Party politics - Labour party in-fighting, and Conservative policies

The Economist's take on the 2015 budget:
"Politically astute, economically flawed".
Picture Credit; Economist

The recent Conservative budget (the first Blue budget since 1996) was interesting mainly because it took inspiration from various Labour Party policies ("a living wage") while still sticking to traditional Conservative policies. Main details here, and analysis from the Economist's leader here. There is much to applaud, and also to critique.

However, more interesting is its impact on Labour.

The current Labour leadership battle is fascinating because (apart from anything else) it is a look at the various factions in the Labour Party.

Clearly for G and P students taking Units 1 and 2 in Summer 2016 it'll probably be useful background. By the time the exam takes place there will be a leader in place and there shall be the outline of Labour policy; essential for the "Party Politics" topic of Unit 1.

Despite winning 3 elections and being the most successful Labour leader ever, Tony Blair is despised by some in Labour circles for, principally at least, the Iraq war. His intervention in the Labour Leadership election became controversial, because he warns against Labour "turning left" - in other words becoming "Old Labour" rather than "New Labour".

Which brings us onto the leadership candidates. Details of them can be found here on the Wikipedia page - for our purposes at the moment there is the left-leaning Jeremy Corbyn and the Blairite Liz Kendall, plus Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper who were part of the previous Labour regime. Stephen Daisley on STV has a great comparison of the different candidates here; most importantly he highlights quite how vicious and unpleasant it has become. For some left-wingers, Liz Kendall is not "Labour" enough and should be a Tory.

At time of writing Corbyn is in the lead prompting Blair's intervention. The battle seems to be between people who want to win elections by formulating policies which the public will vote for, and those who want to remain ideologically "pure".Typical of the genre is this rather unstructured tirade by Bryan Gould in the Guardian:

I have watched in disbelief as Labour leaders have sought to explain their unwillingness to stand firm and fight for what they supposedly believe. We are told that the voters’ support for further victimising those who have been left to pay the price of a recession for which they have no responsibility means that there is nothing further to be done.
“We can’t fight the electorate” is the siren call. But how are the voters likely to view a party that so manifestly lacks the courage of its convictions? Will they not conclude that Labour is fatally short of both courage and convictions?

By contrast here is fascinating analysis from Stephen Daisley; "it's not enough to be right, in politics you have to win too".

One of Daisley's important points is that Labour in the future not only has to win support from voters in England, but also has to win back support in Scotland - the SNP is doing very well and it will be a long battle to get Scotland back. This is a topic for another day:

2015 Scottish General election result compared to 2010.
Picture credit; BBC.

US Supreme Court & US race-relations

Props to AJB for this; a summary by the BBC of the US Supreme Court as they gear up for the end of term with decisions on Gay Marriage and possibly others.

US Supreme Court, with added zing. Picture Credit: BBC

A recent decision about patent law in relation to a "Spider-Man" toy is mainly useful for G and P students because Justice Kagan wrote that the legal decision whether or not to overturn precedent is set at a high bar; that the court does not overturn precedent "lightly". It may be argued that with this in mind the court is less likely to be "activist" in creation of rights or the overturning of past decisions.

Elsewhere, the tragic shooting of 9 people in Charleston, South Carolina, (a BBC news report can be found here) underlines for G and P students contemplating Unit 3C that race is still a major issue in US society and government. President Obama's recent comments about the event, including use of the "N" word in an interview, highlight that for him at least there is a long way to go to erase the legacy of slavery despite the long fight for civil rights.

UPDATE: The Supreme Court has supported Obama care against its opponents' objections in the case of King v Burwell (2015). Interestingly this was decided 6-3 with Roberts siding with the "Liberal wing" of the court. The BBC's report is here, and the Guardian's is here.

Abortion in the USA

Rolling Stone Magazine highlights a Texas court ruling which will have the effect of closing almost all the abortion clinics in the state. Separately, they have a longer profile of the conservative activists and campaign groups who are influencing Republican-controlled states to pass laws which make it harder for women to have an abortion.

Strikingly, and tragically, in a state of 27 million people there are fewer than 25 clinics and this number is likely to fall. There will undoubtedly be unforeseen consequences of this.

A former abortion clinic in Texas. Picture Credit: Rolling Stone

For G and P students thinking about Unit 3C or Unit 4C this is a fascinating topic which links issues like the policies of the Democrats and Republican parties with Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v Wade or Citizens United. In addition, the power of the individual states to pass laws which contradict federal law or undermine Supreme Court rulings.

2015 election - the most unfair ever?

Sadly this came out too late to be of use to the Unit 1 paper taken this morning, but perhaps would be useful in future. The Electoral Reform Society has published research explaining how the 2015 election was the most "disproportionate in history". The BBC has a report about it here, and includes a set of graphs comparing the result of 2015 and then the same if run under a different voting system. To illustrate using List PR:

The 2015 election as run, and under a "List PR" system. 

Great stuff for anyone contemplating electoral reform in Unit 1. Props to AJB for the tip.

UK election - party policies

In brief - the BBC has a great summary of the main party policies, helpfully organised by theme. A great place to start for any student of Unit 1 considering the different policies of political parties.

