The Slow Rise of the Greens and the Fragmentation of Two Party Politics

Photo: Heather Stanley (flickr)

 

Richard Wood discusses the fundamental shifts in the nature of British party politics and the rise of alternative contenders.

One could easily be forgiven if they made the mistake of thinking that UKIP won the 2013 county council elections and took control of every council with overwhelming majorities. The media attention on Nigel Farage and his purple revolutionaries has been tremendously high, resulting in more than needed airtime for the party.

Although UKIP made a ‘breakthrough’, as they finished with a total of 147 councillors from almost zero, they did not end up in control of any councils and did not make significant gains in the north. Due to all the UKIP hype, one political force has suffered in terms of public attention – the Greens.

Natalie Bennett’s party made a modest net gain of five councillors, but has been somewhat marginalised by the media. Compared with Farage’s total of 147 it does not look like much, but the party gained seats in places outside its heartland of Brighton, such as in Bristol, Essex and the West Midlands.

The Green Party (of England and Wales, as Scotland has a separate Green Party which supports Scottish independence) has made progressive gains over the last few years. In the 2009 European parliament elections the party, lead by Caroline Lucas at the time, won almost 10% of the vote share, gaining over a million votes.

A year after this result, which was once again overshadowed by UKIP’s successes as they came second in the elections to the Conservatives, the party made history. 2010 was the year when Gordon Brown’s Labour fell from power, Nigel Farage was in a plane crash and lost when standing against the House speaker John Bercow, and significantly the Greens won their first MP – Caroline Lucas.

In contrast to UKIP, although the far right party is a force to be reckoned with, the Greens are one up on them in Westminster. Unlike UKIP, they have an MP. Nigel Farage has confirmed he will stand in 2015 for a seat, however he has not thought about where. The Greens plan to put forward more candidates than before and win more MPs.

What the 2013 county council elections have shown us is that the British people are not afraid of change. Whether that be disaffected Labour supporters moving towards the Greens, or grumbling traditional Tories moving towards UKIP, the outcome is the same – a change in the political landscape. The old party system is breaking up.

Natalie Bennett has recently stated that “What we’re seeing is a break-up of the traditional two – or three- party system in Britain”. This further reiterates the point that the old power game of ping-pong between the largest parties is drawing to an ultimate close.

Commentators say we are moving towards a four party system with UKIP being the third force in British politics. But there are not just four parties. The left and right are fragmenting into different factions. Change is happening right now. It is clear that the first-past-the-post system for English and Welsh councils, as well as for Westminster, is becoming unsustainable. With the rise of the Greens and UKIP, more people are wanting more change. 
Professor John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde pointed out that 2013 was the first election where the projected national vote share (PNS) for the main three parties was below 30% each. Something is happening in British politics. That is a tremendous change, and it is manifested by not just UKIP, but the Greens and other small parties too. For example, the SNP’s recent success in Scotland.

British political ground is shifting, and it’s not just UKIP making the change.

By Richard Wood.

The Aftermath of Woolwich: Should the Death Penalty be Reintroduced?

Photo: Feggy Art (flickr)

The death of drummer Lee Rigby is one of the most upsetting events seen in the U.K. in a long time. Nothing but sympathy for the family and horror can be felt, after the victim was stabbed and hacked to death by those delivering a series of Islamist messages. The anger caused from the cruel nature of the attack has led again to the question of whether the death penalty should be introduced. Can the death penalty be seen as the ultimate punishment or immoral behaviour? Writes Amber Larner-Bird. 

28-year-old Michael Adebolajo and 22-year-old Michael Adebowale are known as the suspects of the murder of Lee Rigby of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. Since the event took place more has come to light on their links to extremist Islamic groups, and even more interestingly how they were already known to the police and Mi5. Many questions could be asked about why more wasn’t done to watch and stop these individuals; however the more common question on everyone’s mind has been what penalty is deserving for the crime these men have committed.

The answer to this question for some seems to be the death penalty. What could be more deserving for those who have taken someone’s life but to take theirs in return? Our criminal system is based on the ideal of retribution, being that real justice requires people to suffer for their wrongdoing and to suffer in a way appropriate for the crime. To quote the saying from the Old Testament, “an eye for an eye” – introducing the death penalty would be taking a life for a life.

A strong argument for the case of the death penalty is deterrence, and I don’t believe there could be any greater deterrence for an action such as murder. Participants in the recent, although very controversial, programme Skint on Channel 4 made a very good point, if prison was such a bad experience why would people not be afraid to go back again and again? Therefore, perhaps the argument is right that the death penalty would create a greater deterrence and consequently fewer murders in our country.

