Life under AV?

A quick post - I've just come across a BBC news page which discusses what the political landscape might be like had the UK said "Yes" to AV in 2011.

Although in the 2010 election the Conservatives and Labour would have lost out and the Lib Dems would have gained 32. According to Lord Ashcroft it's possible that the 2015 polling data would show a Conservative victory.

Great stuff!

The Leaders' debate, the electoral system, and the party system.

I'm not sure it tells us anything about the result, but the Leaders' debates served to show that the UK is really a multi-party system. Somewhat predictably, comments by Nigel Farage were later criticised. Snap polls after the debate show that the result is still close:

Picture Credit: BBC

Picture credit: Conservatives / The Guardian

Perhaps most crucially 3 of these "minor" parties are now led by women.

In addition, it is no longer a 3-way battle for influence, the debate showed us that in the UK there are many parties which are claiming with some truthfulness that they represent a large portion of the population. As a result, the FPTP system is arguably now inadequate to the task of electing a stable government which can run Britain.

The likelihood of a major portion of the population feeling disenfranchised and left out is a real risk (imagine the effect on England of an SNP-Labour alliance in Westminster for instance). The Economist has a piece here which analyses the debate and reflects on the influence of the SNP.

SNP reply to Conservative poster. Credit: SNP / Herald Scotland

Analysis about the debate can be found here from the BBC, here from the Independent (which notes that the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon increased her support as a direct result of the debate), and the body-language is analysed here in the Guardian.

The Spectator analyses Cameron's prospects here (he did OK and didn't lose as badly as Miliband).

The Economist has a piece here about what the prospects are for Britain in the future (the TLDR summary is "not great").

For a bit of light relief, have a look at Buzzfeed's collection of the best jokes (eg. comparing the debate to a bad edition of "Take Me Out").

The whole thing can be watched here:



Or highlights can be found here:

Federalism and Indiana's law Religious Freedom - Gay rights

Indiana recently passed SB 101, or the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", which allows individuals in Indiana to avoid civil rights legislation if they think that their own religious freedom is being "burdened". It has become controversial because it was passed by a Republican-dominated State Congress and has been seen by some, including the head of Apple, Tim Cook, as discriminatory against members of the LGBT community. Stopping discrimination against minority groups is one of the corner stones of Civil Rights legislation.

This is against the background of gay marriage being allowed (or at least not found to be unconstitutional) in the Supreme Court with US v Windsor in 2013, the Hobby Lobby decision of 2014 which allowed corporations to believe in God in order to avoid civil rights laws they don't like, and the rise in the Tea-Party wing of the Republican Party over recent years. 

Republican policy and the problem that this law in Indiana gives to the prospective Republican candidates is examined here in Rolling Stone Magazine (headline in a very aserbic piece: "GOP to LGBT, 'OMG you're still here?' ").

Both the Hobby Lobby case and US v Windsor should be on the list of cases any G and P student discusses in any essay on the Supreme Court and whether it is activist / conservative / liberal. 

The Indiana case is useful because it highlights the different traditions of states in a federal system, and also the policies of the Republican Party (good for Unit 3C). Good analysis here about the law in the Washington Post. There is clearly a clash here between Federal law and State law - one of the jobs the Supreme Court does is to referee arguments about such issues.

The Onion has a great headline which suggests the fix the law has caused for Republicans: "Indiana Governor Insists New Law Has Nothing To Do With Thing It Explicitly Intended To Do".

Presidential Foreign Policy - Obama and Iran

President Obama's recent negotiations with Iran and the rest of the "P5+1" (US, UK, France, Germany, China and Russia) have come up with a "historic" agreement to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb. 

Certainly a good example to use when discussing the power of the president and foreign policy; however, there is still much work to be done and this is not actually an agreement as such. It is an agreement to continue working towards an agreement.

Of more use for any G and P student working towards Unit 4C is the idea that Congress can scupper the deal; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress essentially went over the head of the President and was an appeal to Congress (or more specifically the Republican-dominated Congress) not to allow Obama to leave Israel weakened.

Republican Speaker Boehner & Israeli PM Netanyahu.
Picture Credit: BBC

As a result, the President is likely to find it hard to get any Iran deal through Congress - although there may be technical ways of avoiding or limiting the Republican Party's power, the Senate has the power of "advice and consent" over treaties negotiated by the President.

Further analysis by the NY Times here, Netanyahu's comments about the agreement here, and the BBC analyses the power of Congress here.

Great stuff for any G and P student contemplating Presidential power over foreign policy.