2013 in review - UK

Try this from the BBC about the Conservatives, and this about the Lib Dems, and this about the Labour Party. Also here is the Independent's take.

There was an interesting analysis about the Conservative / UKIP problem in the Guardian - should Cameron ignore them or pander to them?

The BBC has a review of the year in politics here.

2013 - Review of the Year - USA

Try this from Andrew Sullivan at the Dish - Gay Marriage, Affordable Care Act (ACA - Obamacare), and the prospects for the two main parties.

House of Lords reform & Immigration policy

The House of Lords. Photo Credit: BBC News 

In brief, before the mince pies take their toll, there has been a bit of a storm about the House of Lords and expenses.

In this piece by the BBC, Lord Hanningfield a former Conservative peer claims that peers regularly "clock in" to claim their expenses. The article explains the problem well; Lords can't get paid a regular wage and not all the work that they do is in the chamber of the House. Living and working in London is expensive and so expenses are paid (for food and rent etc). The way the system works at the moment is that peers have to be in the chamber for a certain amount of time to claim their expenses for the day.

It does allow journalists (or its critics) to claim that they only are in the House working for a brief period.

Photo credit: BBC News.

Useful for G & P students contemplating the reform of the Lords or Parliament as a whole for Paper 2.

In other news, there has been continuous rumbling about immigration, especially from the Conservatives. In this piece on the BBC web-site, Lib Dem minister Vince Cable says that the Tory policy on immigration (especially East Europeans coming here thanks to the EU) is driven by fear of UKIP.

The current fear is that immigrants to this country are taking advantage of the generous benefits system when they get here rather than working.

This piece in the Guardian from November indicates that despite the current political panic and the media coverage, fewer than 6% of EU migrants to the UK claim out-of work benefit in their first six months.

The piece also contrasts the current Conservative leadership's policy on immigration and expansion of Europe (allowing a free-flow of workers across international borders) with the pro-European policies of John Major.

Great for anyone contemplating the policies of political parties, and the impact of minor parties (like UKIP or possibly even the Lib Dems) in Unit 1.

NFU & Wild-life groups - Pressure groups UK

A field.
Photo Credit: BBC

In brief, in the news today there was an argument about government policy about the allocation of European money between the opposing pressure groups; the NFU and various wild-life groups.

Essentially it seems that the NFU have been listened to more than the wild-life groups who wanted more of farmers' money to go to management of birds and other fauna.

Great for any G & P student wanting to find some examples of Pressure Groups and their influence on Government policy.

Pressure Groups USA - Tech companies

The White House.
Photo Credit: Tom Lohdan / Ars Technica

In brief, as a follow on an earlier post I made back in August about the revelations by Edward Snowden about the NSA spying on US citizens and foreigners with little oversight, I came across this nugget of useful information.

According to Ars Technica and the Washington Post had a meeting this week at the White House in which they "discussed" the revelations about the NSA. The exact details of the hacking by the NSA I don't think are especially relevant to G & P students (although they are interesting and quite extraordiary).

More pertinent is the idea that major companies are operating as pressure groups to change the way the executive operates. A great example for G & P students contemplating Pressure groups in Unit 3C. It is also a great example if anyone is contemplating the power of the president (the NSA's activities started in 2006 under Bush Jr).

In a low federal court (crucially not the Supreme Court, so this statement is not binding), a judge has said that some of the NSA's activities are "unconstitutional". The Federal Government is going to appeal. This is one of a number of cases to be brought to trial by various parties, including the ACLU outraged by the Federal Government's activities. One can imagine this ending up at the Supreme Court in due course.

There is an issue whether this government agency was acting under the supervision of the President or whether it was not. This is a judgement which I will leave to others.

New political alignments in the UK? The death of Party politics as we know it... Jim.

A "fantasy Westminster", with a 1904 proposed design
for an Imperial Hall. Photo credit: NGCA 

I've just come across a fascinating piece in the Economist by the Bagehot columnist about the nature of party politics in the UK; very useful for any G & P student contemplating the nature of the UK's political parties, factions in parties and participation in politics. 

In essence, the piece describes the current three main political parties as "crumbling". It refers to the changing political alignment of society; party politics as we know it today does not represent the different parts of society.

For example, there is a segment of the working class who have some sympathy with policies from both Conservative and Labour:

 But such voters transcend the right/left and big-state/small-state divide. They dislike out-of-work welfare and are socially conservative, but approve of interventionist, and potentially expensive, industrial and housing policies, so are by no means "economically conservative". They could potentially join a coalition on the left, or one on the right.

