Labour and Scotland - party differences?

A post on the BBC blog from Mark Mardell is fascinating for many reasons; for G and P students studying Unit 1, especially significant since it discusses the implication of devolution on party policy. The party has elected a former Blairite to be the leader of Labour in Scotland.

To be specific, the Labour Party in Scotland is likely to be more "left-leaning" than the party in Westminster as Scotland itself is on average (Mardell argues) more left-leaning than England is on average.

There are implications for the Labour party in the 2015 election; if it loses enough of its Scottish Westminster seats to the SNP as currently seems likely, then it will not be able to win power at Westminster. I posted about this earlier in the year:

Picture Credit: UK Polling Report

The implications for party policy across the UK is potentially significant, with parties increasingly having their own national policies better suited to local issues. This may in turn help lead to a more federal UK.

However, Labour is the only party which has (had?) a large established following in Scotland, closely followed by the Lib Dems. The Conservative Party has little power in Scotland, or much of Wales. Therefore, how the Labour Party deals with these issues over the next few years is potentially very important for the rest of the UK and its political parties.

This is also probably an issue worth bringing up in any question about party policy / traditions and devolution.

Constitutional Reform - Coalition in action

The Coalition has released proposals which aim to solve the so-called "West Lothian Question"; or to put it another way, "English Votes for English Laws".

Proposals on how to change the British constitution further have been announced by Commons Leader William Haig. The Coalition released a document which explains the ideas put forward by both parties - fascinatingly, the final part has the different ideas of the two parties in colour-coded sections.

G and P students certainly need to bear in mind that constitutional reform is an important theme of Unit 2 and that current issues, like the Scottish Referendum and the ensuing repercussions should be mentioned.

Senate Report on Torture

The Senate, in its last days before becoming Republican-dominated, has just published a report into the interrogation techniques used by the CIA after 9/11.

G and P students should bear this in mind when considering the effectiveness of Congress's oversight of the Executive; finally these techniques are called "torture". However, according to Rolling Stone no-one will get prosecuted for it.

The article discusses the likelihood of the Obama administration being investigated for similar things in future, and reckons it's probable. However, this all may be more about political partisanship than effective oversight by the legislature.

Fascinating stuff.

Voting and Labour in 2015

I came across a fascinating blog by the Economist which led me to this page by YouGov's Anthony Wells; it analyses the voting habits by the public since 2012, and crucially indicates how their habits change over time.

For Ed Miliband the Labour leader, there are many problems - but perhaps the main one is that people who had supported Labour are moving their support to the SNP, UKIP and Green.

Look at for example, 2012:

Movement of voters. Picture credit: UK Polling Report

and compare it to 2014:

Movement of voters. Picture credit: UK Polling Report

Great for any G and P student wondering about party support in the next election, and also about the similarities / differences between political parties and their ideas.

Although the Conservative party are clearly losing out to UKIP, they are essentially stable because of the voters who used to vote Conservative and said they would not vote are turning instead to UKIP.

History and Politics trip to Washington

Embedded in this page - a set of highlights of the Washington DC trip that a group of History and Politics students went on over the half-term break.

Mid-terms 2014

The Mid-terms saw both the House and the Senate being controlled by the Republicans. Further detail about races and the overall view here from the BBC. For example, Democratic Representative for New York Louise Slaughter, an experienced member of Congress, won by the narrowest of margins; 50.2% to 49.8%. "Blue-Dog" Democrat John Barrow lost, meaning that conservative Democrats are largely extinct in Congress.

What are the prospect for the US Government in the next two years? President Obama and new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have pledged to work together on issues they both agree in (tax reform and foreign trade pacts).

Further analysis here from the Economist, which highlights the problem - the Tea-Partiers and others may not allow the two to work together. Rolling Stone magazine discusses this very issue here, and looks forward excitedly to the battle within the Republican Party and the Presidential election of 2016.

All of which is great for G and P students contemplating the powers of Congress and the President for Unit 4C and elections in Unit 3C. If there is continued gridlock (something the Republicans are trying to blame on the Democrats), the President may well use executive orders to get things done; for example on immigration.

It must be borne in mind, however, that the turnout for these mid-terms is very low, and is lower than the last mid-terms in 2010 (there is a great map and selection of graphs on this page). Overall, it was 36.6% down from 40.9%; somewhat predictably, Democrat-supporting voters were the least likely to turnout to vote.

As a final note, Rolling Stone's October issue had a great article by Economist Paul Krugman favourably evaluating the Obama Presidency. Well worth a read.

Republicans, Tea-Party-ers and Kansas

A quick post - any G and P student contemplating the Tea Party and the Republicans as they head towards probable success in the mid-terms, and then onto the 2016 Presidential-race, should take a look at this piece in Rolling Stone Magazine.