It is also undeniable that there would be no risk of further re-offending of such individuals. The death penalty would only be used for such serious immoral crimes which some argue are deserving of ultimate harsh punishment. The killing of Lee Rigby has been so moving for so many people because the actions of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale where so inhuman. Can life in prison really ever help individuals that could harm an unknown person in such a horrific way?

However, although the anger and thought process behind the arguments for the death penalty can be understood, overall the process is morally flawed. As many of us were taught throughout our childhood and life – two wrongs don’t make a right. How can you teach that killing is wrong if you yourselves are killing? Morals and cultures are so wide-ranging, who really has the power to lord over our country and say what is and isn’t moral. I don’t believe any of us would be happy in giving the Courts, and an extremely un-diverse judiciary, the right to rule on morality and I don’t believe the Courts would be comfortable with that job either.

There has also been no proof to find that using the death penalty actually works as a deterrent. In fact the work done by the American Death Penalty Information Centre has actually found that in 2011 there were 18% more murders in American States that did use the death penalty than those who didn’t. Worryingly, it has been argued that introducing the death penalty actually brutalises the country. Capital punishment is said to produce an unacceptable link between law and violence and by referencing similar statistics as above, it can be seen that more murders take place in american states that use the death penalty.

The most worrying factor for me, amongst others, is the killing of innocent people. Our legal system is not perfect, and just as I believe guilty men and women manage to abuse and use the system to be found innocent when they are not, mistakes do happen and innocent people are found guilty. This can occur for a number of reasons, because of witnesses for example or even the jury system itself and uninterested jury members.  The research and help of Amnesty International has found that in the U.S., 130 people sentenced to death have been found innocent since 1973 and released from death row. This only goes to prove the underlying issue that by using the death penalty you could be sentencing the lives of innocent citizens to death.

The death penalty will always be a controversial and heavily contested topic because both sides of the argument present equally strong cases. I agree, however, with many in the aftermath of Woolwich who say that prison just isn’t enough. The worry that these men could be released someday and that they will never really comprehend what they have done, is overwhelming. However taking the lives of these men is not going to bring back innocent Lee Rigby, all that can happen now is that we respect and remember his life.

The further underlying issue of Woolwich is that, rightly or wrongly, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale had such strong religious beliefs that they did not value the lives of others. For this reason, as their beliefs were so radical, I do not believe they value their own lives and in turn they would arguably sacrifice their lives for their extremist beliefs. Therefore taking their lives would not be a hardship for them and for this reason the death penalty would achieve nothing here.

As I have said above, the anger found from such horrific and inhuman actions is understandable. The want for serious, overreaching punishment and consequence is also comprehendable as this crime goes over and above the devastation of the majority of crimes committed in the U.K. However, society must realise that the anger generated from this atrocity comes from the right motives. Social media and conversation after the event has been full of misconception and misdirected anger, some even bordering on racist. The two individuals stand alone as extremists. They may have had religious motives, but overall they are simply just extremists and their actions can not and should not be stereotyped as Muslim. In the months ahead, where these men will be trialled and ultimately sentenced, the call for a serious sentence must be considered in line with the crime committed in order for us to remain a diverse but equal society.

By Amber Larner-Bird.

Obama’s Policy on Drones: Should U.S. Progressives Shake This Man’s Hand?

Photo: Gage Skidmore (flickr)

In a special article, Peter Cruttenden writes on the controversial issues of U.S. drone attacks and President Obama’s targeted killings, with relation to the use of the ‘filibuster’ in the United States Senate.

Peter S. Cruttenden is a U.S. citizen and PhD candidate in the University of Nottingham’s, School of Politics and International Relations. He is also affiliated with the Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice (CSSGJ) and the Centre for the Study of Conflict and Terrorism (CSCT).

Ever since the re-election of Barak Obama, U.S.-based progressive groups have been sending out e-mails in attempts to initiate on-line grass-roots campaigns to eliminate the use of the filibuster in the United States Senate. To be sure, the use of the filibuster within the U.S. Senate has historically been used as a device to obstruct legislation, including civil rights, meaningful gun control, not to mention, equitable tax treatment affecting the wealthiest U.S. citizens and corporations.

Even the threat of a filibuster has derailed the appointment of Elizabeth Warren as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the passage of the Dream Act, which has instilled a sense of both marginalisation and empowerment to the undocumented youth movement. So, at first blush, Progressives in the U.S. might be tempted to add their name to such petitions along with a contribution of a few of their hard-earned dollars to break the stranglehold of conservative entrenched Senate Republicans such as Mitch McConnell and Tom Coburn, the notorious Dr. No.