In turn the piece critiques work by Conservative blogger Tim Montgomerie in the Times (paywall) who suggested some new alignments.

All of which may suggest yet another reason why participation in party politics is declining - the parties as they exist today are unable to represent the different views of society effectively.

An earlier piece by the same blogger in the Economist, drawing on the experience of Europe, suggested these new parties, and I think it is worth quoting in full:

Christian Democrats (c.30% support)

• Core agenda: Pro-business, institutional conservatism, support for families
• Voters: Middle- and upper-classes in suburban and rural areas
• Would draw on: Conservatives, Lib Dems
• Foreign corollaries: CDU (Germany), Moderates (Sweden)
• Possible leaders: David Cameron, Ken Clarke, Jesse Norman

Social Democratic Party (c.30% support)

• Core agenda: Progressive taxation, industrial activism, vocational training
• Voters: Working- and middle-classes in urban and suburban areas
• Would draw on: Labour, Lib Dems
• Foreign corollaries: SPD (Germany), Social Democrats (Sweden), NDP (Canada)
• Possible leaders: Ed Miliband, Andrew Adonis, Vince Cable

Free Liberals (c.15% support)

• Core agenda: Cutting taxes, pro-immigration, social liberalism
• Voters: Younger, urban, middle- and upper-class voters
• Would draw on: Lib Dems, Conservatives, Labour
• Foreign corollaries: FDP (Germany), VVD (Netherlands)
• Possible leaders: George Osborne, Nick Clegg, Peter Mandelson

People's Party (c.15% support)

•  Core agenda: Living costs, curbing immigration, social conservatism
• Voters: Older working- and lower-middle-class voters in post-industrial areas
• Would draw on: Labour, Conservatives, UKIP
• Foreign corollaries: Die Linke (Germany), Socialist People's Party (Denmark)
• Possible leaders: Jon Cruddas, Robert Halfon

National Party (c.10% support)

• Core agenda: Socially conservative, small-state, anti-immigration
• Voters: Older middle-class and upper-class voters
• Would draw on: Conservative Party, UKIP
• Foreign corollaries: True Finns (Finland), Lega Nord (Italy)
• Possible leaders: Nigel Farage, Liam Fox 

 

The End of the Filibuster in the Senate? by Charles Ashie

On Thursday 21st of November, there was a historic change in the Senate that in turn, will alter centuries of precedent. In the past, when a bill has got to the Second Reading, there is the opportunity for the opposition of the bill (normally the minority party) to essentially "talk a bill to death" 

This is called a filibuster. It can be done by an individual senator or a group of senators and they are not allowed to go to the toilet, or even sit down. 

 Filibuster topics have ranged from reading out extracts from the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or even Green eggs & Ham by Dr Seuss. One may think that it is an impossible feat but the record for an individual senator goes to Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. 

A procedure known as cloture is necessary for a filibuster to be ended. This did require a super majority vote (60 votes, three-fifths of the Senate) as well as a signature from 16 senators. 

Filibusters and cloture motions in the Senate since 1919.
Picture Credit: Washington Post

 However as of last Thursday the Senate voted, in a 52 to 48 vote, to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of certain executive and judicial nominees, not including Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required.

This is significant because it now allows President Obama to get Senate approval for a large number of executive appointments; numerous senior federal judges have not been appointed for example.

Useful for any G&P student contemplating the power of Congress and the Senate in particular. The power of the President is also an issue related to this too. Republicans were seemingly against any Obama appointment, so they stopped all of them. 

However as the Washington Post says here, the reforms mean that "Senate Republicans retain the power to slow, though not derail, Obama’s appointments". 

In addition to the links above, there is a long Huffington Post about it all here, and a blog post from the Washington Post also discusses it here.

Partisan Politics in the US Congress

In brief, the Economist this week had a great graph in the print edition that showed the partisanship of Congress in an extraordinary way:


 Picture: Renzo Lucioni, Imgur.com 

A Harvard Computer science student created a graph that shows the relationships between members of the Senate, indicating who is more bi-partisan, and who is not. Each dot is a member of the Senate, and the lines indicates a similarity between them and other members of the Senate.

Rather like a single cell dividing in biology, it is very clear over time that the two parties are separating, with fewer members of the Senate "crossing the floor" to cooperate with their opponents.