It's a fascinating look at the race for Governor in Kansas, where the incumbent Republican, a Tea-Party-supporting Sam Brownback is presiding over what he has described as an economic "experiment". The short version is that he has enacted most of what the Tea-Party has demanded; no compromise, low-taxes and low-spending.

The result? To quote the Washington Post:

 the state is now reporting a more than $300 million revenue shortfall. The poverty rate increased. The state’s economy expanded a total of 2.3 percent in inflation-adjusted terms over the past two years, half the rate of its four neighbors. And Kansas’s credit rating has been downgraded.

Interestingly, prominent Republicans in the state seem not to like this, and are jumping ship.

All of which is fascinating for politics students contemplating the Republican Party and politics in the USA as a whole. And probably much less fun for the people of Kansas, sadly.

Gay Marriage and Blue Dog Democrat(s)

The US Supreme court has refused to hear appeals from states wanting to ban gay marriage, The Economist sees this as very significant, and Politics students could use this as an indication of where the court stands currently.

A same-sex wedding ceremony.
Picture credit: Marc Love / Wikipedia

essentially meaning that although they won't now be making any sort of decision on it, the lower (Federal) court decisions that saw any ban as unconstitutional will stand.


The Roberts court could have been activist and made a ruling, but it didn't. As the Economist notes there are theories why this is the case - in a politically divided country this would perhaps have made the situation worse. The Guardian sees this as an expansion of gay rights. Helpfully, the Wikipedia page goes into all of this, noting that it is currently legal in 25 states and that many thousands of couples have taken advantage of the new law.

A "conservative" court may find that banning gay marriage at this point would be very tricky.

Elsewhere, the Economist (again) has an interactive map about the mid-term race in the Senate; the short version is that the Republicans may take a 50-48 lead over Democrats with 2 seats being held by Democrat-friendly Independents.


Lastly, the Blue Dog Democrat is almost an extinct species; one of the last conservative Democrat holding a seat in the deep South is fighting a difficult battle in the 2014 House races.

Useful for Unit 3C - Democratic Congressman John Barrow from Georgia is a great example of someone who has kept in the centre while the rest of politics in the US becomes divided.

Congress - the gridlock.

I've just come across a great post by the Democracy in America blog on the Economist's web-site which discusses the gridlock in Congress. Great stuff for anyone contemplating this topic in Unit 4C. The article summarises the findings of a study from the Brookings Institution which came to the conclusion that polarisation of politics is increasing because there are fewer and fewer links between politicians. This leads to less cooperation and compromise:

“IF I sponsor a bill declaring apple pie American, it might fall victim to partisan politics,” declared Barack Obama over the summer. 

Picture credit: Brookings Institution

Great stuff.

However, it must be born in mind that Congress does sometimes pass laws with bipartisan support. A good example would be the July 2014 Workforce Investment Act passed by 415-6 in the House and 95-3 in the Senate - this is a bill to help workers and the unemployed get training to the tune of $3bn per year. Further info can be found here.

In August 2014, there was bipartisan support for airstrikes on Iraq in order to take action against ISIL.

It must be noted that these events are rare and that is why headlines are made when laws are passed with the support of both parties.

How to answer 15-markers in A2 Gov and Pol Unit 4C

I've posted a video on YouTube explaining how to answer 15-mark questions in the A2 exam. Certainly applicable to Unit 4C, and almost certainly applicable to Unit 3C too.

I'll try and do more of these when I get the chance.

Enjoy!

Google on the Scottish Referendum

In the days leading up to the Scottish Referendum, Google has launched a page which aggregates video and news feeds about this important issue. Worth having a browse through.

Presidential Power and the US system

Any G and P student contemplating Presidential power should consider that President Obama has decided to make executive order about the hot-button issue of immigration because it's the right thing to do...  after the mid-terms.

This may show the limits to the President's power, especially given the poor state that the US political system is in; the Democracy in America blog discusses this issue; specifically blaming the two-party system and the lack of 3rd or 4th parties which would encourage compromise. More about it here. A good topic to be on top of for Units 3C and 4C.

Reform of Democracy in the UK - the Spotify model?

Further to news about Conservative MP Douglas Carswell's defection to UKIP, the Economist has just published a video where he discusses reform of the UK's political system. Specifically he talks about how the two main political parties are not modern enough and require members to support all policies. He favours a "Spotify" approach where voters could pick-and choose more.

The video won't embed effectively, so click on the link to get to the video.

