Category Archives: Politics

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
Britain, Consumer Affairs, Government, Politics, Society

Imposing a price cap will not improve the energy market

ENERGY MARKET

Energy costs

A series of remedies have been called for to encourage greater switching.

The energy market does not work well. Consumers who shop around by believing they have obtained cheaper tariffs soon find they will be paying higher prices not long afterwards when the special deals they signed-up to expire. Unless people are prepared to spend time looking out for better terms, or by getting another company to do it for them, they will likely end up with a bigger bill than they should. Energy consumers are being trapped into a false sense of security.

With energy costs increasing for a variety of reasons – not least because of onerous environmental requirements imposed by the state – the cost of energy has become a toxic political issue. The Labour Party recognised this prior to the last election when it pledged to cap prices.

Now, the Conservatives under Theresa May – who ridiculed this policy when it was proposed by Ed Miliband – plan to do the same if they win the general election on June 8. Mrs May has said the Big Six were ‘ripping off’ consumers and has stated that the Conservative manifesto would regulate the maximum costs of the standard variable tariffs on which most users are parked. The analysis offered suggests this will save the average customer around £200 a year. But, even if we accept that the market is flawed, price controls are not the best way of addressing this. It is not for a free-market Government to decide the right price for a commodity but rather to encourage competition by allowing people to make their own choices.

Big Six Cashing In

There are several price comparison websites that help consumers switch suppliers, as some two million have done over the past six months. But millions more stay with the same company; and it is this inertia on which the companies rely allowing them to freely hike up prices with impunity. One thing a cap will do is bring down prices for many users.

On the other hand, it will simply consolidate the lack of movement by entrenching consumers to stay with their present provider: if you know that the price is capped why look around for a better deal? What is more, if the cap is set too low it will force small suppliers out of the market; too high and prices will gravitate upwards.

Following a review last year, the Competitions and Markets Authority recommended against a variable tariff price cap and called for a series of remedies to encourage greater switching. The energy companies say the Conservative policy would destroy competition, jeopardise jobs and deter vital investment. Yet, if that is the case, rather than constantly complaining, they would be well advised to make sure that the market works for the benefit of all their customers.

Standard