Tuesday 30 April 2013
Saturday 27 April 2013
Why did Obama's gun control attempts fail?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/four-reasons-why-the-gun-control-bills-failed.html
Excellent article on why Obama's gun control attempts. Excerpt here from reason number 4....
4. Our Weak Presidency
Facing a Congress in which the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate is hobbled by the filibuster, Barack Obama’s legislative strategy this year leans heavily on his use of the bully pulpit to shame Republicans into backing his initiatives, especially on gun control. But even on an issue with overwhelming public support, Obama’s poignant speeches, numerous campaign-style events, and the use of his new political arm (Organizing for Action) were no match for the N.R.A. It’s even possible that his campaigning hardened opposition to the proposals and bolstered the N.R.A.’s efforts. (I spent some time shooting shotguns and an AK-47 with three gun enthusiasts in Arizona recently, and they all viewed Obama’s current gun-control agenda in near-apocalyptic terms.)
Excellent article on why Obama's gun control attempts. Excerpt here from reason number 4....
4. Our Weak Presidency
Facing a Congress in which the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate is hobbled by the filibuster, Barack Obama’s legislative strategy this year leans heavily on his use of the bully pulpit to shame Republicans into backing his initiatives, especially on gun control. But even on an issue with overwhelming public support, Obama’s poignant speeches, numerous campaign-style events, and the use of his new political arm (Organizing for Action) were no match for the N.R.A. It’s even possible that his campaigning hardened opposition to the proposals and bolstered the N.R.A.’s efforts. (I spent some time shooting shotguns and an AK-47 with three gun enthusiasts in Arizona recently, and they all viewed Obama’s current gun-control agenda in near-apocalyptic terms.)
How important is the HOL, why does it tend to back down in struggles with the commons and what are the implications for HoL reform?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-22266173
This week the Commons and the Lords have been ping-ponging legislation which would mean that workers could give up employment rights and protections in return for shares in the company they work for. This was a government Bill backed by the Chancellor of E, George Osbourne.
The Lords forced a couple of minor changes but despite many peers' lingering concerns over the very principle of the bill, many of them voted to pass the bulk of the proposals. One of the peers later said that he did not like the bill but did not try to slow it down any further as he wasn't elected and didn't feel he had the right to obstruct the wishes of the democratically elected Commons.
This is an often quoted position for some peers in the Lords and it has some implications:
1. It means that the Lords occasionally holds itself back and thus allows the executive dominated Commons (built in majority) to dominate (rightly or wrongly).
2. It suggests that an elected Lords might be more psychologically assertive in standing up to the Commons/executive and that. Some would argue that this would improve democracy by reducing the power of an over-mighty executive that can trample over parliament whilst others might point to the increased possibility of legislative gridlock with an second chamber embolden by democratic legitimacy.
The issue over Lords reform may be over for the next couple of years but if their is a hung parliament in 2015 the LDs will probably try to use their position in a coalition to push Lords reform to the top of the agenda once again.
This week the Commons and the Lords have been ping-ponging legislation which would mean that workers could give up employment rights and protections in return for shares in the company they work for. This was a government Bill backed by the Chancellor of E, George Osbourne.
The Lords forced a couple of minor changes but despite many peers' lingering concerns over the very principle of the bill, many of them voted to pass the bulk of the proposals. One of the peers later said that he did not like the bill but did not try to slow it down any further as he wasn't elected and didn't feel he had the right to obstruct the wishes of the democratically elected Commons.
This is an often quoted position for some peers in the Lords and it has some implications:
1. It means that the Lords occasionally holds itself back and thus allows the executive dominated Commons (built in majority) to dominate (rightly or wrongly).
2. It suggests that an elected Lords might be more psychologically assertive in standing up to the Commons/executive and that. Some would argue that this would improve democracy by reducing the power of an over-mighty executive that can trample over parliament whilst others might point to the increased possibility of legislative gridlock with an second chamber embolden by democratic legitimacy.
The issue over Lords reform may be over for the next couple of years but if their is a hung parliament in 2015 the LDs will probably try to use their position in a coalition to push Lords reform to the top of the agenda once again.
Wednesday 17 April 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)