Unit 2: Constitutional Reform: Break of the UK?

Posted on by
Reply

The big constiutional issue of the year looks firmly set to be that of Scottish devoltion/independence and the ultimate issue of the fate of the Union. Quite what was David Cameron doing in lighting the toucpaper for a debate on Scotland’s future which could end with the United Kingdom splitting apart? Initially it seemed a masterstroke catching Salmond on the hop, but it seems to have backfired. Salmond in some eyes is a ‘political genius’ but does that make him right on the issue? Very briefly here is a snapshot of a few relevent articles:

1. A question not just for the Scots, but for everyone in Britain – Charles Moore, The Daily Telegraph

What Alex Salmond calls independence is really the break-up of the United Kingdom.

2. A generous offer to Scotland could keep the Union safe – Dominic Raab, The Daily Telegraph

As Alex Salmond makes hay haggling over process points for a referendum on Scottish independence, we risk losing sight of the big picture. Mr Salmond may see crude political capital in casting the debate as Scots versus English, but the referendum will define the constitutional architecture for the United Kingdom as a whole.

3. Of course Scotland can stand on its own two feet – and here’s how ~ Hamish McRae, The Independent

Scotland’s voters will be asked to make a political decision in its referendum on independence, but it will be a decision coloured inevitably by economics – or at least economic perceptions, for the long-term economic impact of independence is far from clear. But such is the nature of politics that economic arguments will be used by both sides to support their case.

4. Scotland’s political bruiser – Andrew Bolger, George Parker, The Financial Times

Alex Salmond, the ebullient leader of the Scottish National party, was in his element this week, doing what even his foes concede he does best: hogging the centre of the political stage, draping himself in history and arguing the case for independence that would break up the United Kingdom.

Only a start……

House of Lords – Welfare Bills savaged by Lords

Posted on by
Reply

Nice current example of the House of Lords ‘delaying’ a Bill. The Government has suffered a series of embarrassing defeats on its flagship Welfare Reform Bill in the House of Lords.

Peers voted against the Government on three separate amendments on the employment support allowance for disabled people and for cancer patients. The amendments, brought by crossbenchers Lord Patel and Lord Listowel, mean that young disabled people who are unable to work are automatically eligible for the employment support allowance, that claimants are reassessed for the benefit after two years, not 12 months, and that cancer patients are exempt from the time limit between reassessments altogether.

Campaigners had feared that the reforms would mean cancer sufferers would be forced back into work before they had fully recovered.

Peers voted 222 to 166 for the amendment for cancer patients, 234 in favour of the amendment for the time limit, and 260 to 216 for the amendment on young people. They mark the fourth defeat for the Government on the legislation, following a vote before Christmas on housing benefit cuts.

Here is more in the Independent: Lords throw out plans for welfare reform
And the BBC – Click here

Modern Conservatism – In Thought And Action

Posted on by
Reply

The Conservative Party is well blessed with an independent website in Conservative Home that often provokes debate within the party and allows the outsider to see how conservatism is shaping and shifting on the current political sea. There are two articles currently on it that are worth investigating. One, by website editor Tim Montgomerie, discusses how a right wing party “with a heart” can position itself to govern more universally than is often perceived to be the case with the Conservatives. Highlighting key areas of current policy, including Michael Gove’s radical education agenda, he argues the case for a modern, ‘compassionate’ conservatism that could bring electoral victory. In so doing, he covers the ground of where the Conservative Party currently stands in a way that can certainly help any students and teachers looking to analyse what the ideology of the modern Conservative party really is.

The second article is a paean of praise from veteran journalist Bruce Anderson to the upper echelons of Conservative governors. Mr. Anderson has always had a penchant for the nabobs of the Conservative Party, but in this detailed article he identifies the key players, both elected and unelected, and argues that there has never been such harmony and unity of purpose at the top of government (and certainly the Conservative Party) since the days of, well, Walpole actually. He notes of the troika of Cameron, Osborne and Hague for instance, that:

They enjoy each other’s company. There is a lot of laughter, but also a lot of serious business. There is no rivalry and total mutual confidence. In the entire history of British government from the time of Robert Walpole, I cannot think of a moment when relationships at the top were so harmonious. In fraught circumstances, that is of inestimable value.

Even if you don’t agree with Mr. Anderson’s upbeat assessment – and one is tempted to quote the great P.G.Wodehouse’s line that “all is well in this best of all possible worlds” – the article does at least illumine aspects and personalities of the party in government that would again be rewarding to students to read.

