Pressure Groups - Direct Action: "A Time Comes" (YouTube)

This new film (released 18 months ago today) by internationally acclaimed director Nick Broomfield celebrates the spirit of direct action. It focuses on six Greenpeace volunteers who in 2008 were tried and acquitted for shutting down Kingsnorth power station in the UK, in protest at the government's plans to build a new generation of dirty coal-fired power plants. Their thoughtfully staged defense included testimony from a NASA Director and leading climate scientist, and from environmentalist Zac Goldsmith.



Definitely worth a watch as a great recent example of direct action on the part of a pressure group. Hope you have a good head for heights!

Observer: Miliband to give public say in Labour leader contests

An article in The Observer this morning that ticks a number of boxes for Unit 1 students—from a Labour Party perspective, at least:

Ed Miliband wants to give public a say in future Labour leadership contests

In a speech to Labour's national policy forum, he declared Labour the "people's party" and said it had to become more "rooted" in the lives of the electorate if it was to regain support and respect. "A hundred years ago, when we were founded, people's allegiances were much more likely to be inherited rather than chosen," he said. "Today the world is very different. People are much more likely to choose that allegiance rather than inherit it."

Labour, stressed Miliband, could not survive as a "party of declining membership" but had to relaunch itself as a "genuine community organisation" that embraced non-members.

Miliband, who has been criticised privately by some Labour MPs for not making his mark on the leadership rapidly or firmly enough, insisted that union members would remain a vital part of decision-making. But aides said he was keen to see the public involved in future as well.

One idea could be to give non-Labour members a share of the vote in future leadership contests – a move that could anger the grassroots.

There were also some ideas about his own profile as leader and future party appeal:

The moves will be seen as Miliband hitting back at critics who say he is in the grip of the unions. Miliband tackled the issue head on, saying a system under which one person could have several votes in a leadership contest by being a party member but also a member of a trade union and another affiliated organisation had to change. He also said his focus would be the "squeezed middle".

Some commentators have suggested that this could be a somewhat fruitless / thankless reorientation, suggesting that in going for the "squeezed middle", Miliband may be going for the wrong group: 

Figures from the 2010 British Election Study, which is carried out by the University of Essex, showed that 35% of the working class did not vote. "Ed Miliband is focusing attention on the 'squeezed middle-class', but if Labour had appealed more to working-class voters, it could have won," said Paul Whiteley, professor of politics at Essex. 

Guardian: David Cameron reveals hints of a Bullingdon bully

Flashes of personalised humour at the expense of others undermine the prime minister's attractive courtesy, so says Michael White in The Guardian's Politics Blog today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/nov/26/david-cameron-bullingdon-michael-white

An article worth reading.... Those studying Unit 2 (that's all of you!) will need to be aware just how important a Prime Minister's personal style can be in regard to electoral appeal and effective government. White presents a balanced view—and presents evidence (particularly regarding the Speaker of the House, John Bercow) that is not all too damning just yet, but he also sounds a warning:

All in all, it's a troubling trait, and one the PM would be wise to rein in because, as the coalition's troubles deepen, he needs all the help he can get.

AV: Will they? - or won't they?

As the projected referendum on the FPTP / AV voting system for general elections nears acceptance by Parliament, the various sides of the debate are staking out their territory and their supporters.

News from all directions today... Firstly came reports that a number (five) Labour Party grandees had come out against a change to the Alternative Vote:

Labour veterans to oppose change to AV election system (BBC News Online)

Five former Labour cabinet ministers have pledged their opposition to changing the system for electing MPs.

Margaret Beckett, David Blunkett, Lord Falconer, Lord Reid and Lord Prescott all said they would campaign against replacing first-past-the-post with the alternative vote (AV) system.

Later came news that the "No to AV" campaign had been forced to remove the name of Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education, from their list of supporters against any change to the electoral system:

Campaigners against voting reform in Gove mistake (BBC News Online)

Campaigners against changing the Westminster voting system have wrongly included Michael Gove on a list of politicians supporting their cause.