Great stuff for any G and P student contemplating reform of the UK political system or of the political parties in Unit 1

New events in US Politics - Summer 2014

In brief a potentially significant Supreme Court decision has been made which undermines Obamacare and also has implications for how religion is treated in the USA. The short version is that a firm is now going to be treated like an individual in respect to its religious beliefs, and that these can now not be forced to obey federal law. See here and here for analysis from the Economist. The decision is called Burwell v Hobby Lobby (click here for the Wikipedia page). The Washington Post has more here.





 Gov and Pol students for Unit 4C could use this when discussing the power of the President and the significance of the Supreme Court.

In early August, President Obama was sued by Congress for being a tyrant, with analysis by the Economist here. Good for anyone contemplating Presidential power and the power of Congress. Worth bearing in mind that the Republican-controlled House has tried over 50 times to destroy Obamacare. This is also useful when contemplating the interests of the Republican Party.

Elsewhere, the current 112th Congress is shaping up to be the least productive in history. Details and analysis from the Washington Post, plus some analysis from Ars Technica about the issue. While it may be expected that there would be little progress on the major issues (Obamacare, taxes, etc), some minor ones (Internet Trolls, copyright reform) don't see any progress either. Useful stuff for Gov and Pol students contemplating the (in)ability of Congress to get things done.

Against the background of this, the inability of Congress to address immigration effectively is striking. A passionate article in Rolling Stone discusses the impact of the Tea Party on efforts to address the 90,000 unaccompanied and undocumented minors who try to enter the country from Mexico every year. The short version is that Tea Party Republicans (Ted Cruz etc) have refused to allow funds to be used to help these refugees, and instead have agitated for increased border security. The political impact is affecting President Obama's standing too.



In another development, left-leaning former Supreme Court Justice Stevens has written a book proposing 6 new amendments to the US constitution. The wording of the amendments themselves are detailed in this blog post by an assistant law professor in South Texas. The book itself and its implications are reviewed here in the Huffington Post and here in the Wall St Journal.

Further analysis at another time I think, but for now the WSJ makes a very useful point; while Justice Stevens highlights some of the major flaws in the US political system (Gerrymandering, the Death Penalty, Gun Ownership), he sees Amending the constitution as the solution. As Gov and Pol students will be / are aware this is a long and complex process, so perhaps Congress passing laws would be a better solution.

New events in UK politics over the Summer

Briefly and in no particular order, David Cameron did a cabinet reshuffle which saw some big-hitters such as Education Secretary Michael Gove and Foreign Secretary William Haig losing their jobs. Marginally more women are now in Cabinet than before, and this is certainly an attempt to give the Conservative Party the edge in the lead-up to the 2015 election.

Labour has plans to re-nationalise the rail system (a throw back to Old Labour perhaps?).

The House of Lords has a debate about assisted-dying, although there is no likelihood of it becoming law. This highlights the importance of the Lords in debating issues.

The only woman Muslim in the Cabinet, Baroness Warsi resigns over the government's policy on the fighting in Gaza. A blow for Cameron, and there may be an impact on his policies and his own power. The Economist analyses the resignation here.

As a follow on, Boris Johnson has finally admitted that he is interested in fighting for a seat in the Commons in the 2015 election. If successful, he will be an MP and the London Mayor, at least for a brief period. At the end of August he finally confirmed that he will contest the seat of Uxbridge.

There was a debate about Scottish independence between the Scottish First Minister Alec Salmond and Alistair Darling, former Labour Chancellor. Highlights are below. Both sides have declared victory, although the vote itself will tell the truth. Analysis from the Economist here.



The Independence second debate between Salmond and Darling was interesting; fewer one-liners but Salmond came out on top and by a large margin "won" 71% to 29%. Worth bearing in mind that this "snap" polling is more about performance on the night rather than any change in intension to vote. Great analysis from the BBC's Nick Robinson here. More from the Economist here. Useful stuff for anyone contemplating the importance of referendums and the prospect for constitutional change in the UK. In addition, Cameron has promised more powers to the Scottish Parliament should the vote be "No".

Gov and Pol students contemplating the House of Lords would find recent news useful. Despite the Lords being too full for the facilities, and being the second largest legislative chamber in the world, 22 new peers have been appointed, including TV star Karen Brady. The Lords currently stands at 796 members.


More problems for David Cameron (useful for any student contemplating the Conservative Party's political stance) in the shape of a Tory MP who has defected to UKIP and resigned from his seat. More from Nick Robinson here. The very short version is that it exposes the Tory party as one which is obsessed by the EU and this has all sorts of implications including the rise of UKIP and perhaps increasing the likelihood that Scotland will vote "Yes" in September; the Scots being traditionally more pro-EU.

For no reason perhaps other than a reminder that Jeremy Paxman has been replaced on Newnight by Evan Davis, a brief clip from that esteemed show:

The Republican (Tea) Party

Although the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party was said to be on the decline, the recent news that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost in his state's primary election to a non-professional politician indicates otherwise. The BBC has a report here.

