Scottish Independence - it's the economy, stupid

In brief, Mark Carney, the Chair of the Bank of England has gone to Scotland to discuss the economic and fiscal issues related to Scottish independence. The SNP would like to remain as part of a club of nations using the Pound as a currency.

The Economist weighs in.
Picture Credit: The Economist Magazine.

The BBC's Robert Peston has a blog post here discussing the problems that this raises; for those G and P students who don't study economics, the short version is that keeping the Pound would limit the benefits of independence for Scotland and also could prove very expensive and economically disastrous.

Quite how this plays in Scotland is uncertain (although a member of the History and Politics dept has his own ideas), but recent polls are showing that the "Yes" camp are gaining ground.

Update (12/2/14): George Osborne will be spelling out clearly that an independent Scotland will not be able to be part of a currency union. Somewhat predictably the SNP are attacking this and calling it "bullying".

Great for G and P students contemplating referendums, the structure of the UK and the power of parliament; as commentator Bill Jamieson says about the issue in the same article, this is probably an issue for the Westminster Parliament, not a Conservative Chancellor.

Apparently, according to Nick Robinson, all three major political parties are lining up to agree that an independent Scotland will not be able to share the pound. A Treasury review by officials is putting more analysis for us all to chew over.

Also - in referendums, people vote with their hearts rather than thinking hard-headedly about the economics of currency union and debt distribution.

Update: 18/2/14: Alex Salmond, the SNP leader and the European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso have both weighed in.

Salmond has interestingly dismissed the Westminster argument about the currency and said that the cost to the UK of a different currency would be £500 million in transaction costs.

Barroso's contribution is marginally complex but essentially hinges on the problem that other EU states with areas that want independence (Eg Spain) don't want the sight of newly independent countries being given rapid EU membership. This would cause all sorts of domestic issues for them. Barroso essentially said that joining would be "difficult". 

Quite where this leads the "Yes" campaign in the referendum is still to be seen. The Telegraph has a blog post which sees these events as fairly catastrophic for the Nationalists (albeit, this paper is very pro-Union)

State of the Union 2014

Just because I can, here is a video of some highlights from the State of the Union address 2014:



Essential viewing for any G and P student contemplating the power of the US president - especially as he approaches the Mid-terms and the final quarter of his presidency when he will be a "lame duck". The BBC's analysis can be found here.

The Washington Post analyses here, leading with the pledge that Obama will act, without Congress if necessary, to help alleviate inequality in the USA. G and P students should be aware of the methods the President would be likely to use - Executive Orders and directing the relevant departments.

Students should also not forget the Clinton-era description of these powers as "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool".

The threat by the President to go it alone without Congress is also a reflection on Congress' willingness to act. G and P students could also use this to help analyse whether Congress is effective.

The complete Address can be found below, courtesy of PBS and Youtube.

Lib Dem organisation - how effective can they be?

In brief, there is a current news story about Lib Dem Chief Executive Lord Rennard who was accused of sexually harassing women, a claim he denies. The Lib Dem leadership have suspended the party whip for the Lord (who helped them gain electoral success and power in Government) .

The details of the case are complex, as are the nature of the investigation that followed; further details can be found here.

What is more useful for G & P students is this blog post from Nick Robinson who probes the way that the Lib Dem party is run - it is very complex and this complexity has limited the leadership's ability to act:

The Lib Dem party organisation. Photo credit: BBC
Full size version here.

UKIP 2014 - becoming a laughing stock?

UKIP's popularity is analysed here in the Economist - essentially it has become the "protest" party of choice because the other political parties have become very similar. People are also upset because of the economic climate and the impact this has had on living conditions and jobs. In addition, UKIP is developing local support in a way not seen since the Lib Dems used the same tactic.

There is a similarity between the other populist parties of the right around Europe and UKIP, which admittedly is somewhat ironic. A good analysis of all the ins and outs can be found here, again in the Economist.

UKIP's progress from Pressure Group to an insurgent party trying to get votes in the next European election in May 2014 could be an essential ingredient in any G & P student's analysis of the power of small parties in Unit 1. However, the European elections are not the General election, and are not taken seriously by voters, which benefits fringe parties like UKIP. Also, the voting system will hold back UKIP from getting very many seats in Westminster (if any). Having said that, it is possible that they may get one or two seats if their local support is enough.

Recent UKIP-related news has made it seem a bit more of a laughing stock, although that may only be for the internet-savvy (UKIP-voters are less likely to be plugged into their electronic devices the way that younger voters are).

Firstly, a UKIP councillor said that recent wet weather can be blamed on God's reaction to Cameron's Gay Marriage policy, which got various reactions including from UKIP (which suspended him), a spoof Twitter account, and this very funny spoof weather-forecast:




Also the Daily Mash contributed the news story that "Married Gays to Tour Drought-hit Countries".

Although one can sneer at UKIP and its policies, former Prime Minister Harold MacMillan famously wrote to his Postmaster General (a Cabinet official in charge of telephones, wireless and TV) in 1962 to say that:

It is a good thing to be laughed at.

It is better than to be ignored.

House of Lords Rebellions

Just discovered this; a page on the UCL web-site which lists the number of defeats of the coalition in the House of Lords.

Prime Minister and Cabinet - Blair, Brown and Cameron

I have just come across this article on the London School of Economics web-site. Although it dates from May 2010 it nicely compares the way that Blair and Brown ran their cabinets (they developed a quasi-Department of the PM and increased their control over the cabinet.

An ornate cabinet worth £64000.
Picture Credit: BBC

The article does speculate about the way that the coalition's cabinet is run, and mentions the use of official mechanisms to co-ordinate policy between two parties ("the Quad"). It is similar in some ways to Blair's "sofa government" with policy being made informally between the PM and individual ministers, but in some ways it is more formal as it is an official grouping which has equal representation and influence for both parties.

Interesting to note that the Treasury has 2 seats in the meeting (Osbourne and Alexander) with the PM and the Deputy PM being the other half. There are no representatives from spending depts.

Analysis by the Guardian can be found here and here is a blog post by the Conservative Home web-site.

Essential reading for anyone contemplating the cabinet and Prime Ministerial power for Unit 2.

Marginal Constituencies in the UK

This article on the BBC web-site caught my eye; it is analysis of the effect marginal constituencies have on the behaviour of voters and on political parties.

Cooee! Major politicians go campaigning in marginals.
Picture credit: BBC.

In short, marginals decide elections. Political parties target those constituencies which are most crucial, and don't bother in seats that are safe. If the seat is safe for the other side any money spent is wasted. If the seat is safe for your party, why spend the money unnecessarily?

You can tell a seat is marginal if major politicians come calling asking for your vote.

The 2015 election is likely to be very tight and so seats like Luton south will probably see large amounts of money spent there by the parties; in 2010 parties spent £3.07 per vote (or a total of almost £130,000 between 12 parties).

The article mentions a report by the Centre for policy studies which suggested that 85% of seats are either marginal or have a good chance of their MP changing at the next election. Incidentally the report is also about voting reform, or as the title of the report has it "The evaporating case for electoral reform".

Great for G & P students contemplating the nature of elections and the importance of marginal constituencies. In addition, the idea that so many constituencies are marginal does suggest that the current electoral system is working and doesn't lead to democratic inertia. G & P students could usefully tie this to the fact that even under FPTP there is a coalition government rather than simply a single-party government.