Those opposed to replacing first-past-the-post named a list of high-profile Labour and Conservative politicians who they said would back their campaign. But they were forced to remove the education secretary's name after his advisers said he was "undecided".

 Expect to see much more of this sort of thing as the referendum date draws near!

Labour pulls ahead sharply in Guardian/ICM poll

That didn't take long....! Mind you, nothing too fatal yet for the Tories, but I think Nick Clegg might / should be somewhat concerned for the LibDems...

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/22/labour-pulls-ahead-guardian-icm-poll

Labour has pulled ahead sharply in the latest Guardian/ICM poll, as both coalition parties lose support. The findings, published as Ed Miliband returns to Westminster after paternity leave, suggest only a minority of voters believe the coalition is taking Britain in the right direction.

Labour support in a theoretical immediate election has risen to 38%, two points higher than last month and the best in any ICM poll since Gordon Brown cancelled the planned 2007 general election.

Between them the coalition parties have shed five points. Conservative support has dropped three since last month to 36%, while the Liberal Democrats have fallen two points to 14%.

The Lib Dem score is the lowest in the Guardian/ICM series since May 2001, and the lowest in any ICM poll since October 2007.

Ed Miliband sets out 'profound' changes to Labour party

The Guardian has an exclusive first full interview published tonight with Ed Miliband, in which the new Labour leader reveals plans to review organisation and policies since winning the leadership contest...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/21/ed-miliband-profound-changes-labour

Some highlights:

Ed Miliband launches his party on "the hard road back to power", saying it has to move beyond New Labour and commit to changes in policy and organisation as profound as those introduced by Tony Blair in 1994.

He also appears to clash with the shadow chancellor, Alan Johnson, by saying a 50p tax rate for those earning more than £150,000 should be permanent, as a way of creating greater equality in Britain. Making the country more equal, he says, is one of the issues that gets him out of bed in the morning. In his first full interview since becoming party leader, and marking his return to work after two weeks of paternity leave, he discloses:

• A commission on party organisation will be launched this weekend. It will examine the rules under which he was elected party leader, including the role of the unions.

• A policy review will be conducted including commissioned work by independent thinktanks and studies by each shadow cabinet member on the issues in their field. "In terms of policy, but not in terms of values, we start with a blank page," he says.

• The review is likely to include low pay, tough crime measures including asbos, and the "contributory principle" in the welfare state.

• His main priority next May will be the devolved and local elections and not the referendum on the alternative vote. He says the Liberal Democrats should change the referendum date if they really want to win.

• He will stand up for the "squeezed middle classes", a group he claims Cameron does not understand.

 The full interview is to be found here: "Ed Miliband – no huskies, no north pole, but he's in for the long haul". Take a read - this will prove important for current examples / knowledge on Labour Party policies and ideas...

Direct action by a pressure group: Students!

The Guardian publishes a report tonight of a new campaign by a suddenly-much-more-vocal pressure group—university students—against the changed further education policies of the LibDems:

NUS starts campaign to oust leading Lib Dems
National Union of Students launch 'decapitation' strategy aimed at ousting Nick Clegg and other top Liberal Democrats in protest at the party's U-turn on tuition fees

The National Union of Students will launch a "decapitation" strategy aimed at ousting Nick Clegg and other top Liberal Democrats from parliament in protest at the party's U-turn on student fees.

The move aims to build on anger about coalition policies – which spilled over into violence on Wednesday – in Lib Dem-held constituencies with large student populations.

The key targets will be Clegg in Sheffield Hallam, Simon Wright in Norwich South, Stephen Williams in Bristol West and Don Foster in Bath.

Aaron Porter, president of the NUS, said the campaign would aim to force out Lib Dems who break their pre-election pledge to oppose any rise in tuition fees.

This, of course, constitutes a brilliant current example of direct action against the policies of a particularly well-placed political party and sitting MPs (including the party leader). Will it succeed in changing anything? We shall see...

Parliament's ongoing rotten nature?