Eric Cantor.
Picture Credit: The Guardian / Reuters

The important point to make is that Cantor was one of the most important Republicans in Congress, and a defeat in a primary election for a politician of his seniority and in his post has never happened before.

For G and P students studying Unit 3C and 4C this is great stuff, as it can be used as an example of how primary elections are in fact the important votes in a majority of US House elections.

The BBC's Mark Mardell has more here; where he discusses how the Tea Party wing are still against any form of compromise, and all that entails. Eric Cantor lost the vote, despite vastly outspending his opponent, an Economics professor called David Bratt.

More from the Washington Post here.

Important for G and P students as they contemplate the impact on the Republican Party and its policies in the run up to the mid-terms and the start of the 2016 Presidential campaign; will the party lurch more to the right? Unsolicited advice for the Republicans can be found here, in the Huffington Post, and here in Politico.

Presidential Power - 2014 prisoner swap

Anyone contemplating Presidential Power for Unit 4 should consider what President Obama's recent actions over a prisoner swap, and the subsequent political storm says about the state of play in the US.

Sgt Bergdahl.
Picture Credit: BBC

In short, US Soldier Sgt Bowe Bergdahl had been taken prisoner in 2009 by the Taliban in Afghanistan. This year, Obama's administration swapped him for five Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

On the face of it this seems uncontroversial; a US soldier returned home, and the release of five prisoners in Guantanamo, the prison that Obama promised to close.

Crucially (and this is a great bit of info for G and P students) he signed an executive order requiring that Guantanamo be closed within a year. This was back in 2009. The prison is still open.

The Republican Party and others are making a big deal over this since this action should have been approved by Congress 30 days before, but wasn't. According to Chuck Hagel the US Secretary of State, this was in the national interest and the detainees in Guantanamo were of little risk to national security. According to BBC news:

"The defence secretary also said he and other national security officials were not "under any illusions about these five detainees" but said they were "appropriate" to release because the US had no basis to charge them with a crime."

The other controversy about the swap is that there are allegations Sgt Bergdahl disappeared under suspicious circumstances, and opponents of President Obama are using this as a stick to beat the administration with.

The main problem with Guantanamo Bay and the inability of the President to fulfill the action he signed into law, is that these are extremely murky legal waters. Their legal status has been the subject of Supreme Court case Boumediene v Bush, but the very short version is that these prisoners have not been charged with a crime and are highly unlikely to ever be.

Obama himself described Guantanamo Bay this way in an address to a joint session of Congress:

To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend – because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America. That is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists – because living our values doesn't make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger.

Although not a neutral source, The Guardian has more here about how prisoners were looked after.

Digital government and political engagement

I came across a great item about House of Commons Speaker John Bercow starting a project to see if democracy could be run more effectively in a digital era.


Specifically, he is trying to find out how "parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom can embrace the opportunities afforded by the digital world to become more effective in representing the people, making laws, scrutinising the work and performance of government..."

Music to the ears for any G and P student contemplating reform of the British democratic system in Unit 1.

Wired has a report about it here, and the interesting point made is that the way people relate to government and politics today is largely the same that generations of voters would have been used to. Voting still has to be done on pieces of paper several times per decade:

I may now be able to look at a tweeted picture of George Osborne as he signs off the budget, or sign an e-petition that may (no promises) be debated in the House of Commons, but the basic ways that I can express my consent, pick and influence my representatives would be familiar to generations of Brits who have never heard of Facebook. 

Wikipedia is getting in on the act too, and in fact has set up a project here. I would encourage students to get involved.

The Commission's web page can be found here.

I can forsee a future class project!

Crowd-sourcing Constitutional Reform - Icelandic Style

A brief post - I've come across an interesting nugget about Constitutional reform that was attempted in 2009-13.

Protests about the banks and the government in Iceland, 2008
Picture credit: Wikipedia

The short version is that Iceland, having suffered at the start of the Credit Crunch when their banks imploded under the weight of unsustainable lending, decided to reform its constitution.

Interestingly for G & P students doing Unit 2, they decided to use the ideas from the public in an attempt to get a Constitution that satisfied everyone. In short they "crowd-sourced" it.

The process, of course, was complex, but ultimately ended up in the courts, with the public expecting that politicians would re-write any controversial parts before it became law.

It was a failure. See the Wikipedia page here, and this highly opinionated piece by an Icelandic blogger.

An interesting take on a complex issue - how to engage the public in the amendment of a constitution, and keep that document effective.

UKIP - a contender for power?