House of Lords: Why have a House of Lords without a single Lord in it?

Posted on by
Reply

The issue of reform of the House of Lords is back at the top of the political agenda. Clegg’s proposal that the Lord’s be replaced by an ‘elected Senate’ of 300 ‘full time parliamentarians’ has met with criticism from a number of quarters. A joint committee of MPs and peers examining the government’s plans has concluded that the Lords should have around 450 members. They argue the Lords cannot work effectively with just 300 members to do the work of scrutinising legislation. The Libdem lord Tyler said:

Simply cutting it back to 300 and assuming that everybody’s got to be a full time parliamentarian, would make us too much like the House of Commons. ”

In today’s Telegraph Charles Moore has an excellent article Why have a House of Lords if there’s not a single lord left in it?. He asserts:“The last thing we need is a second chamber filled with yet more professional politicos.” The article begins:

Dr Johnson said that “most schemes of political improvement are very laughable things”, and that was 250 years before Nick Clegg tried to reform the British constitution. Last year, Mr Clegg failed to persuade the British people, in a referendum, that the Alternative Vote system was the answer to their political ills. This year, he hopes to persuade both Houses of Parliament to invent a new House of Lords. He thinks the present House is “an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy”.

Other recent articles on the issue have been [none of them seemingly in favour of reform]:
BBC – Plans to cut Lords to 300 rejected
Independent: Peers and MPs reject Clegg’s plans to cut size of the Lords by a half
Daily Mail: Don’t make the Lords in your image, Mr Clegg
Spectator: The scale of Clegg’s Lords challenge

Parliament: Order! Oder! More revolting MPs

Posted on by
Reply

Useful article in the Independent Order, order! Why the newest Tories are a major headache for Cameron. Based on research by Philip Cowley at Nottingham University it shows that the Conservative MPs elected in 2010 are the most rebellious. Here is a revealing quote:

The so-called “class of 2010” is playing a central role in the simmering discontent facing the Prime Minister on a range of issues, a study next month will disclose. The Government has suffered a revolt in 43 per cent of Commons divisions between the general election in May 2010 and Christmas 2011, by far the highest rate in modern times. Tories have rebelled in 31 per cent of votes. Particularly worrying for Mr Cameron is that more than half of the Conservative rebels have been “newbie” MPs, voting 340 times against their leader.

Useful analysis for arguing that Parliament still has a life of its own and executive dominance is not to be just taken for granted.

Party Leaders in the spotlight

Posted on by
Reply

A few more articles which focus on the fortunes of the various party leaders.

Ed Miliband’s performance is certainly under scrutiny. James Macintyre [co-author of the recent Ed: the Milibands and the making of a Labour leader] has an article in the Guardian – Ed Miliband is just not radical enough

Contrary to David Cameron’s accusation of being too ‘leftwing’, the Labour leader’s vision is being obscured by opportunism. He writes:
The end of the year provides a good time for reflection. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Miliband’s problem is not that he is too “leftwing”, to use the word David Cameron now attacks him with. It is more complicated, and actually graver, than that. Instead, he is not consistently radical enough. His long-term vision is being obscured by incoherent opportunism epitomised by two judgment calls this year: calling for Kenneth Clarke’s resignation and exploiting the scare over immigration.

More on the Milband debate can be followed in John Rentoul’s blog in the Independent:1
“He needs to be much more Blair-like”

Cameron’s performance as PM and his relationship with his own party is always well chronicled by Tim Montgomery [conservativehome] – he has an article in the Independent An appetite for conservatism that the PM doesn’t always satisfy Cameron’s position has strengthened after he has acted in recognisably conservative ways. He asserts:

The Conservative Party has never fallen in love with David Cameron. Today’s ConservativeHome survey of Tory members for The Independent shows that he is only eighth in a 15-person league table of centre-right politicians.

Thus once again highlighting that one of Cameron’s weaknesses as a ‘powerful PM’ is his ability to take his own party with him and rely on their support.

And just to end the festive season Bruce Anderson in the Telegraph says Santa Claus David Cameron will have to discover his inner Scrooge and that:

Despite his strengths, Cameron can sound like a vicar jollying along a church outing

PM: ‘Politics is getting really interesting at the moment’

Posted on by
Reply

How powerful is the PM? Well recently the import of external factors has been especially important in evaluating PM’s performances. As Macmillan once famously said ‘Events, dear by, events!’. A few interesting article in today’s press which look at the performances over the last year of key political figures and give some valuable ammunition for the ‘PM and Cabinet’ Topic.

