Can they do that? Sunak, Rwanda and Cameron

 This has been a tumultuous week:

- Suella Braverman has been sacked as Home Secretary after her comments about the Palestinian marches and the response from the Metropolitan Police to these and other protests, which were deemed to have inflamed the issue and led to serious disorder over the weekend. Braverman has since released a letter dripping with criticism of the Prime Minister.

- David Cameron has mounted a sensational political comeback - after resigning as an MP in 2016, he is now in post as Foreign Secretary, a role that he will perform from the House of Lords.

- The Government's Rwanda policy, where asylum seekers are sent to Rwanda while their claims are processed, was deemed to be illegal by the Supreme Court (not, as Sunak claimed in a post on Wednesday evening, a 'foreign court).

- Rishi Sunak has said he will pass emergency legislation in order to declare Rwanda a safe country.

Let's step back and consider the importance of two aspects of this from a Politics A Level standpoint; can Cameron simply be brought in from anywhere to be Foreign Secretary, and can the government simply override the Supreme Court like that?

In the case of the appointment of David Cameron as both Lord Cameron and as Foreign Secretary, the answer is 'yes, they can.' A lot of how our constitution works, in terms of appointments, is based on convention. After all, it hasn't been that long since Prime Ministers operating from the House of Lords was common! (well, not that recent, but 1895-1902)

There is always one representative of the House of Lords in the Cabinet in any case, but all major posts are regularly held by MPs. The most recent example that springs to mind is when Gordon Brown brought back Peter Mandelson, as Lord Mandelson, to serve as Business Secretary. But Foreign Secretary is another level. The biggest question is how will he held to account - MPs need to be able to question any minister about their actions, and this will not be possible with Cameron in the Lords.

The next question is over the government's Rwanda policy, which has been blocked by the Supreme Court. However, Rishi Sunak has said that he will pass emergency legislation in order to declare Rwanda a safe country. Which, of course, he can do. There may still be other legal recourse, as of course, it is the European Convention on Human Rights, but ultimately the policy will be able to go ahead. There isn't a better example of parliamentary sovereignty in practice!

Will there be any more referendums?

1. Scotland 

 Nicola Sturgeon resigned this year, after failing in her earlier pledge of delivering a 2nd independence referendum. As there is no way for Scotland to do this without the Westminster government giving permission, it seems pretty unlikely for now. Possibly the best chance is that Labour fail to win a majority government and they need the SNP to prop them up, meaning a 2nd referendum could be part of the deal. Still, Keir Starmer has ruled this out, at least for now. 

 2. EU membership

 For a long time a second EU referendum was the cause celebre of remainers, and was official Labour policy in the 2019 General Election. Polls suggest a large majority of people would prefer to rejoin. That said, the 2019 election could be seen as having put this one to bed. 'Get Brexit Done' was clearly a large vote winner for the Conservatives, and, more importantly, was a vote-winner amongst people who the Conservatives won from Labour. What this means in practice is that Labour would need to be confident that backing a new referendum wouldn't lose them votes in order to advocate for one. Don't expect Labour to break their silence on this any time soon!

Polling collected by https://www.whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls-uk-eu/ 

 3. Electoral system change 

 This has been in the news recently, as some Conservative voices have spoken out about potential future Labour plans, saying that they need to run any potential change past the people in a referendum. Labour's conference, in 2022, backed a change to the UK constitution to adopt a proportional voting system. However, Keir Starmer has made it clear that he is against it. I don't expect either a voting system change or a referendum on this one, especially as Labour look set to win a majority under First Past the Post anyway. 

 4. Northern Ireland 

 Now that Scotland looks like it is remaining as part of the UK (for now) the other potential issue could be Northern Ireland (sorry Wales). Polling suggests that a majority of people in Northern Ireland would favour unification, and demographic changes suggest that Catholics now outnumber protestants there. Once again, the key lies in how much the Conservative and Labour parties are willing to consider it, and the Conservatives won't, and Labour have now ruled it out. 

 5. Death penalty 

 The reintroduction of the death penalty, abolished in 1965 in the UK, enjoys some public support, with recent surveys suggesting that over 50% of people are in favour of this for certain crimes. The UK government, as a signitory to a raft of international treaties, is required to oppose it, and officially does, and is also constrained by not being able to extradite foreign nationals to countries where the individual may be subject to the death penalty. There is little doubt in my mind that the public *would* support this if it came about, but would a mainstream party be likely to ever support it? It would require leaving the European Convention of Human Rights, but the Conservative Party have more than flirted with this idea. 

 Interestingly there is a close correlation between those who support Brexit and those who would support the death penalty, as shown in the article below. 

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544 

So, in summary, whilst there is no shortage of issues that could be asked, the main factor in determining the future of UK referendums is whether the Labour and Conservative parties want them. And to that, the answer is no.

 Further reading: https://constitution-unit.com/2016/07/25/is-there-a-future-for-referendums/

Does the winner of the invisible primary always win the presidency?

The invisible primary, ie the period up to the beginning of the official election period at the start of a presidential election year, is an influential period in determining who will go on to receive the eventual Democrat or Republican nomination. This works in a few ways:

1. A clear front runner emerges in their party.

2. A candidate gains a significant funding advantage over their opponents.

3. Rival candidates can emerge.

What the record below suggests is that there is a clear relationship between the invisible primary winner and the eventual nominee. This is especially the case in the Republican Party, where all but once since 1976 the invisible primary winner has secured the nomination.

(Names in bold indicate where an alternative candidate won the nomination)

	Republicans	Democrats
2020		Joe Biden
2016	Donald Trump	Hillary Clinton
2012	Mitt Romney
2008	Rudi Giuliani (John McCain)	Hillary Clinton (Barack Obama)
2004		Howard Dean (John Kerry)
2000	George W Bush	Al Gore
1996	Bob Dole
1992		Bill Clinton
1988	George HW Bush	Gary Hart (Michael Dukakis)
1984		Walter Mondale
1980	Ronald Reagan
1976	Gerald Ford	Jimmy Carter