Well, the short answer is clearly "no"; we will not see a UKIP government any time soon. However, they did very well in both the Local Council elections, and the European elections in May 2014. The results of the EU vote in the UK reflect results across Europe with anti-european parties being very popular.

Picture Credit: The Economist.

In the EU elections, they came first with over 4 million votes, which is the first time that neither the Conservatives or Labour have won an election. Analysis here from the Economist's "Blighty blog".

Results can be found on the links above. Nick Robinson has some interesting things to say about UKIP; it can be argued that UKIP has a big support, but EU elections results do not equate to general election results. The Telegraph's columnist has this - essentially, the election is a loss for all parties (as a side note, he also blames things like the colapse of the support for the main political parties).

As G and P students will know, FPTP means that it is very difficult for Farage and co to get seats in the Commons, although former leader Lord Pearson is demanding more seats for the party in the Lords.

There was a by-election in Newark, which went with the Conservatives, but with a reduced majority against UKIP. Somewhat predicably, the Telegraph sees it as a sign the Conservatives will win in 2015.

All of which is useful for any G and P student of Unit 1 contemplating the importance of minor parties in the UK system, and especially whether we are a 2 or 3 or 4 party country.

Also significant is the impact all this is having the traditional 3rd party, the Lib Dems; generally their performance in these elections has been dismal. There are calls for Nick Clegg to go, and even a botched attempt to force him out in favour of Vince Cable. The main problem is that the Lib Dems have been the traditional party of protest, and in government they just can't fulfil that role.

Elsewhere, the Telegraph's columnist blamed politicians who don't sound like human beings, but are obsessed by staying on message. The outcome is that the public don't trust them, or ultimately vote for them. Again - this is a familiar theme in Unit 1.

UK Political Parties - ideologies over time

While looking for something else I've come across a great site which goes into political ideologies of the UK parties (great for anyone revising / studying the topic for Unit 1).

Rather than simply use the traditional left-right division, the site adds in measure of authoritarianism vs libertarianism.

Here is a great page which shows how the 3 main parties have changed ideologies over time and in different elections.

Political Parties and their ideologies.
Picture credit: The Political Compass 

There is also a test you can take to find out how you fit into this chart; are you more like Ghandi or Stalin?

Perhaps for a bit of light relief, it is worth-while watching Nick Clegg saying "Sorry" for misleading the electorate about student fees before the 2010 election. This time, someone made him sing via autotune:

US Supreme Court and Privacy - 4th Amendment v technology

US Supreme Court - 2010
Picture Credit: US government / Wikipedia

Two recent Supreme Court Cases have caught my eye - Riley V California & US v Wurie. Both are connected to privacy and due process and both highlight some very 21st Century problems with the 4th Amendment prohibition of unlawful searches.

Specifically, as detailed here in the Economist, the justices are grappling with the limits of police stop and search powers. The nub of the issue is whether a phone should be protected property or open to scrutiny without a warrant.

Justice Kagan said that since "absolutely everything” about you, including bank records, photos, texts, emails, and GPS data are on a phone it is not reasonable that this should be accessible to a police officer without a warrant. The rest of the court seemed to agree. 

The details of the cases can be found in the article above. Currently, the court is only at the stage of hearing oral arguments.

However, another article had a subtly different take on this - whether the Supreme Court was in fact the correct body to decide crucial issues of privacy and technology. Ars Technica highlighted the worry that since most of the justices don't actually understand the technology, they are the wrong body to make decisions like this.

The alternative argument is that the Supreme Court can make judgements on the wide issue without getting bogged-down in the finer details of the technology. After all, Justices have to deal with high-level abstractions, not technical minutiae.

The Court itself does not use email, and is therefore like most organisations prior to the mid-1980s (how representative is the court?)

All of which is great stuff for G and P students contemplating the power and effectiveness of the Supreme Court in Unit 4C. 

Picture Credit: Wikipedia

The issues detailed above also raise the fact that at 81, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest member of the court, and she still considers herself to be capable of doing the job. Politicians are looking forward to the next appointment to the Court, bearing in mind that it in after the Mid-terms, President Obama may lose the Senate, and find it very hard to get his chosen candidate through should he need to take action before the end of his second term.

G and P students thinking about the ideological make-up of the court could do worse than look at this graph, and check out the Wikipedia page entry.

David Miranda and the Judicial System

By Jamie Barr

Glenn Greenwald (L) and David Miranda (R).
Picture credit: BBC / Reuters

David Miranda is partner of former guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who has covered many stories on the US whistle-blower Edward Snowden. The 28year old Brazilian citizen was detained for nine hours at Heathrow airport; he had been on his way from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro. He was detained under the law 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 on the 18^th of August. The reason for him being detained was because it was believed he was carrying secret documents but they were allegedly journalistic material however the case was brought to the high court as it was believed that David Miranda’s human rights were breached. 