Ed, Dave and Nick.
Picture credit - BBC

Protestors in Baltimore.
Picture Credit - Guardian / AP

The recent death of a man in police custody sparked riots in the US city of Baltimore. The exact circumstances of Freddie Grey's death are still to be determined.

This is under a month after the death was reported of Walter Scott who was shot in the back 8 times by police in South Carolina in early April.

However it is a useful reminder for G and P students of Unit 3C that there are still numerous racial problems in the US, despite the progress that has been made since the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Gay Marriage in USA

Protestors outside the Supreme Court.
Picture credit: Huffington Post 

The case Obergefell v Hodges was heard by the US Supreme Court earlier this week. This is the case asking the Court to force States to recognise the marriage of gay couples on other states. The couple in question (James Obergefell and John Arthur) went to court to get Ohio to recognise the marriage that took place in Maryland in 2013. John Arthur was terminally ill, and Obergefell wanted the state to recognise him as the spouce and beneficiary of Arthur's estate.

The Economist has a leader here about it - which explains the argument in favour (and also explains the argument againist). There is also an article about  the impact of the current situation, where marriage is legal in one state and not in another (pretty horrendous).

Of interest to G and P students in Unit 4C is the analysis that although it is likely to be an activist decision with Roberts and Kennedy in favour of Obergefell this unlikely to be as controversial as Roe v Wade:

Firstly Americans are increasingly in favour:

Picture Credit: The Economist

Also, to quote the leader:

the court ruled in Roe v Wade that it should be legal everywhere, citing a right to privacy that is nowhere mentioned in the constitution. This newspaper favours legal abortion, but in Roe the justices invented the law rather than interpreting it, substituting their preferences for those of voters.

The main argument against seems to be that the allowing of gay marriage across America should be left up to elected representatives to pass a law. The counter to that is that if it is not acceptable to practice discrimination of a, say, racist or sexist type under the constitution, it should also not be acceptable to discriminate against gays.

There is a great timeline in the LA times of the change in attitude of the USA to gay marriage here:

A timeline of the USA's support for gay marriage.
Picture Credit: LA Times

The decision is likely to be revealed in June.

Update July 2015: I forgot to update this in the light of the US Supreme Court decision in June, but worthwhile to record here the momentous decision by the Court that prevents Gay Marriage from being banned in States.  The court voted 5-4 with Kennedy siding with the liberal justices.

Wikipedia's page about the case, Obergefell v Hodges can be found here. The Scotus blog's summary can be found here.

The Atlantic tries to put this all into context here with a summary of the long battle for gay rights.

The White House celebrates the US Supreme Court decision.
Picture credit; CNN

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.

The US Constitution - does it still work and is it relevant?

The US constitution. Picture Credit: Time Magazine

While contemplating returning to the topic of the US Constitution with the U6th I came across this article in Time Magazine from 2011 about the US Constitution. Most usefully for G and P students doing Unit 4C it discusses whether it is still relevant and useful today. This is a key theme which is likely to come up on the Summer exam.

An essential read for anyone doing US politics (even if it is 4 years old)!

Independent MPs and Pressure Groups

In brief, BBC news has a profile of the most successful independent MP of recent years; a doctor who in 2001 stood for a single policy, to save his local hospital in Kidderminster. Dr Richard Taylor won again in 2005 but lost in 2010. He is now standing again as leader of the National Health Action Party.

Dr Richard Taylor. Picture Credit: BBC News

Good for any G and P student contemplating independent MPs and also wondering about the difference between political parties and pressure groups. The NHA certainly has a narrow focus, but does blur the lines between a party and a pressure group.

Conservative Party and devolution. Labour and tuition fees

Two headline-grabbing political policies from the two main parties:

Conservatives

Cameron promises to give the Welsh Assembly more powers, including being able to call itself a Parliament and being able to raise its own income tax. Interesting for G and P students in unit 1 considering how Cameron has changed the Conservative party since the days of Thatcherite concentration of power in Westminster.

Labour

Miliband promises to lower tuition fees for University students to £6k from its current £9k. Again - interesting to consider how this fits into the narrative about the Labour party and its move away from / back towards more left-leaning policies.

The BBC's Robert Peston analyses the fiscal implications of all of this here.

Republican Conservatism according to Rolling Stone

I've just come across this piece from Rolling Stone Magazine which explains an aspect of modern tea-party-inspired Republicanism:

The entire narrative of modern conservative politics casts the United States as a fast-disappearing Eden of freedom and democracy that's under siege both here and abroad, surrounded by a constellation of enemies united (for some never-fully-explained reason) in their passionate hatred for the simple, God-fearing, freedom-loving American.

While this rock'n'roll magazine is by design fairly liberal, it is certainly food for thought for anyone contemplating the nature of Republicanism (although for my money I don't think that quoting Fox News and saying that it can be very anti-liberal is especially surprising).

Protests in the snow against a pipeline. Picture credit - BBC

Elsewhere, the President has done his third veto about the "Keystone" pipeline between Canada and USA - essentially to make the point that only the President can make international agreements and not Republicans in Congress.

Embedded is a great video explaining why the pipeline is so controversial: