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