On the surface, it seems that nothing would be better than to the eliminate the requirement that 60 U.S. Senators support a piece of legislation and debate within the Senate chamber could be limited without involving cloture. There is little doubt that the chances for a more U.S. progressive domestic agenda could be advanced if the filibuster was eliminated.

However, Progressives need to think again and not jump on anti-filibuster bandwagon too quickly without considering how a filibuster has been extremely important in altering President Obama’s targeted killings policy. Anyone who is knowledgeable about U.S. politics knows that there is absolutely nothing in common between so-called Tea Party candidates such as Rand Paul and anti-war activists such as Code Pink . Yet this strange political marriage of convenience emerged when Paul filibustered the nomination of John Brennan (aka the “Assassination Czar”) to become Obama’s head of the Central Intelligence Agency. The major reason for Paul’s filibuster was that he sought assurances from the Obama Administration and Brennan that the Terror Tuesday sessions at the Obama White House would not include the use of drones for targeted killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

Needless to say, Paul’s 13 hour filibuster did contain some fairly outrageous claims that bordered on paranoia by wondering if the use of weaponised drones could be used for targeting Tea Party members. Of significance is the following quote:

“Yes, I was at a Tea Party meeting and I was critical of the President; but I’m not a revolutionary; please don’t kill me.”

No doubt, such statements made on the U.S. Senate floor made for bizarre political theatre, especially when juxtaposed against the anti-drone statements of Democratic Senator Ron Wyden who effectively, yet wonkishly, spoke of issues of accountability, Congressional oversight and transparency, as he briefly spoke during Paul’s filibuster. However, it was Paul’s filibuster, no matter how self-aggrandising it may have been, which initiated a debate on Obama’s policy of target killings, which has long been sought by many on the political left in the U.S.

Obama’s policy of targeted killings, directed in pertinent part, by John Brennan, during his tenure as a member of Obama’s National Security Council, has been shrouded in secrecy. Such secrecy is exacerbated by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s anemic oversight of the target-killings policy in which the Committee’s Chairperson, Senator Diane Feinstein becomes almost complicit in not only the illegal killings of U.S. citizens abroad, but contributing to the proliferation of Muslim militant extremism in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, as a result of so called drone signature strikes that continue to kill innocent civilians. The relationship between drone signature strikes, unwarranted “collateral damage” and the perpetuation of terrorism, is a point that critical security and critical terrorism theorists have long been arguing and which has long been ignored, until Paul’s filibuster.

While one can ridicule Paul’s filibuster comment of “Please don’t kill me;” there are perhaps thousands in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere that possibly use similar wording in order to describe the everyday insecurity caused by Obama’s target killings policy. One needs only to peruse the Stanford/NYU report, “Living Under Drones”, to comprehend the correlation between drone signature strikes and potential terrorism.

I, for one, totally agree with U.S. based syndicated journalist E.J. Dionne, when he told MSNBC’s political analyst, Lawrence O’Donnell that the Senate Democrats ceded an important opportunity to the likes of the Tea Party, by not taking the initiative in opening up a debate which has long been necessary. Dionne, went so far as to note that there may be a point in time that Democrats will regret that they allowed Paul to control the agenda on civil and human rights; an agenda which Democrats and Progressives purport to champion.

In conclusion, while Paul’s filibuster, unlike the filibuster portrayed in the film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, did not forestall a less than desirable outcome, Brennan’s CIA confirmation, the filibuster did initiate a badly needed public debate on drones. A debate that recently culminated Obama publicly announcing guidelines on drone strikes, that may or may not, ban signature strikes. And more importantly, the operation of drones strikes in “non-combat” theatres such as Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, has been transferred from the CIA to the U.S. Department of Defense; whose officials are required to take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, while the odd and temporary marriage of convenience between the rising star of the Tea Party and progressive anti-war groups like Code Pink, did not necessarily stop John Brennan’s confirmation to the CIA, yet small, but profound changes resulted from his filibuster. Obama has, to a limited extent, thrown back the shroud of secrecy which has characterised his policy of target-killings.

So, Progressives in the U.S. need to bear in mind that the U.S. Presidency can be captured by any of the two major parties at any given presidential election. And that there is no doubt that the filibuster has historically been employed to obstruct progressive politics. Yet, as Paul’s filibuster has somewhat constrained the growing imperial presidency of a Democratic president, in the future, Progressives will most likely be demanding a filibuster to obstruct “imperial presidential” policies of a Republican president.