Compare the Senate voting behaviour of 1989 and 2013. Very useful for any G&P student contemplating the nature of Congress for Unit 4C, and whether it is effective or not. Is a Senate whose members do not cooperate with eachother, but instead behave as though they were in a parliamentary system, what the Founding Fathers wanted?

The Economist posted a video which discusses it:

Universal Credit Reform - Conservative Party policy

By Will Candy, L6

A complex reform, but a useful example for G & P students, of Parliamentary Committees and their influence.

What is it?

Universal Credit is a new welfare benefit in the United Kingdom that will replace six of the main means-tested benefits and tax credits. The Government plans to introduce the Universal Credit over the period 2013 to 2017.

The Universal Credit was introduced by Iain Duncan Smith and announced at the conference of the Conservative Party in 2010.The coalition aimed to implement it fully over four years and two parliaments, intending to cut costs.

Unlike some existing benefits, such as Income Support, that have a 100% withdrawal rate, the Universal Credit will be gradually tapered away, like tax credits and Housing Benefit so that, in theory, people can take a part-time job and still be allowed to keep most of the money they receive.

How has the Media taken to it?

In practice, however, large scale criticism from the mainstream media, including Conservative-leaning press, has pointed out that part-time work will no longer pay, and people will be better off refusing it. The new system will also ensure that self-employment is no longer a viable option for vast swathes of the population due to the "Minimum Income Floor" provision.

The scheme Being Delayed

The whole scheme was due to begin nationally in October 2013 for new claimants (but again, excluding more complex cases such as families with children), with a gradual transition to be complete by 2017. However, there is actually no chance of it proceeding according to that schedule. One tester of the system in April 2013 noted that the online forms took around 45 minutes to complete, and that there was no save function.

This is the Telegraph's take on the delay.

Criticism

Professor John Seddon started a campaign for an alternative way to deliver Universal Credit on 24 January 2011 after speaking at a conference alongside a representative from the DWP.

John Seddon makes the case that you can't deliver high-variety services through 'cheaper' transaction channels.

He argues that instead this will drive the costs up. John Seddon wrote an open letter to Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Freud as the start of a campaign to call a halt to the current plans and, instead, to embark on a better (systems) approach.

The Labour Party has also criticised the reform, as has former Prime Minister John Major, who described Ian Duncan Smith this way:

Unless Iain Duncan Smith is very lucky, which he may not be, or a genius, which is unproven, he may get some of it wrong.

Perhaps most importantly, the National Audit Office, a parliamentary body independent of government and which ultimately reports the influencial Public Accounts Committee, criticised the Universal Credit Reform as explained here, and a different account of the same thing can be found here. This YouTube video suggests that Ian Duncan Smith has lost all control over the reforms:

Plebgate - the Police, the Minister and Commons Committees

By Vincent Chow, L6

In early September 2012, Andrew Mitchell, a Tory MP was appointed Conservative Chief Whip in the House of Commons. His political career was reaching new heights: he was now part of the Cabinet, as was widely regarded as a prominent figure of the Conservative Party as well as UK Politics as a whole.

However, he resigned from his cabinet position a month later.

Why?

Well, according to Metropolitan police incident logs, Mitchell had apparently verbally abused three police officers at the gate of Downing Street after they had told him to use the pedestrian gate instead of the main gate to leave.

One can imagine the media frenzy that followed. The Sun demanded an immediate resignation, labelling Mitchell a “millionaire minister with no respect for police officers”. Calls for his resignation came from all corners of society. Despite his vehement denials, especially that he did not use the word “pleb”, Mitchell succumbed to the immense pressure put on him and resigned.

But in December, CCTV footage emerged of the incident. The footage seemed to call into question all accounts of what happened that night, especially the police’s.

Mitchell seemed to be justified. The Metropolitan Police immediately began an investigation into the matter, named Operation Alice.

However, the resultant report was non-conclusive and did not accuse the police officers of lying. Accusations of senior police interference in the investigation as well as a police cover up of the truth were being thrown around.

The Commons Home Affairs Committee interrogated the three involved police officers, where they stood by their account of events. Last week, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), announced that they would hold a new inquiry into the matter. It’s been over a year since that September night and yet no one has been vindicated.

As the investigation is still ongoing, I can’t criticise Mitchell or blame the police. However, I can’t help but think about what the repercussions are if the IPCC report does conclude that the police were lying and that they were framing a Cabinet member.

