Republicans, Tea-Party-ers and Kansas

A quick post - any G and P student contemplating the Tea Party and the Republicans as they head towards probable success in the mid-terms, and then onto the 2016 Presidential-race, should take a look at this piece in Rolling Stone Magazine.

It's a fascinating look at the race for Governor in Kansas, where the incumbent Republican, a Tea-Party-supporting Sam Brownback is presiding over what he has described as an economic "experiment". The short version is that he has enacted most of what the Tea-Party has demanded; no compromise, low-taxes and low-spending.

The result? To quote the Washington Post:

 the state is now reporting a more than $300 million revenue shortfall. The poverty rate increased. The state’s economy expanded a total of 2.3 percent in inflation-adjusted terms over the past two years, half the rate of its four neighbors. And Kansas’s credit rating has been downgraded.

Interestingly, prominent Republicans in the state seem not to like this, and are jumping ship.

All of which is fascinating for politics students contemplating the Republican Party and politics in the USA as a whole. And probably much less fun for the people of Kansas, sadly.

Gay Marriage and Blue Dog Democrat(s)

The US Supreme court has refused to hear appeals from states wanting to ban gay marriage, The Economist sees this as very significant, and Politics students could use this as an indication of where the court stands currently.

A same-sex wedding ceremony.
Picture credit: Marc Love / Wikipedia

essentially meaning that although they won't now be making any sort of decision on it, the lower (Federal) court decisions that saw any ban as unconstitutional will stand.


The Roberts court could have been activist and made a ruling, but it didn't. As the Economist notes there are theories why this is the case - in a politically divided country this would perhaps have made the situation worse. The Guardian sees this as an expansion of gay rights. Helpfully, the Wikipedia page goes into all of this, noting that it is currently legal in 25 states and that many thousands of couples have taken advantage of the new law.

A "conservative" court may find that banning gay marriage at this point would be very tricky.

Elsewhere, the Economist (again) has an interactive map about the mid-term race in the Senate; the short version is that the Republicans may take a 50-48 lead over Democrats with 2 seats being held by Democrat-friendly Independents.


Lastly, the Blue Dog Democrat is almost an extinct species; one of the last conservative Democrat holding a seat in the deep South is fighting a difficult battle in the 2014 House races.

Useful for Unit 3C - Democratic Congressman John Barrow from Georgia is a great example of someone who has kept in the centre while the rest of politics in the US becomes divided.

Congress - the gridlock.

I've just come across a great post by the Democracy in America blog on the Economist's web-site which discusses the gridlock in Congress. Great stuff for anyone contemplating this topic in Unit 4C. The article summarises the findings of a study from the Brookings Institution which came to the conclusion that polarisation of politics is increasing because there are fewer and fewer links between politicians. This leads to less cooperation and compromise:

“IF I sponsor a bill declaring apple pie American, it might fall victim to partisan politics,” declared Barack Obama over the summer. 

Picture credit: Brookings Institution

Great stuff.

However, it must be born in mind that Congress does sometimes pass laws with bipartisan support. A good example would be the July 2014 Workforce Investment Act passed by 415-6 in the House and 95-3 in the Senate - this is a bill to help workers and the unemployed get training to the tune of $3bn per year. Further info can be found here.

In August 2014, there was bipartisan support for airstrikes on Iraq in order to take action against ISIL.

It must be noted that these events are rare and that is why headlines are made when laws are passed with the support of both parties.

How to answer 15-markers in A2 Gov and Pol Unit 4C

I've posted a video on YouTube explaining how to answer 15-mark questions in the A2 exam. Certainly applicable to Unit 4C, and almost certainly applicable to Unit 3C too.

I'll try and do more of these when I get the chance.

Enjoy!

Google on the Scottish Referendum

In the days leading up to the Scottish Referendum, Google has launched a page which aggregates video and news feeds about this important issue. Worth having a browse through.

Presidential Power and the US system

Any G and P student contemplating Presidential power should consider that President Obama has decided to make executive order about the hot-button issue of immigration because it's the right thing to do...  after the mid-terms.

This may show the limits to the President's power, especially given the poor state that the US political system is in; the Democracy in America blog discusses this issue; specifically blaming the two-party system and the lack of 3rd or 4th parties which would encourage compromise. More about it here. A good topic to be on top of for Units 3C and 4C.

Reform of Democracy in the UK - the Spotify model?

Further to news about Conservative MP Douglas Carswell's defection to UKIP, the Economist has just published a video where he discusses reform of the UK's political system. Specifically he talks about how the two main political parties are not modern enough and require members to support all policies. He favours a "Spotify" approach where voters could pick-and choose more.

The video won't embed effectively, so click on the link to get to the video.

Great stuff for any G and P student contemplating reform of the UK political system or of the political parties in Unit 1

New events in US Politics - Summer 2014

In brief a potentially significant Supreme Court decision has been made which undermines Obamacare and also has implications for how religion is treated in the USA. The short version is that a firm is now going to be treated like an individual in respect to its religious beliefs, and that these can now not be forced to obey federal law. See here and here for analysis from the Economist. The decision is called Burwell v Hobby Lobby (click here for the Wikipedia page). The Washington Post has more here.