The law states that you are allowed to detain someone for nine hours for questioning to whether they’ve been involved in any acts of terrorism. However, it’s very unusual for someone to be held for that length of time according to the home office 97% of examinations occur under seven hours. Furthermore, Miranda has accused the authorities of “bullying” and said “it was clearly intended to send a message of intimidation”. His lawyers are argued his detention of the maximum period allowed was a misuse of schedule seven and breached his human rights. In response the case was taken to the high court.

The connection to Edward Snowden is that he is a former contractor at the US National Security Agency, leaked details of extensive Internet and phone surveillance by American intelligence services. According to the Guardian he passed “thousands of files” to Greenwald.  Acting upon his new found information he has written several stories about surveillance by US and UK authorities.

The high court has ruled Mr.Miranda’s detention was lawful saying it was a “proportionate measure in the circumstances”. The judge stated there was "compelling evidence" that stopping Mr Miranda was "imperative in the interests of national security". In his ruling, Lord Justice Laws said: "The claimant was not a journalist; the stolen GCHQ intelligence material he was carrying was not 'journalistic material', or if it was, only in the weakest sense."

Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball said the judgement was a "clear vindication of the officers' conduct, demonstrating that they acted lawfully and in good faith throughout". Home Secretary Theresa May said the judgement "overwhelmingly supports the wholly proportionate action taken by the police in this case to protect national security".

This is important for politics students to know as it provides a good example in examinations of a case in which the judiciary in the UK have judged which affected Human Rights. It’s up to date and was highly publicised therefore allowing the student to gain extra marks. 

Abu Qatada & Human Rights

Abu Qatada’s delayed deportation

By Will Candy

Abu Qatada being deported.
Picture Credit: The Telegraph / PA

July 7th 2013 saw the end of a saga that kept Britain gripped in debate for eight years. AbuQatada left on a plane to Jordan to face terrorism charges. The news of his deportation prompted statements from the government of their ‘delight’ and ‘relief’ at finally succeeding in removing him.

A great summary can be found here.

But why was Abu Qatada’s road back to Jordan so difficult in the first place?

The legal issues with his deportation involved Articles 3 and 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act:

§         Article 3 contains an absolute prohibition of torture; and

§         Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair trial.

As the UK must follow the law set out in the Convention, it was necessary to find a way to deport Abu Qatada in a way that meant that the UK wasn’t acting against it. The major debate involved Article 6: whether he would have a fair trial when sent back to Jordan.

The role of the courts:

In 2006, the Special Appeals Immigration Commission (SIAC) dismissed Abu Qatada’s appeal. He appealed again.

In April 2008, the Court of Appeal of the UK (the second highest court in the country) blocked his deportation to Jordan

                               

However, in 2009 the then House of Lords (the highest ranking court in the country – now called the Supreme Court) reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision and found that SIAC’s application of the law was actually correct.

Abu Qatada appealed this decision, taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The role of this Court is to assess the lawfulness of decisions of Member States that involve human rights issues.

 This was the first time that the Court found that a deportation would be in violation of Article 6. 

Eventually through different methods he was deported.

Why important for politics students to know?

·         It is a great example to see how cases move through different courts.

·         Shows how The ECHR plays a role in decisions and how it limits the government’s powers.

       It was a case which became politically very important, and helped to promote the idea that the ECHR was in some was "unBritish".

Judicial System - S and Marper V UK

By Alexandra White-Meek

Picture Credit: UK Human Rights Blog

Both Mr S. and Mr Marper were arrested in 2001 for separate charges, and DNA was taken as a form of evidence. However, later that year the charges for the two cases were acquitted. As a result, both of the accused requested that the DNA evidence that police held against them to be destroyed, however the police refused, therefore they applied for a judicial review, in which they hoped the outcome would be that police could no longer keep DNA evidence. However, this case was soon dismissed by the House of Lords, and therefore they took the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

            The court found this to be a violation of Article 8 under the European Convention of Human Rights, and consequently the evidence was destroyed. Following the judicial review, the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) agreed with the UK government that by keeping DNA evidence, it can be used legitimately in order to help the prevention of crime. However, the ECHR did stress that the retention of DNA evidence goes against Article 8, paragraph 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and therefore was not justifiable.

The decision of the ECtHR says that those aquitted of a crime should not have their DNA evidence stored.

            This case is important for politics students to know because it demonstrates the amount of influence the European Union has within the United Kingdom, and could also be said to indicate why the current coalition government want to distance the country from them, as it is able to overrule the government’s decision on issues regarding Human Rights.