Trust in the police has not been especially high in recent times. Many social commentators have noted that the relationship between the police and the public has deteriorated massively. The recently confirmed Hillsborough cover-up; the 20th anniversary of Stephen Lawrence’s death; the revelation that the police are leaking information to the media; the integrity of the police and the authorities seems to be what’s at stake here.

If the IPCC delivers a guilty verdict for the police, there will undoubtedly be resignations and dismissals. But more significantly, public trust in the police and the authorities will decline to a new low, increasing tensions between the public and the police, rendering future enforcement more difficult.  

This is useful for G & P students contemplating the power of Parliamentary Committees. Although the details of the case continue to get murky, it is striking that a member of the Police recently apologised to a House of Commons Committee for not telling the whole truth in a previous encounter. Parliamentary Committees have very little power, except the power to publicise an issue. In this case, the apology was accepted.

The Wikipedia article about Plebgate can be found here.

Prisoners and Voting Reform

By Alexandra White Meek, L6

For the last decade, there has been an on-going debate as to whether prisoners should have the right to vote, because they have had their liberty taken away from them. Since the 19^th century, the UK has said that prisoners have been confined for a reason, and therefore they shouldn’t have a say in the running of the country. Despite the European Court saying that this practice was unlawful in 2004, the UK Parliament has made no move on changing this policy. More recently, changes have been considered. In February 2011 in the House of Commons, a back-bench debate took place, and the MPs continued to support Jack Straw in his attempt to reject the proposed motion.

In April 2011, the European Court stated that it would give the UK 6 months in order to introduce legislative proposals. Later that year in September, the UK Parliament requested an extension on this deadline, in order to review the case.

Director of the Prison Reform Trust, Juliet Lyon,has said: “People are sent to prison to lose their liberty nottheir identity. The UK’s out-dated ban on sentenced prisoners voting, based on the 19th century concept of civic death, has no place in a modern democracy and is legally and morally unsustainable. Experienced prison governors and officials, past and present bishops to prisons and chief inspectors, electoral commissioners, legal and constitutional experts and most other European governments believe people in prison should be able to exercise their civic responsibility. The European Court has made clear in today’s judgement the UK’s legal obligations to overturn the blanket ban.”

More recently, two prisoners, one having committed murder, applied to be able to vote in the EU election, however were denied this privilege, and were told that they would not gain this until the law was changed or they were released. One of them, Peter Chester, having served his minimum sentence, was reviewed by the Parole Board, but was put back into prison due to him apparently being too dangerous. Therefore, many believe that this is a positive move by the government, because some would say that people such as Chester should not be able to vote. The PM, David Cameron stated to the Commons that this ruling was, “a great victory for common sense.”

This case and the debate is useful for AS students contemplating Human Rights and the implications of a codified UK Constitution in Unit 2. The nature of the UK's relationship with the EU, or rather the European Court of Human Rights which is different to EU itself is also an issue here.

Cameron and the EU In-Out referendum

By Emma Dickinson, L6

Membership of the European Union has always been a much debated and controversial topic, within the UK, with both supporters and Eurosceptics carrying entirely different views on the matter.

Picture Credit: unlockdemocracy.org.uk/

David Cameron, since becoming Prime Minister in the 2010 General Election has become increasingly aware of the public's divided opinion on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union, or whether it should stop its involvement. As a result, Cameron has proposed that, should the Conservative party be voted into office again, (but with a single majority instead of a coalition), in 2015, then an EU referendum will take place.

This could potentially be seen as a "bribe" to the middle ground swing voters (such as UKIP or the Liberal Democrats) to offer them something which no other mainstream party is offering. Is Cameron, in effect, trying to buy votes?

Whether there is a referendum or not, economically, there is absolutely no way that the UK can afford to leave the EU (as the amount of loss in exports to Europe has been estimated to be massive, and at a time where the UK economy is only just starting to recover from a recession, this is, realistically, the last thing that is needed). If we consider the consequences for a political leader who is navigating through a fragile economic recovery and who then agrees to cut off a huge source of exports for the country. Then this might be seen as "political suicide".

Picture Credit: ONS

As a leader, David Cameron's legacy, as it stands, only shows him being a coalition Prime Minister but he would ideally, (as would any aspiring PM), like to be the Prime Minister with a large, single party, majority. The concerning question is how Cameron can possibly achieve this, whilst coming out of a fragile economic situation, where the political opinion is very wide spread. Cameron is clearly looking for a majority in Parliament in the 2015 election, and it could be suggested that an effective way to persuade some of the electorate to give him their vote is to offer an EU Referendum.

