Challenging a Claim: House of Lords Reform

I take an AS level subject called Critical Thinking which is basically about writing arguments.  Last week, the homework was to write an argument against a claim of my choice, and I got 12/12 !  I decided to use what I've learned in Politics to support my argument - and I've decided to share it with you as a 'sorry' for not updating last week - I've been really busy with Ten Tors training (walked 49 miles at the weekend!) - though I know that's no excuse.

Challenging the Assertion: "The House of Lords should have further reforms"

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9314627/Dont-empty-the-Lords-of-its-scientists.html

After the 2001 election, many changes were made to the House of Lords including reducing the number of hereditary peers to 92 from 750, and introducing appointed peers.  Many people argue that these reforms did not go far enough as an elected second chamber would grant further legitimacy and the public would be able to hold them account for their own actions.  

However, further reform would create an overly politicised House of Lords as peers would have to toe the Party Line when elected according to their parties, and may not challenge the Commons so effectively.  Moreover, radically changing the House of Lords may cause a huge number of traditions to be lost and, besides, the House of Lords is very effective in scrutinising legislation as it is.  In the Parliamentary session between 1999 and 2000, over 10,000 amendments were made to government legislation.  Also, the 92 hereditary peers bring a huge amount of life experience and business accumen which gives them a good reason to have a place in the Lords.  So, if peers in the Lords were elected - as proposed - then the Lords would lose any sense of neutrality that it may currently have.  

Proposals for House of Lord elections should be dropped as an elected House would have equal legitimacy to the Commons and therefore could create an adversary system which could prevent any laws being passed.  Moreover, in 2012 it was proposed that 80% of the Lords be elected by PR (proportional representation), and this was widely disagreed with and shelved.  Statistics from the Office of the Chief Whip (I made this statistic up!  Don't sue me...) show that 73% of MPs voted against this legislation.  And, if our politicians - who we elect to represent us - voted against it, then it is more likely that there are huge problems with reform; especially as politicians should be better informed on political issues than everyday people.  We should trust our politicians' judgement.  Therefore, it should be accepted that the House of Lords does not need any further reform.

Controversial Figures and the Press

The last fortnight has brought the death of a very controversial figure in UK politics.  The death of Baroness Margaret Thatcher has been plastered over the front page of every newspaper - and some headlines really made me feel a little ill:  thanks to the @SocialistWorker for the headline "Rejoice!" it's nice to know that newspapers remain incredibly tasteful.

Photo taken from http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/papers-mark-thatchers-death/

Newspapers seem to be allowed to print whatever they like without regulation.  I understand the need for free press, but sometimes newspapers step over a line and I question why they should be able to provide any sort of biased view on particular issues.  And even so - who should regulate them?  Should they be trusted to do this themselves?

The reaction of the media to the death of Thatcher is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to either the extreme nature of the press, or its ability to find out things that it shouldn't really know.  The McCaans, Hugh Grant, Charlotte Church, and a huge number of others all brought this to particular attention in bringing the Leveson inquiry to light.  The press are being trusted to self-regulate, but who will decide when a line is crossed?  There is a need for the press to be independent and not interfered with by government - after all, we're a democratic country - yet in the same way that you can't go around spouting racist nonsense, you shouldn't be allowed to print offensive stories, even if they're not based on race.  Personally, I'd put an end to it and have one single neutral newspaper for the entire country that gave descriptions of things that happened without any journalistic flair.  It would be remarkably less interesting, but would also ensure that offensive rubbish does not make it onto every day newstands.

Today in the News: Legal Aid Cuts

I've been looking in the news a lot lately, and especially after my trip to Nottingham, I've been a lot more aware of the need for legal aid and the effect that it has on people in the legal profession.  Particularly, it is Criminal lawyers (both Solicitors and Barristers) that are largely effected by recent cuts, as it is no longer a particularly lucrative profession to go into.

When I was little, I really liked the look of being a Criminal Barrister - now the dream is different, ideally I'd like to be a Senior Partner in Slaughter and May (Commercial Law, mostly) by the time I'm 50.  There are three reasons for the career change:

1) mild stage fright (not particularly good for standing up in court 24/7)

2) I realised I like talking and interacting with people (I want a more client based career)

3) money.  I can earn about four times as much by working in Commercial Law than Criminal Law.

And it's not getting any better.  This week, legal aid is being cut by £350million which means that people who are in trouble with the law are faced with less choice if they don't qualify for aid.  They have to scrape together the funds for legal representation, or they have to represent themself.  As a person with a little stage fright, I can sympathise with these people: I don't know how a person can be expected to represent themself with no legal knowledge whatsoever, under the immense pressure of knowing that if they lose then they may have to go to prison.  The stakes are too high to have people gambling with their own freedom.

However, I'm not going to start having a go at politicians - everybody is being cut, nobody wants it to be them next - and the legal aid cuts make it so that there is no aid available for people needing advice for
"divorce, child custody, clinical negligence, welfare, employment, immigration, housing, debt, benefit and education" (Guardian) - this means that there is still legal aid available for the majority of criminal matters, though means tested.

So what we have to ask ourselves is what matters more: defending the poorest in society in court, or digging ourselves out of this depression. Practically, morally and as a human being, it's the former - but I can see why politicians feel that there is space for cuts. Maybe these cuts will increase the odds of marriages staying together, as divorce is now a non-legal-aid case? But in the end, it looks like the future is bleak for Criminal Lawyers of any sort - with legal cuts now, it's unlikely that funding will be pumped back into the system. So unless you're particularly moral, and really want to get up and get things done in a courtroom, Criminal law is probably not the best field to go in right now...