 Gov and Pol students for Unit 4C could use this when discussing the power of the President and the significance of the Supreme Court.

In early August, President Obama was sued by Congress for being a tyrant, with analysis by the Economist here. Good for anyone contemplating Presidential power and the power of Congress. Worth bearing in mind that the Republican-controlled House has tried over 50 times to destroy Obamacare. This is also useful when contemplating the interests of the Republican Party.

Elsewhere, the current 112th Congress is shaping up to be the least productive in history. Details and analysis from the Washington Post, plus some analysis from Ars Technica about the issue. While it may be expected that there would be little progress on the major issues (Obamacare, taxes, etc), some minor ones (Internet Trolls, copyright reform) don't see any progress either. Useful stuff for Gov and Pol students contemplating the (in)ability of Congress to get things done.

Against the background of this, the inability of Congress to address immigration effectively is striking. A passionate article in Rolling Stone discusses the impact of the Tea Party on efforts to address the 90,000 unaccompanied and undocumented minors who try to enter the country from Mexico every year. The short version is that Tea Party Republicans (Ted Cruz etc) have refused to allow funds to be used to help these refugees, and instead have agitated for increased border security. The political impact is affecting President Obama's standing too.



In another development, left-leaning former Supreme Court Justice Stevens has written a book proposing 6 new amendments to the US constitution. The wording of the amendments themselves are detailed in this blog post by an assistant law professor in South Texas. The book itself and its implications are reviewed here in the Huffington Post and here in the Wall St Journal.

Further analysis at another time I think, but for now the WSJ makes a very useful point; while Justice Stevens highlights some of the major flaws in the US political system (Gerrymandering, the Death Penalty, Gun Ownership), he sees Amending the constitution as the solution. As Gov and Pol students will be / are aware this is a long and complex process, so perhaps Congress passing laws would be a better solution.

New events in UK politics over the Summer

Briefly and in no particular order, David Cameron did a cabinet reshuffle which saw some big-hitters such as Education Secretary Michael Gove and Foreign Secretary William Haig losing their jobs. Marginally more women are now in Cabinet than before, and this is certainly an attempt to give the Conservative Party the edge in the lead-up to the 2015 election.

Labour has plans to re-nationalise the rail system (a throw back to Old Labour perhaps?).

The House of Lords has a debate about assisted-dying, although there is no likelihood of it becoming law. This highlights the importance of the Lords in debating issues.

The only woman Muslim in the Cabinet, Baroness Warsi resigns over the government's policy on the fighting in Gaza. A blow for Cameron, and there may be an impact on his policies and his own power. The Economist analyses the resignation here.

As a follow on, Boris Johnson has finally admitted that he is interested in fighting for a seat in the Commons in the 2015 election. If successful, he will be an MP and the London Mayor, at least for a brief period. At the end of August he finally confirmed that he will contest the seat of Uxbridge.

There was a debate about Scottish independence between the Scottish First Minister Alec Salmond and Alistair Darling, former Labour Chancellor. Highlights are below. Both sides have declared victory, although the vote itself will tell the truth. Analysis from the Economist here.



The Independence second debate between Salmond and Darling was interesting; fewer one-liners but Salmond came out on top and by a large margin "won" 71% to 29%. Worth bearing in mind that this "snap" polling is more about performance on the night rather than any change in intension to vote. Great analysis from the BBC's Nick Robinson here. More from the Economist here. Useful stuff for anyone contemplating the importance of referendums and the prospect for constitutional change in the UK. In addition, Cameron has promised more powers to the Scottish Parliament should the vote be "No".

Gov and Pol students contemplating the House of Lords would find recent news useful. Despite the Lords being too full for the facilities, and being the second largest legislative chamber in the world, 22 new peers have been appointed, including TV star Karen Brady. The Lords currently stands at 796 members.


More problems for David Cameron (useful for any student contemplating the Conservative Party's political stance) in the shape of a Tory MP who has defected to UKIP and resigned from his seat. More from Nick Robinson here. The very short version is that it exposes the Tory party as one which is obsessed by the EU and this has all sorts of implications including the rise of UKIP and perhaps increasing the likelihood that Scotland will vote "Yes" in September; the Scots being traditionally more pro-EU.

For no reason perhaps other than a reminder that Jeremy Paxman has been replaced on Newnight by Evan Davis, a brief clip from that esteemed show:

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.

UK Political Parties - ideologies over time

While looking for something else I've come across a great site which goes into political ideologies of the UK parties (great for anyone revising / studying the topic for Unit 1).

Rather than simply use the traditional left-right division, the site adds in measure of authoritarianism vs libertarianism.

Here is a great page which shows how the 3 main parties have changed ideologies over time and in different elections.

Political Parties and their ideologies.
Picture credit: The Political Compass 

There is also a test you can take to find out how you fit into this chart; are you more like Ghandi or Stalin?

Perhaps for a bit of light relief, it is worth-while watching Nick Clegg saying "Sorry" for misleading the electorate about student fees before the 2010 election. This time, someone made him sing via autotune: