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.