By Peter S. Cruttenden, PhD Candidate at the University of Nottingham.

We must continue to fight extremist Islamism

Photo: Youssef Shoufan (Flickr)

“When the Islamic world hates us, we have only ourselves to thank.” So goes the dogmatic masochism which has characterised the multiculturalist Left for the last decade. But they are missing the point: Islam has been on the same path since its inception, as we can see from the inflexibility of its scriptures and supplementary texts. The path of Islamic conquest in the centuries after its inception corroborates this point, so too does the clash of the Jeffersonian Navy and the Barbary pirates in the 18^th Century.

Traditional Islamic attitudes towards apostates as well as ‘blasphemers’ (the definition of which is rather porous) is hardly compassionate, and so why aren’t we surprised that so many fundamentalists see it fit to organise terrorist atrocities such as the one which a group of British men from Birmingham men confessed to last month? The horrific carnage to rock the Boston Marathon conforms to type, and is an outrage committed by lone fanatics inspired by bin Ladenist doctrines of hatred and religiously inspired totalitarianism. This is the case; and it only serves to show that we have not yet won the war on terror or the war against theocratic fascism either. While these are in a minority, it is still a worryingly large proportion of the 1.2 billion Muslims we hear of, who are all assumed to be ‘offended’ by all supposed insult to their prophet or faith.

Home-grown terrorists are hardly new for the United Kingdom. The bosom of the nation (and as some Right-wing rags were so happy to point out, the welfare system too), nurtured the vile perpetrators of the rightly infamous 7/7 attacks on London in 2005. It was not a surprise to see bearded would-be-jihadits lining the streets of London on Remembrance Sunday to protest against troop deployments designed to save their co-religionists from torture and abuse by fascist gangs and evil extremists. These echo the very people who happily oppress, for example, women: those whom a book of moral instruction says it is acceptable to rape if they will not sleep with their husbands.

Protests are small in number, but attract disproportionate coverage due to canny media manipulation – such as proscribed group Islam4UK which planned to demonstrate in the symbolic town of Wotton Bassett – before it was banned by the British Home Secretary in 2010. Small they may be, but they are aided in their mission to spread awareness by the very multiculturalist doctrines which originally were intended to safeguard minorities from this sort of wanton thuggary.

The fact that so many Muslims seem to hate the western conceptions of secularism and gender equality cannot be put down, as easy as it may be for some who rely on the Muslim vote (like George Galloway) to do so, to western intervention in Islamic countries. His cry that the policies of Britain and America have created ‘ten-thousand new bin Ladens’ only shows how out of touch he is; not only with factual reality (Galloway watchers gave him up for lost years ago on that one), but also the opinions of some Islamic leaders in these newly liberated nations.

Despite the sentiment expressed above; there are examples of Muslims, indeed the great majority of modern practitioners: who buck the trend of violence and ignorance. The following is an attempt to illustrate this.

The President of Iraq, Mr. Talabani, is not only a Kurd (which is remarkable in itself), he is also a Muslim. He, and many other political leaders like him, can combine their faith with holding public office, and even co-operating with the Americans. He is joined in the Iraqi Parliament and corridors of power by Sunni and Shia practitioners, all of whom don’t hate the western forces (who aimed to improve their lives by removing a brutal tyrant) simply because of their religion. Give them some credit!

Just because they subscribe to one religion does not make them automatically wish to kill all those who do not. Fundamentalist Islam teaches to kill non-believers, but individuals make their own choices; this is why suicide bombers are largely young men, devoid of all hope and love for anyone who isn’t supernatural. It is possible for rational people to escape the barbaric encirclement of dogma, in order that they might be peaceful and spiritually free.

What we need to do, and do so forcibly, is to break down the reasons for the latter example: ghettoisation, decline in respect for tolerance, and other peoples’ freedoms, and the isolation and ignorance which comes from traditions of mutual loathing. Multiculturalism keeps communities segregated from each other, only facilitating extremism and cultural illiteracy.

By all means tackle the problem, and the work the UK police is doing in combating potential terrorist activity is largely faultless, but we need to tackle the two root causes of the issue: the wicked use of the Quran peddled by grubby, demagogic, Imams; and the lack of serious links between communities. Sociological bankruptcy is not helping reconciliation.