MBA v Merton London Borough Council

By Ross Crabtree

The case was a woman who is a Christian and refused to work at her care home on Sundays because of her belief that it is wrong to work on Sundays. This reason is debated as some say that working in a care home is a Christian act in itself. She resigned from her job and appealed to a Tribunal.

She lost her appeal in the Court of Appeal and her employer was found to have acted "proportionately". 

“Ms Mba was a care worker at a registered children’s home which was open 7 days a week, 24 hours a day and requires full staffing at all times.  Mrs Mba is a Christian who believes that it is wrong to work on Sunday.  When she was eventually rostered to work on a Sunday she did not attend work on the Sundays she was rostered and disciplinary action followed. Eventually she resigned alleging "indirect" religious discrimination.

On the facts of her employment I have to say that I cannot see that there could be any question of Mrs Mba ever winning her case.  The Children in the home had to be fed and cared for on a Sunday just as much as on any other day and personally I would see that as performing a Christian act however that is of course merely a personal view.

To quote from a news item which summarises this: 

It is clear that health and safety requirements and providing a seven-day, twenty-four hour service in a hospital or social care setting will provide legitimate reasons [for restricting religious practice]

A useful case for G & P students contemplating the judicial system and how rights are protected within it.

Official case details from the court of appeal.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1562.html

UK Supreme Court - deportation of prisoners

By Katherine Tsang

A Jamaican drug dealer called Keno Forbes also known as‘Blood’ was convicted of selling Class A drugs on a housing estate in North London. He was jailed for three years at Blackfriars Court. The home office wanted to deport Forbes however, the office failed to do so because human rights laws. Any criminal jailed for more than 3 months is eligible for automatic deportation. Under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, one has the right to have a private and family life. Forbes’s lawyer appealed using such reason saying that deporting Forbes will damage his marriage. Forbes is now allowed to stay in the country but is banned from the London borough. 

Picture Credit - The Telegraph

The Home Office is very disappointed about  the judgment. ‘We firmly believe foreign nationals who break the law should be deported.’ said the Home office spokesman. Mr Justice McCloskey described the case as a ‘borderline case’.  

From this case, we can see than European laws are superior then UK law and it is out of the hands of Parliament. The Humans Rights Act will also thwart government policies in areas such as order measures. The number of foreign criminals deportation has been increasing each year and the judgment of this case has certainly affected the immigration bill.

UK Supreme Court - Prisoners' Right to Vote

Hurst v The UK (2005)

Picture Credit - The Guardian

By Vincent Chow

No prisoners serving a sentence in the UK are allowed to vote. The on-going debate in the UK concerning the question of whether prisoners should be allowed to vote in elections can largely be attributed to the European Court of Human Rights ruling in 2005, that the UK’s disenfranchisement of all prisoners contravenes the European Convention of Human Rights.

Ever since that fateful day in 2005, the issue of prisoners’ right to vote has become a mainstay of the UK political scene. The issue has traversed various debates, capable of evoking a wide array of discussions ranging from voting rights and the treatment of criminals, to Parliament’s sovereignty and the relationship between British European law.

Why then haven’t any prisoners been given the right to vote since the European Court’s ruling?

It is because the Human Rights Act only instructs Parliament to pass legislation that is compatible with the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights). The HRA does not entrench these rights into British law, therefore preserving Parliament’s sovereignty.

This fact is reflected by the Supreme Court’s dismissals of the appeals of Chester and McGeoch in October 2013. The two convicted murderers argued that they should be allowed to vote in European elections, because the ECHR allows them to do so.

In his calls for the Supreme Court to dismiss the two appeals, Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, argued that the Court is not bound to apply the ECHR to UK law, only take them into account when ruling on the legality of any UK legislation.

In its ruling, the court ultimately agreed with Grieve’s arguments, maintaining that the issue of prisoners’ right to vote still remains a matter for national Parliaments: “Eligibility to vote in member states is basically a matter for national legislatures."

However, the government has conceded that they must introduce reforms, largely because of political reasons. They are reluctant to set a precedent where they outright defy an international convention of which the UK is a signatory of.

This is why there is currently a draft bill being passed through Parliament, and is being scrutinized by a cross-party committee. It represents a compromise between MPs who completely oppose any prisoners being given the vote, and Parliament’s international obligations to comply with the ECHR.

The Supreme Court’s involvement in this issue is significant because it illustrates the awkward position the judiciary is often put into in legal matters where European law directly conflicts with UK law. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the two prisoners’ appeals had little to no impact on Parliament. Even though the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament’s existing ban on prisoner’s voting is legal under UK law, Parliament is still expected to introduce reforms to allow some prisoners the vote in order to fulfill European obligations. 

