Contributors

Showing posts with label independents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label independents. Show all posts

Saturday, 7 March 2015

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.

Thursday, 15 July 2010

Obama's popularity, Immigration and the Supreme Court

Surprising for casual observers of US politics is the news that President Obama's approval has fallen to a very low level, which is surely worrying for his administration as they come closer to the mid-terms in November (rating graph courtesy of Gallop):


It is in stark contrast to Obama's success at getting health-care reform bills through Congress earlier in the year, and his success at passing reform of the US banking system.

I think another graph from Gallop is instructive here:


While support from Republicans has remained low, his support among independents has fallen, as has his support among Democrat supporters. Information from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that in June unemployment was 9.5% at 14.6m. Further discussion of the US economic situation cane be found here and here. A graph which summarises the key problem is here:



Ultimately Obama is paying the price for a sluggish recovery in the US after a very nasty recession despite all the money which has been spent by his government and others in preventing a depression. Useful stuff for anyone contemplating Presidential power and its limits; people are worried about the price which future generations will have to pay for health-care refom, banking reform and the credit crunch.

Immigration reform is on the agenda; good stuff here from the Economist's Lexington column. Essentially while there should be reform along the lines President Obama proposed in a recent speech, he is playing to the gallery hoping to pick up support in time for the mid-terms.

And on another note, while Supreme Court justice nominee Elena Kagan is being probed by Congress, this piece in the Guardian discusses the hearings process. Very useful for anyone contemplating the Supreme Court and it's hearings process in an essay. To quote the final paragraph of the article:

... Kagan's criticism of the process will yet remain. It was vapid, pointless and did little to illuminate anything about the nominee, while doing a lot to illuminate the already well-known political biases of the Senators doing the questioning.

Wednesday, 9 June 2010

Republicans and the Tea Party

As noted in a previous post, the Tea Party movement is having an effect on Republican nominees and their policies; they are lurching to the right. Specifically Meg Whitman the billionaire former boss of eBay has become the GOP nominee for the governor's race in California, and the multi-millionaire former boss of HP Carly Fiorina has become the GOP nominee for the California Senate seat.

In addition, the Nevada Republican Senate candidate, Sharron Angle, is the Tea Party movement's favourite, and defeated the moderate candidate to be the challenger for the seat belonging to Harry Reid, the incumbent Democrat and Senate majority leader. As noted in this article here (one which also briefly covers a successful Democrat in Arkansas) the Sharron Angle is the Obama team's favoured Republican candidate too as it will make Harry Reid's chance of keeping his seat higher:

Ms Angle’s controversial policies include privatising Social Security (pensions) and closing the federal departments of energy and education, among others.
.

The key problem, as noted here in the "Democracy in America" blog is that they have moved to the right to avoid being outflanked by other candidates in the race and to get the support from the Tea Party movement types of the Republican party. California is generally a "Blue" state, and is more liberal than most places in the US. It'll be interesting to see how they fare in this year's mid-terms, and particularly whether they can move back to the middle to get the independent voters and at the same time avoid being called a "Republican in Name Only" or RINO.

In other US-related news, Congress is likely yet again not to be able to pass a bill to take action on climate change. Scathing stuff from another post from Democracy in America, especially since over two-thirds of US citizens support action (although they don't want to increase taxes, just spending). In other analysis here, Senator Graham who originally helped write the bill he is now objecting to is now saying that there is not enough provision for further off-shore drilling (of the kind which is spilling thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico).

More significantly for G&P students is the analysis of the Grist article linked to above which says that the Republican party has moved away from anything which smacks of limiting big-business (actually they say it much less kindly than that). In their analysis and in the this article here Senator Graham has been trying to find a way out of supporting the bill, and has finally found it.

Whether the Republican party and the actions of politicians will continue to be driven by the Tea Party movement away from anything resembling the centre ground will be interesting to see, especially in the impact on the mid-terms in November.

It is also a useful illustration of how Congress does (or doesn't) work as a key part of the legislative process. A bi-partisan approach to some of the key issues in American politics today (health-care reform, climate change) is just not possible it would seem.

Wednesday, 19 May 2010

US political parties - ignoring the centre

Recent news that the Tea Party movement has made definite in-roads into the mainstream Republican party with the selection of Rand Paul as the Republican candidate for the Kentucky Senate seat.
Very good analysis of Dr Paul's policies here and an interesting piece about the implications of the Tea Party movement here by the "Democracy in America" blogger in the Economist.

For G&P students this is all useful stuff because it emphasises how political parties are increasingly relying on very vocal groups and excluding the large number of "independent" and moderate voters. The Tea Party movement may have won the primary, but this does not necessarily translate into a win for the Republican party:

Last year's New York state by-election comes to mind. A conservative populist ousted a moderate Republican, and subsequently lost the Republican seat to a Democrat... All this said, it remains likely that the Democrats will take a whacking in November. But an organised and disciplined Republican Party offering a viable set of alternative policies—think 1994's "Contract With America"—would whack them a lot harder. Instead, populist anger has enraged people against Democrats, with few tangible benefits to Republicans so far.

The Tea-party does not have an organisational centre or a clear set of policies, all of which encourage a wide-range of anti-government types to support it, but does not lead to success against a clear set of policies which could be supported by a significant number of independent voters.

There is a very interesting (if very long) analysis of the state of the parties in the New York Review of Books. A couple of things struck me:

The ideological polarization between Republicans and Democrats that surveys pick up is owing almost entirely to the radicalization of those belonging to the shrunken Republican base. (As of 2009, only a quarter of Americans identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest figure since the post-Watergate years.)

Democrats have edged slightly more left on political and economic issues, whereas the views of independents, the largest and fastest-growing group of voters, have not changed much over the years. While well over half of Republicans say that they would like their party to move further to the right, just as many independents wish it was less conservative or would stay where it is.

All of which is useful for any question asking about the importance of political parties in the US - the decline / renewal argument which we can add into the established information.