So yes, it is our fault. But not through any action of anti-Muslim provocation – other than merely existing. Our crime, and why we are to be haunted with the spectre of extremist Islamic anger until this squalid little ideology is stamped out, is not combating the sinister doctrine of exceptionalism which has fostered such a master-servant relationship. Even moderate Muslim voices, compressed by the media need to shape a narrative into one, easy-to-use stereotype, are marginalised by the continued lack of any serious campaign against the pernicious nature of absolutist Islam in the UK.

Our cultural and military deference to Islamic extremism and the culture of inbuilt violence which emanates from a minority reading of a holy book is what has led directly to nastily capricious heights, creating a default setting of outrage. Until we can promote secular values in society, and remove ourselves from the demeaning task of pandering to religious authorities in search of solutions, we will continue to see the sort of evil which was luckily foiled by the law. Too bad Boston was not quite so lucky.

James Snell. Follow on Twitter @James_P_Snell

Can Labour reclaim Scotland from the Nationalists?

Photo: Scottish Labour (Flickr)

A sea of yellow flooded the Scottish political landscape back in 2011 when Alex Salmond’s SNP turned their minority into an undeniable majority. However, 41/59 of Scotland’s MPs in Westminster are Labour, whereas the SNP only have 6. Although this is partly down to the fact that the Scottish Parliament has aspects of proportional representation and Westminster does not, it is still clear that Scots vote differently in Holyrood and Westminster elections. To put it crudely Scots vote Labour to keep the Tories out at Westminster, but vote SNP at Holyrood as they see the Salmond administration as being better at protecting Scottish interests. Labour once dominated Holyrood and have been fundamental to Scottish politics for years, but now that their influence has been significantly diminished is there anyway to get it back?

First of all Scottish Labour need a well recognised and respected leader. The previous leader Iain Gray was a decent enough figure, but without someone on a par to Alex Salmond, Scottish Labour’s chances are noticeably weakened. Furthermore, as for the current Labour leader – Johann Lamont – before the leadership election no one had ever heard of her. Even now, many still have not, which is not a position the party should be finding themselves in. She was democratically elected, but whilst Mr Salmond leads the SNP, Scottish politics is dominated by the politics of personality and oratory. Policies and ideas matter, but not as much as they should. If not being able to rival Alex Salmond’s personality (and ego) is a cause for Labour’s decline and the party wishes to remain a legitimate force, it must find a solution.

Alistair Darling currently leads the ‘Better Together’ campaign and so is in no position to take the reigns of the party, however, he is often suggested as a viable alternative. He is charismatic, energetic and often deemed a popular figure in the Labour party and across Scotland, hence his role in ‘Better Together.’ Maybe after the referendum in 2014, which will undoubtedly be a ‘No’ vote, he will resign as an MP, find a byelection and become an MSP. Then maybe he could try for leader. This is all speculation of course, but it offers an interesting solution.

In terms of policy, Scottish Labour attempt to disagree with the SNP at almost every turn. The politics of opportunism is rife in Holyrood. The SNP have taken over the centre left of Scottish politics, which is where Scotland’s centre ground is situated. In September of last year Johann Lamont made a speech where she denounced commitment to free tuition fees as well as free prescriptions. Furthermore, there has been a lot of speculation on her acceptance of Trident and the keeping of nuclear submarines in Faslane. It is clear that Scottish Labour members, who have always been further to the left than their Westminster contempories, are at last following the trend. This is probably to show opposition to the SNP, but Scotland is traditionally a left of centre nation and such a response to SNP governance is just moving away from the Scottish centre ground. If Labour wish to reclaim Scotland they are going to have to start thinking about what the Scottish people want, rather than play at opportunism with the SNP.

It is clear that Labour have got a long way to go if they wish to reclaim Holyrood. In 2014 after a vote to keep the union together, perhaps Alex Salmond will stand down and Labour will have a chance again. However, there remain other popular figures in the SNP, such as Nicola Sturgeon, who would probably take Alex Salmond’s job in the run up to the 2016 election. As for Labour’s policies, moving away from their traditional left of centre ground will have a damaging effect on them as Scotland is traditionally left of centre. Perhaps Alistair Darling will make an entrance into Holyrood or Johann Lamont will become extremely popular, but right now it is far too early to tell. 2016 could see Labour’s comeback as the SNP will undoubtedly lose the referendum, but the SNP consistently outstrip the other Scottish parties in the polls, showing that perhaps even a vote to keep the UK together may not kill of the SNP flame. The 2014 referendum results and repercussions will draw the battleground for 2016. Only after the results of 18th September 2014 and May 2015 can we make a more accurate guess as to what the fate of Labour in Scotland will be.

Richard Wood. Follow on Twitter @rwood94