UK Supreme Court Cases - Protesters

Richardson vs. DPP – 2014 – Protesters trespassed illegally

By Jessica Tsao

Two men (Richardson and Wilkinson) entered a shop in Covent Garden with the intention of stopping shop trading. They did this by locking their arms inside of a concrete tube, which they placed on the floor. They believed that trading methods of the shop (Ahava) was unlawful, since the brand claims that its products are made in Israel when in fact, the shop is run by the subsidiary of an Israeli company operating in the West Bank (which is not considered to be part of Israel). Hence, Richardson and Wilkinson accused Ahava of breaching consumer protection legislation, and the Hague Convention on the Law and Customs of War on Land (prohibiting exploitation of resources in the area) and cheating the revenue.

The Magistrates’ court had announced that the shop could not be charged for their actions of unlawful trading since the company had not been prosecuted and its defense arguments are not tested. However, the two men were arrested for aggravated trespass and conducting unlawful activity under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Finally, the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal. Overall, the manufacturing company’s actions were not seen as an offence and on top of that, the district judge found that a consumer who was willing to buy Israeli products would care less if they were to be produced in the Occupied Territory.

The Court of Appeal’s decision is likely to limit the future availability of the defense that the activity interrupted was unlawful. This would have a substantial impact on the course of future prosecutions of activists. Furthermore, judges would have to consider the ECHR when undergoing the dealings of this case.

A good example for students when contemplating the impact of protesters on companies; they are less able to claim as a defense that the company is operating illegally.

UK Supreme Court and Human Rights - Full Life Sentence

David Oakes and others v the Crown

By Sophie Nixon

Whole life sentence upheld by Appeal Court, overturning European decision.

What were the cases about?

In their ruling the Court of Appeal judges upheld the sentence of whole life imprisonment given to one killer, David Oakes. He tortured and shot his partner and their daughter inEssex, before attempting to turn the gun on himself.

But the court replaced the whole life tariff for three other serious offenders:

Danilo Restivo, who mutilated his neighbour in Bournemouth and was found guilty of another murder in Italy, was told he would receive a 40-year minimum term.

Two other rapists were given minimum terms to replace their whole life tariffs.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said it was highly unlikely any of the men could ever be released because of the danger they posed to society.

What was the judgement?

Lord Judge said that Parliament had clearly legislated to allow judges to hand down whole life sentences without the possibility of release - and that the European Court had already accepted it could not intervene.

The Lord Chief Justice and four judges said jail without the possibility of release should be "reserved for the few exceptionally serious offences". He said judges must be convinced those sentenced to whole life need to be held forever for punishment and retribution. The judgement effectively sends a signal to the Strasbourg judges that the courts in England and Wales are content that whole life tariffs are justified and that the power to jail someone forever should not be overturned.

What was the impact (if any)?

The Court of Appeal has upheld the principle of whole life sentences for the most dangerous of offenders, saying it does not breach human rights.

The power to imprison someone forever is reserved for offenders judged to be the most dangerous to society and currently applies to 46 people in jail. Other life term prisoners can be released on licence if they can prove they are no longer a risk to society.

One of the strongest arguments for the whole-life tariff is that even the serial killer at the centre of a landmark ruling, argued that he should die in jail for his crimes. Ian McLoughlin, who has killed on three separate occasions, told the court the family of his latest victim “deserves to know I will never be released”.

One of the strongest arguments against the whole-life tariff came in a disturbing letter a prisoner wrote a few months after he was sentenced to life.

"I am sitting in the segregation unit and have been for a number of weeks. I was involved in a stabbing (not fatal) on the wing. You see how I can admit in a letter to an offence as serious as that. It's because the judge when he sentenced me to natural life gave me an invisible licence that said that I can breach any laws I want, no matter how serious, and the law can't touch me. I'm above the law. I said to the governor, don't waste any money on investigations, just give me another life sentence for my collection. They don't mean anything any more."

Why is it important for a politics student to know?

There are two differing opinions as to whether the introduction a whole-life tariff goes against the European convention on Human Rights.

Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, heading a panel of five appeal judges, said whole-life tariffs were “entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights”. He added: “Judges should therefore continue as they have done to impose whole-life orders on the rare and exceptional cases which fall within the statutory scheme.”

However, British appeal judges have directly contradicted the European human rights court and backed “life means life” sentences for the most heinous murderers.

Also lawyers argue that it is an infringement of article three of the European convention on human rights, which gives protection against "inhuman and degrading treatment". That case was heard at the first chamber of the European court. After it was rejected, lawyers applied to the grand chamber, which granted a rare appeal. If the appeal succeeds, ministers would have to create a system of examining whole-life criminals at regular intervals to see if they are safe to let out. At the moment, the assumption is they will simply die in prison.