Cameron promises a referendum in this video:



The counter argument to this may concern the reasons why the UK still wants to be linked to an industrial zone which is financially broken and in significant need of (both banking and political) reform. By being associated with it, might the UK be dragged down? Politically, in the UK, people are getting irritated with continuously being "told" by European Legislators what they can and can't do. For example, the retirement age always used to be the normal state retirement age, be that 63, 65 or 67. However, under European Legislation  there is no retirement age (although countries are free to set their own retirement ages). Therefore, an employer will potentially have to continue employing someone forever. Clearly, the idea behind the EU legislation is to provide employment with people of an older age (which is understandable, as we are all living longer) but from an employer's point of view, how is it fair is this?

Ultimately, the debate continues over this matter, but change may be around the just corner...only the 2015 General Election will tell.

Human Rights and Terrorism in the UK - Miranda Rights

By Jamie Barr, L6

David Miranda is accused of being terrorist. He is the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who has covered many stories based on leaks by US whistleblower Edward Snowden. On the 18^th of August Miranda was stopped in Heathrow, while changing planes from Berlin to Rio De Janeiro, and detained for up nine hours under the law 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The reason for him being detained was because it was believed he was carrying secret documents. Further, controversy was caused because he was detained for the full nine hours compared to the usual of less then seven hours. His lawyers are arguing his detention of the maximumperiod allowed was a misuse of schedule seven and breached his humanrights. In response the case is being taken to the high court.

Former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, who was involved in inducing the act, said the powers were intended to be used against individuals who are or might be terrorists.

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 this new found information he has written several stories about surveillance by US and UK authorities.

An ITN report about the issue here:

Reporters interviewed both Greenwald and Miranda about being detained. Greenwald said the authorities “spent the entire day asking about the reporting I was doing and other Guardian journalist were doing on the NSA stories”, while Miranda said he was questioned about his “whole life”. Greenwald has accused the authorities of “bullying” and the intent of the situation was simply to “intimidate”. The Guardian and several senior UK politicians and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, have demanded a full explanation and believe also it was unnecessary and a breach of human rights. In response to the situation the home secretary Theresa May said it was right for the authorities to act if they believe someone has “highly sensitive stolen information”.

In, conclusion I personally believe that he should have been detained as if a person presents a risk of terrorism then it should be acted on immediately. However, I question the use of the full nine hours as he was only carrying journalistic material and surely that would have been discovered much sooner. Therefore, the breaching of David Miranda’s human rights does come into question.

This case is very helpful to a politics student as it provides proof that we should have a constitution, as it would set out basic human rights. This case can therefore be used as an example in a constitutional based essay that is arguing for a constitution as in this case David Miranda’s rights were tested.

[Editor's Note: You'll find a Q & A from the BBC here]

Participation in the UK - Paxman and Brand

By Tom Baker, L6

Who knew that Jeremy Dickson Paxman, an English journalist, broadcaster and author would have something in common with the overly exaggerated English comedian, actor, radio host, and author Russell Edward Brand.

Both these men do not vote in our elections. This is due to Brand believing our political and voting system is not democratic enough, and Paxman stating that “the choice was so unappetising” in the last election, so just did not vote. Despite this, Paxman told Brand in a recent interview (see video below) “If you can’t be arsed to vote, why should we be arsed to listen to your political point of view?” which may be true, but in my view it is very hypocritical.

Picture Credit: http://markwadsworth.blogspot.co.uk,
using data from http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

However, putting their statements and argument behind, what will their absence in voting cause to our participation in politics? It is well known that political participation is not high within the UK; it is in fact on average decreasing through the years. This is shown through the last few elections, in 1997 around 71.4% of the population voted. However, recently in the 2010 election only 65.1% of the population voted. This shows there has been a substantial decrease in the amount of voters within 13 years; evidently a serious problem if it keeps continuing to decrease.


It makes you wonder, if popular and famous figures, like Russell Brand, are not voting it could influence the upcoming younger generation not to vote which therefore may create a further decrease in political participation. Furthermore, if people like Jeremy Paxman, a man who understands politics well and who is well known for interviewing politicians harshly, do not vote it could swing people’s views on voting, due to people believing he knows best. This could then cause a further decrease in political participation and in a serious case cause a death to politics as we know it!

[Editor's note: See an interesting article here in the Guardian about the issue]