Peter Oborne, the Telegraph's chief political commentator, has published an article outlining the manner in which parliamentary corruption continues to burgeon, now on David Cameron's watch:

Our Parliament is rotten to the core

Parliamentary expense scandals, lying to the electorate.... Oborne's assessment is clear:

David Cameron responded with a promise to restore trust in British politics. Six months have now passed – enough time to make a preliminary judgment on how the Prime Minister is carrying out this task. Sadly, the conclusion must be that little has changed.

An important article and a reminder of sadly how little changes in politics behind the scenes... All grist to our mill for examples explaining voter apathy and parliamentary ineffectiveness.

Observer: How Britain's new welfare state was born in the USA

"The main themes of David Cameron's 'big society' are becoming clear – as is the influence of Republican political thinking", as reported today in the Observer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/07/britain-welfare-state-born-usa

Important and comprehensive reading for those who need to get the latest on Conservative party ideas and policies (... that's all of you!)

Read it!

BBC: Convicted prisoners to get vote after European ruling

Thousands of convicted UK prisoners are to get the right to vote after the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the present ban was unlawful.

Prime Minister David Cameron was said to have reluctantly accepted that there was no way of maintaining the 140-year-old ban on sentenced prisoners voting in general elections, according to BBC political correspondent Reeta Chakrabarti.

However, he will resist allowing to vote those prisoners who have committed the most serious offences, our correspondent adds.

Read the full story—an important update to the Unit 1 topic, Democracy and Political Participation that examiners might expect you to know about... (Yes, once again, the textbooks have been outdated!)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164

Guardian: Foxhunting ban likely to remain thanks to new generation of Tory MPs

Many new Conservative MPs say they'll vote with Labour to prevent repeal of 2004 Hunting Act

The election of a new generation of Conservative MPs opposed to bloodsports is likely to block attempts to repeal the ban on foxhunting with hounds, according to members of the latest Commons intake. ...

The ban on hunting foxes with hounds was one of the most contentious pieces of legislation introduced by the Labour government. It took up 600 hours of parliamentary time. In 2002, the Countryside Alliance organised a mass demonstration in support of hunting that brought 400,000 protesters onto the streets – the capital's largest until the anti-Iraq war protest. ...

Mike Weatherley, the MP for Hove and Portslade, is one of around 20 new Conservative MPs who are in favour of retaining the 2004 Hunting Act, which outlaws hunting with dogs. "The likelihood is that the ban will stay," he told the Guardian. "I think there's enough of us to ensure that the ban will remain. A lot of people who decided not to vote Conservative will be surprised to find that it's Conservatives who will stop it [being repealed].

A neighbouring new Tory MP, Simon Kirby, who represents Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven, issued a statement earlier this month declaring: "It remains my absolute commitment that I will not vote to repeal the ban on hunting".

Speaks for itself as regards a shift in Tory thinking - at least in Parliament. Read the full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/28/countryside-alliance-conservatives-foxhunting

PMQs: Ed Miliband urged to use good 'cheer lines'

From BBC News Online today [full article]:

Ed Miliband should use memorable "cheer lines" at prime minister's questions to ensure coverage on TV news bulletins, leaked advice to Labour's leader says.

A memo to Mr Miliband on what to do at the weekly session, seen by The Times, urges him to ask simple questions to make PM David Cameron look "evasive". It also stresses the importance of body language and enjoying the encounter.

Mr Cameron seized on it at Wednesday's session, saying his rival had "a plan for PMQs but no plan for the economy".

Mr Miliband faced the prime minister across the despatch box for the third time on Wednesday in an exchange dominated by the government's proposed reforms to housing benefit.

Read the whole BBC article - The Times' original publication of the leak is hidden behind their pay-for-access firewall - as an insight for Unit 2 into Prime Minister's Questions, parliamentary performance and the high profile of the Prime Minister as the focus of the executive branch of government.

