Category Archives: Politics

Government, Politics, Scotland

General Election: Jeremy Corbyn, pragmatism and progressive politics

LABOUR PARTY

Jeremy Corvyn

Jeremy Corbyn has ruled out an alliance with the Scottish National Party if there is a hung parliament following the general election. His stance could change if he finds himself in the position of forming a government.

Intro: Jeremy Corbyn insists he will not do a deal with the Scottish National Party at Westminster. But, if there is a hung parliament, circumstances should dictate that he reconsiders. Pragmatism may have to override principle.

Politics has a habit of delivering the unexpected. But sometimes, particularly in the current political climate, we should be ready to apply pragmatism as a means of moving forward.

Anyone who has followed the long political career of Jeremy Corbyn will not have been overly surprised at his remarks concerning the possibility of striking a deal at Westminster with the Scottish National Party following the general election.

Mr Corbyn reiterated that there will be ‘no deals’ and ‘no alliance’. He has given an almost steadfast pledge that he is not willing to consider Nicola Sturgeon’s overtures.

Politically, of course, it is perfectly understandable why the Labour leader has maintained his position. By ruling out any alliance with the SNP, he is giving potential Labour voters in Scotland good reason to back his own party. Were he to have signalled the possibility of doing a deal, that proportion of the electorate would likely go against their instincts. Politics is not about giving rivals an advantage to your own detriment.

Mr Corbyn, a hard left-leaning socialist, is a man of principle who has remained true to his ideals for decades. Some within his party perceive that as damaging stubbornness, but it remains universally fundamental to his vision of politics.

But waging election battles and governing are worlds apart. With all opinion polls cutting Theresa May’s lead, there is every chance that Mr Corbyn could find himself in a position where he could be required to form a government with the support of the SNP. If that scenario did come to pass, he would be invited to take a different path to the one he has been advocating up until now.

If he were to reject that, the Conservatives would be returned to power and Labour voters would never forgive him for not removing a government that has caused them great hardship. Austerity has reduced many to seek desperate help from food banks, with many unable to make ends meet. Idealism during the election campaign is fine and well, but he has not been in this position before. If the Labour leader wishes to take the mantle of power, he will likely have to adopt a much more pragmatic approach.

Such an alliance with the SNP would raise other issues. A second independence referendum in Scotland would become a prerequisite and condition of agreeing to do a deal with Labour. The SNP would be expected to pursue progressive policies in any alliance, so it wouldn’t just be a dilemma for Mr Corbyn. Any reversal of promises made by Ms Sturgeon would likely lead to the SNP facing a torrent of criticism.

Political history matters, too, particularly in relation to the mistakes of the past. The SNP have surely learnt the lessons of what transpired after it failed to back Labour in 1979.

Standard
Britain, Government, Politics, Society

The Conservative Party manifesto leaves us little wiser

GENERAL ELECTION 2017

During this election, Theresa May has conducted such an anodyne campaign that there was an earlier suspicion that she may have felt she could get away with not presenting a manifesto. After all, did she really need too? Riding high in all opinion polls, and with the Labour Party in no proper or fit state to present a genuine challenge, she has been able to glide through on soundbites and rhetoric. Why risk inviting trouble?

In the last few days, that manifesto was delivered. There is little in its pages that really rocks the boat. There is little about Brexit, other than a few broad details we are already aware of. Considering that this snap election was called purely because Mrs May wanted Brexit negotiations to be done her way, the lack of clarity is disappointing if unsurprising.

Whilst not entirely risk-free from voter desertion, the elderly will have good reason to feel hard done by. The triple lock on pensions will no longer be guaranteed, and worryingly for those in England and Wales, a greater proportion of the cost of social care is being passed on to individuals. Many will fear the loss of their home and other capital assets in paying for it.

Aside from that, Mrs May has pledged a ‘mainstream government that would deliver for mainstream Britain’, a slogan which appears accurate for a set of proposals which aren’t too far off centre. It is here where she is likely to succeed in securing victory on June 8, by deliberately moving into the area Labour had to occupy to get Tony Blair into Downing Street (just as Labour under Jeremy Corbyn vacate the middle ground to set up camp on the far left).

The stance taken by the prime minister represents astute politics, and much the same can be said of her handling of the Scottish Government’s request for a second independence referendum. Again, Mrs May plays the ‘now is not the time card’ which kicks another ballot anytime soon into the long grass. No doubt she will try to avoid the matter until after the next Holyrood elections – in the hope that, by that time, the SNP will not be in a position to call a referendum. It’s hard and timely politics at work.

If Mrs May’s advisers can keep her out of trouble, the manifesto should be enough to secure the majority she seeks. By aiming for the middle ground, she has started a process of countering the Tories ‘nasty party’ image. Yet, this manifesto tells us very little about what life will be like under Mrs May, because our future will be determined by Brexit. Until we know what that is, we cannot really judge on whether the Conservative Party has changed for the good.

Standard
Government, Legal, Politics, Society, United States

What Is Obstruction of Justice?

UNITED STATES

Ever since President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey last week the term “obstruction of justice” has been swirling inside Washington D.C. and across cable television. The rhetoric has somewhat intensified after the New York Times cited a memo from Mr Comey claiming that the president had asked him to shut down an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn following his resignation.

Using social media networking site Twitter, Senator Chris Murphy has asked about the exact definition of “obstruction of justice” and highlights the frenzy between Democrats and Republicans over its meaning. Mr Murphy tweeted with a link to the Times report.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse tweeted: “Yesterday, secrets to the Russians. Today, obstruction of justice? When does this end?”

But what exactly is Obstruction of Justice and how does it relate to the headlines that have been coming out of the Beltway?

Obstruction of Justice is essentially someone who intentionally intervenes or tampers with an ongoing investigation.

Obstruction of Justice

The Times wrote that the memo is “the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.”

“You can’t get in the way or do anything to impede an investigation that has already been launched and if you do you may suffer criminal penalties,” said William C. Banks, a law professor and Director of the Institute for National Security and Counter-Terrorism at Syracuse University.

The federal code has 21 statutes outlining the different methods of obstruction of justice, including the use of murder or physical force to disrupt a testimony influencing a juror, and falsifying records. But one of the statutes, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 also includes a general provision, explaining that someone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

But the key to proving obstruction of justice, explains Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, is that the intervention has to be propelled by corrupt motives.

“If it’s a threat, that makes it a crime. If it’s not a threat – but a request – it could still be a crime if the threat is motivated by a corrupt purpose,” Weisberg said.

The punishment varies, and usually depends on what the person was convicted for, but the maximum is 20 years of imprisonment if fined under the federal statute of 18 U.S. Code § 1512. In 1974, articles of impeachment drafted against Richard Nixon accused him of obstructing justice after he refused to hand over his tape recordings to the FBI. Nixon resigned, but faced no charges because Gerald Ford pardoned him.

In 2007, then Vice President Dick Cheney’s former Chief of Staff Scooter Libby, was convicted of Obstruction of Justice – in addition to lying to a grand jury and FBI agents – regarding the federal investigation into the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame and received a 30-month prison sentence before President George W. Bush pardoned him that June.

Standard