects the (licence) fee, creating a personal contract with every household". Patricia Hodgson, a Dame Commander of the British Empire and British Broadcasting Corp. trustee writing in The Financial Times.

"This is an official warning that the TV Licensing Enforcement Division will be proceeding with a full investigation of the above address. This is because there is still no record of a TV licence at this property, despite our previous letters". Letter from the BBC to a householder who has not asked its permission to watch television.

If "Dame" Hodgson is right the relationship between victim and protection racketeer must also be a "personal contract" created by the gangster’s visits.

07:53 PM | | (0) | (0)

Queens Belong Only In Fairy Tales Says Republican Centre

The Centre for Citizenship has condemned a proposal that British children swear allegiance to the Windsor family to encourage them to feel a sense of belonging to their country.

The proposal was made by legislator-for-life Peter Goldsmith in a report to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Mr. Goldsmith said that he could see no reason why republicans would not want to swear such an oath.

John Pratt of the Centre for Citizenship described this statement as partisan and deeply offensive. It showed how much the British establishment needed to learn about democratic principles and civil rights.

Mr. Pratt questioned how swearing allegiance to an institution that excluded most British citizens from the office of head of state could make for a sense of belonging. He added that an unwritten constitution that required that the head of state be selected from a Northern European Protestant family was particularly alienating for citizens of other beliefs and ethnic origins. Parents who are bringing up their children to value democracy and equality, and those who want Britain to be a welcoming and inclusive country, would be frustrated by this proposal, he said.

"If the British state really wishes to make all citizens see this country as their own" said Mr. Pratt, "it must abolish institutions and practices that are undemocratic. It must stop discriminating against those who come from the wrong family or who don’t have officially approved beliefs; It must allow the people to choose all their legislators and their head of state. And it must stop encouraging children to believe that queens and princes or lords and ladies have a place anywhere other than in fairy tales".

07:07 PM | | (0) | (0)