Steve Richards: Just as in the Eighties, ideology is driving the spending cuts

Steve Richards, chief political commentator at The Independent and presenter of Radio 4'sWeek in Westminster makes the case in his newspaper today that we are experiencing a return to ideology-driven political choices, reminiscent of Thatcher's Britain of the 1980s:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-richards/steve-richards-just-as-in-the-eighties-ideology-is-driving-the-spending-cuts-2116277.html

Choices are being made on the basis of how politicians view the state - as an instrument that can be benevolent, or stifling

It's a lengthy piece of commentary—definitely worth reading... One highlight:

In the 1990s Tony Blair attempted to de-politicise politics by arguing that what works is all that matters. What works is what matters, but the debate about how that comes about is based unavoidably on conflicting values. The Coalition's wariness of admitting it is an ideological administration rooted on the right and shaped by the 1980s shows how Blairite de-politicisation has made its mark.

But the values are deeply held. Cameron/Osborne/Clegg laid out their beliefs very clearly in advance of the election. In several speeches Clegg declared that the state was necessary to fund public services such as health and education, but after that government should "back off". Privately he told colleagues that the social democratic experiment had failed. He even told some of the social democrats in his party, who now realise he meant it. Cameron's position was clear from the start of his leadership when he said that there was such a thing as society, but it is not the same as the state.

Why the Tories Didn't Win in 2010 (and may not in 2015)

Tim Bale is Professor of Politics at the University of Sussex. His book The Conservative Party: From Thatcher to Cameron is a model of contemporary history. In a short article ("Cometh the Hour") in Parliamentary Brief this month, Prof. Bale has produced a convenient encapsulation of what he believed happened (or failed to happen!) at the 2010 election:

http://www.parliamentarybrief.com/2010/10/cometh-the-hour-#all

Three paragraphs reveal the thrust of his analysis:

The key task facing Cameron when he took over in late 2005 was reassuring voters that the Conservatives could be trusted on welfare and public services.  All the market research suggested that this was the sine qua non — a necessary if not a sufficient condition — of a return to office … Just as important were the signals sent out to people working in the public sector — and not just those in the supposedly sacred ‘front line’– that the party no longer regarded them as a waste of time and taxes.

When the global financial crisis hit and Britain’s budget deficit ballooned, however, this task remained unfinished and work on it practically ceased.  Gambling on the fact that they would be given brownie points for honesty, and believing that, as the most likely next government, they should start softening up the public for inevitable spending reductions, the Tories switched from reassurance to rhetoric about the age of austerity.

This, far more than an admittedly lacklustre campaign, was what did for them at the election: Labour may have been a busted flush but it was still able to scare enough voters about the Conservative’s intentions to deny them an overall majority.

It's worth reading the entire article, particularly if you're about to trawl through Conservative Party policies and ideas (Edexcel Unit 1)... If nothing else, Professor Bale believes the imminent Comprehensive Spending Review will reveal once and for all what manner of Tory Cameron really is!

Unit 2 Judiciary: Lest ye be judged (Bagehot)

Bagehot in The Economist today has an extremely useful and comprehensive article on the increasing importance of the Judiciary within the UK, given increasing distrust in elected politicians [link]. Full text follows:

“SOMEONE must be trusted. Let it be the judges.” The words of Lord Denning, a great if flawed judge, were controversial when he uttered them 30 years ago. Back in 1980, Lord Denning was speaking defensively: admirers and foes saw the judiciary as the Establishment in ermine. The criminal justice system was about to enter years of agony and wrenching change as police wrongdoing was exposed, especially in the obtaining of confessions, and big terrorist convictions were overturned. But his injunction now looks rather prescient.

Today, answering Lord Denning’s plea three decades late, a country drowning in distrust has fastened onto the judiciary and its works as a source of redress. After every calamity—whether a terrorist attack, a police shooting, killings in Iraq or a royal death—the clamour rises for inquiries headed by a judge, with the power to quiz witnesses under oath.

Inquiries of one sort or another seem to be everywhere. On October 11th Britain’s press covered the opening of an inquest into the London bus and Tube bombings of July 7th 2005. The bomb attacks have been probed in a criminal trial and parliamentary investigations. But bereaved families want the inquest—headed by a High Court judge—to examine whether the domestic security service, MI5, could have prevented the attacks, and whether emergency services were slow to respond.