1. Steve Richards in the Independent looks at the performances of Ed Balls, Alex Salmond and David Cameron – and his conclusion is obvious in the title Well done Alex and Ed, but David wins by a head. He asserts “Leaders or aspiring leaders must try to appear overwhelmingly dominant, when mostly they are not”.

A useful excerpt on Cameron – who is also described as being elusive to the point of being uninteresting is:

Cameron is the third candidate. He leads on the narrowest of stages. To the one side of him are the increasingly stroppy Liberal Democrats, on the other is an assertive parliamentary party that cannot be easily appeased with the promise of ministerial jobs. Prime ministerial patronage is a powerful weapon in controlling a party, but Cameron has fewer jobs at his disposal in a coalition. Meanwhile, economic storms are brewing on a scale that makes those of the 1970s and 1980s seem little more than minor breezes.

Other leaders in comparable circumstances were exhausted and demoralised. Harold Wilson leading a hung parliament in the 1970s, John Major in the economic doldrums in the early 1990s and Gordon Brown in 2008, all lost their humour and political guile partly because there was no cause for laughter and they felt trapped politically. Cameron remains vivacious and witty and is implementing a radical Tory agenda without having won the election. In policy terms, he is skating on thin ice and I suspect the ice will crack next year, but, for now, we are looking back.

2. Another article, if unfortunately hiding behind the Times paywall, is Let’s be honest. How did the leaders do in 2011? by Mehdi Hasan, Tim Montgomerie and Mark Pack. It comments:

Pity poor Ed Miliband. By any objective assessment, he has had a good year. His leadership is secure, his party united. Despite losing in the Scottish Parliament elections to the SNP, Mr Miliband gained more than 800 seats in May’s local elections and won five parliamentary by-elections in a row. Labour consistently polls at around 40 per cent and has been ahead of the Conservatives for much of 2011, as austerity failed and growth ground to a halt.

Global Issues: Terrorism ~ sub-Sarahan Terrorist threat

Posted on by
Reply

The Independent has a relevant article on terrorism Largely unnoticed, violent Islamist groups have been looking across the Sahara
Boko Haram’s goals are still inherently local, but there are fears that more internationalist groups may seek to link up. The article comments:

The attacks on churchgoers in Nigeria yesterday [by Boko Haram] will further inflame the already tense relationship between Muslims and Christians in Africa’s most populous nation.

Global Issues: North Korean leader Kim Jong-il dies

Posted on by
Reply

Kim Jong-il North Korea’s leader has unexpectedly died of a heart attack. Global Issues students should follow up on this as unpredictable North Korea has been led by a ‘cult’ and developments tied to one of the world’s most unstable and nuclear tipped states should be seen with alacrity in relation to the issue of WMD and proliferation.

The BBC carries the story and some useful analysis: N Korean leader Kim Jong-il dies

Also the CFR has a comprehensive piece [including an interactive link] :

North Korea after Kim. It starts:

The death of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il on December 18, 2011, has raised serious concerns over the future of the country and stability in the Korean peninsula. His son Kim Jong-un is now expected to take over the helm of the nuclear-armed Communist country, one of the most closed-off societies in the world. A September 2008 CFR Council Special Report says there is a possibility North Korea might intentionally transfer nuclear weapons or materials to a terrorist group, and thus merits Cold War-style methods of deterrence from the United States. While some experts believe the country might see some reform in the period after Kim, others see little hope for change, especially in the ongoing effort to rid North Korea of its nuclear weapons.

Core Exec: Cabinet Secretary has few regrets.

Posted on by
Reply

Important read in relation to studying the core executive, with particular reference to the key role of the Civil Service in the Observer: Gus O’Donnell prepares to quit as cabinet secretary with few regrets
It starts:

A meandering walk from Parliament Square to the cabinet office takes you past all of the grandest landmarks of Sir Gus O’Donnell’s civil service career. The Treasury – where the economist started out in 1979. On past 10 Downing Street, where fellow south London boy John Major first brought him in as press secretary in 1990 and where, as cabinet secretary, he later minuted those controversial discussions about the decision to invade Iraq. Right outside the entrance to his own office at number 70 is a relatively new memorial – to the women of war. It seems apt for a man so proud of encouraging diversity in the senior echelons of the mandarin classes.