On the same day the press reported fresh demands for a public inquiry into the killing of six British military policemen in Iraq in 2003, after a trial of alleged perpetrators collapsed in Baghdad. Interviewed by a newspaper, a Democratic Unionist MP from Northern Ireland appeared to launch an inquiries bidding war. Britain had spent £200m ($320m) on the 12-year Saville Inquiry into the 1972 “Bloody Sunday” shootings of protesters by British paratroops in Londonderry, he claimed, yet could not afford “justice” for army families. On October 7th an inquest jury in London found that police had lawfully killed a barrister as he fired a shotgun from the window of his flat, but in an extended “narrative verdict” said officers had given insufficient weight to the dead man’s alcoholism. Press coverage was extensive but muted, after the widow stated that she respected the verdict.

Meanwhile, a formal inquiry into the Iraq war (the fifth by some counts) that began in July 2009 is continuing, headed by a retired Whitehall mandarin, Sir John Chilcot. Another, headed by Sir Peter Gibson, a former judge, will soon probe alleged collusion between British spooks and foreign torturers.

This is superficially puzzling. After all, by education, culture and habit, most judges are members of Britain’s despised, mistrusted ruling elite. Yet their reputation has rarely been higher.

Voters killing the thing they love

People “want to know what happened”, suggests Michael Mansfield, a barrister and veteran of high-profile inquiries and inquests. What they seek is not retribution but for those in authority to be “brought to book” by legal questioning. The bereaved want lessons learned, giving some meaning to their loss. And the public has no faith in the House of Commons—a noisy, jeering pit of partisan barracking, further undermined by the parliamentary-expenses scandals—as a forum for establishing truth. Simultaneously, he says, there has been “a resurrection of faith” in the judiciary, notably after judges in the House of Lords condemned moves by the previous government to detain or control terror suspects without charge, or on the basis of secret evidence.

Mr Mansfield is a self-described “radical lawyer”, unloved on the right. But his analysis is echoed by a senior Conservative politician, who recalls when judges were seen as “lions under the throne”: upholders of the system. Now, he says, judges are seen as “upholders of the rule of law”, curbing an over-mighty state.

Is today’s inquiry mania sustainable? There are technical reasons why judges seem to be everywhere. Above all, the 1998 Human Rights Act enshrined the “right to life”—from Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights—into domestic law. That has transformed inquests, which must now consider not just who died, where and when, but “how” in its broadest sense. That may include deciding if public-policy lessons can be drawn from a death. The quality of inquests used to be hit and miss, with local lawyers and doctors serving as coroners. Now, when a death has an “Article 2 dimension”, a high court judge is often drafted in as coroner, as in the July 7th terror inquest. What is more, a growing number of claimants now seek—and obtain—judicial reviews of decisions made by public bodies, with judges asked to ponder everything from terrorist control orders to planning decisions.

Judges know their prominence carries risks. They are partly filling a vacuum created by the vertiginous fall of elected politicians from grace. Just 13% of respondents trusted politicians to tell the truth in a 2009 survey by Ipsos MORI (below even journalists). Judges were trusted by 80%. British judges are appointed, not elected, and public trust is strongly bound up with their political independence. Lord Carlile, a Liberal Democrat peer and the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, worries that judges’ findings are cheered when they chime with public opinion, but when they do not—as with the Hutton Inquiry into the death of the government weapons expert David Kelly—they are denounced as a “whitewash”. And the painful truth is that some decisions are properly taken by members of an elected executive. Senior judges are queasy about being asked to review terrorist control orders, for example.

The public’s yearning for judicial resolution of every crisis risks dragging judges close to the realm of politics. Lord Denning was right: someone must be trusted. If judges are not, who might take their place?

Carefully read, understood and discussed, this one article should allow AS students to:

• Outline the concept of Judicial Review
• Identify what constitutes a public inquiry and provide three recent examples
• Give a reason for the increased profile of the judiciary
• Explain how judges are appointed, and offer a view on whether the system needs modification
• Distinguish between judicial independence and judicial neutrality (key concepts)
• Provide a definition of the Rule of Law
• Explain the significance of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
• Discuss whether judges effectively protect civil liberties

Essential reading I would suggest....! (So read it!)