Party systems: what do we have and why does it matter?

UK politics has long been dominated by the Labour and Conservative parties - that much is obvious. Every election going back to way before the Second World War has been won by one of the big two. Even before that, in the era before 1918 when the franchise truly expanded to the working class and women, the UK had been a 2 party duopoly of the Conservatives and Liberals, and before that their predecessors, the Tories and Whigs.

Donald and Hillary - a classic 2 party match-up.

But there have also been periods of flux, and the growth of other parties at various points. And when we look around our country, isn't there evidence of other parties being significant? Is the old two party system out, or is it just as resilient as it ever was?

Firstly, the argument for decline. In 1951 the combined vote share for the Conservatives and Labour was 96.8% - virtually no other party was represented, and they gained 616 seats between them. By 2010, the number of seats for the big two remained high, with 564. But their combined vote share was just 65%. The reason for this is clear; First Past the Post prevents other parties gaining strong representation. The Lib Dems managed to get 23% of the vote, but were still stranded on 57 seats.

So what are the alternative views?

Multi-party system

This is most commonly seen in Europe, where Proportional Representation is common, leading to the success in gaining seats for parties like DENK and Party for the Animals in the Netherlands. Despite us having FPTP there is an argument for it in the UK; the success of parties like the Lib Dems, the SNP, and the 5 Northern Irish parties, whose level of representation varies, means that there is still a chance for representation in parliament. Looking around the UK, there is clearly multi-party politics outside England, as well.

Regional party system

Due to the variety of systems we have in the UK (with elections not just to Westminster but also to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd, NI Assembly, London, and elsewhere), the electoral system can vary significantly depending on where you look. If you look in Scotland - it's a dominant party system for the SNP. In Wales, a 2 party system perhaps, though Labour almost always form the government. In Northern Ireland we have a true multi-party system. Also, if one looks at different areas of England the party system can vary dramatically.

Dominant party system

The UK has had many elections in recent years - but only 2 changes of government in 30 years (and 3 in nearly 50 years!). Labour won power in 1997 but held on for 13 years, and the Conservatives won in 2010, and will be in power until at least 2024 (it appears). The nature of First Past the Post makes it possible for a party to gain a strong grip on power, and tends to exaggerate support for the largest party.

2.5 party system (2 party plus)

This is, I suppose, an argument that the 2 party system still has some legs. Whilst alternative parties in principle can gain power, they often can only do so as part of coalitions. The Lib Dems managed to gain representation as part of the coalition in 2010-2015, and the DUP supported the Conservative government from 2017-2019. Additionally, parties can influence government even when they don't gain power - one only needs look at the change in Conservative policy due to the growing influence of UKIP in the 2010s.

But despite all of this, the last few years have actually seen the 2 party system come back stronger. In 2017 the two main parties gained 82.4% of the vote, with the post-2015 decline of the Lib Dems helping both major parties. The Conservatives have gained over 40% in subsequent elections, and poll numbers suggest this may be on the cards for Labour in the future, so the system seems resilient for now.

So, whilst the UK doesn't have the strength of a 2 party system like the US, it is clear that, while we retain First Past the Post for Westminster elections, the era of Conservative and Labour dominance will remain.

How significant are retired voters?

When teaching voting behaviour recently (it's my favourite topic), I was talking to pupils about how to counter-argue and get marks for analysis. One really interesting area for that is that of class and its apparent declining influence in UK politics. The famous Pulzer quote was that "class is the basis of all British party politics". Yet, by 2017 and 2019 we were looking at a Conservative Party that was able to be highly successful with working class voters, and 2019's statistics in fact showed that the Tories were more successful with C2DE voters (i.e. those with less education or training) than they were with ABC1, which is a dramatic turnaround from even a few elections ago.

But one thing that may give us further food for thought on this is the information regarding voting by wealth and retirement status. It is clear that age clearly has a huge impact, but one thing that surprised me is how much. As you can see in the below diagram, every single income group other than the very poorest are more likely to vote Conservative if we include people who have retired.

However, if we exclude retirees, the picture is dramatically different. All voter groups earning under £100,000 a year are more likely to vote Labour. We might well expect those earning over 100k to be more pro-Conservative, but the fact that most who were even very wealthy by most standards, in brackets such as £70,000 to £99,999 was very surprising to me.

The Conservative lead amongst retired voters clearly gave them a major edge in 2019. It is worth remembering that the turnout amongst 65+ voters was 74%, with younger voters being considerably below this. It would be very interesting to see if the age at which people become more likely to vote Conservative goes up significantly in our next election.

How democratic are our parties, and does it matter?

 Years ago there was a branch of political science called Kremlinology, named after the seat of the Soviet government in Moscow. Kremlinologists would watch the activities of the USSR's leadership for signs of the direction of the party, which could be hard to discern. Sometimes the study of the internal structures of the major UK parties can feel similarly obscure to our pupils, so here is some explanation.

The specification asks for knowledge of  the "party structures and functions of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties". What this really means is knowing about 3 distinct areas, as well as how the party works.

Party leadership elections

We have certainly seen a lot of these in recent years! All parties have a balance of influence of MPs, members, and in some cases constituency parties, which in the Labour Party and Lib Dems have a role in nomination.

The Conservative system notionally has a low threshold of MPs required to get on the initial ballot of MPs. Then, from there, the MPs are whittled down to final 2, before members get their say. This can, in itself, limit the influence of members, as MPs can prevent their preferred candidate from getting on the ballot, or can manipulate the candidates in their own way. Additionally, on 3 occasions out of the 7 new leader events since the system was created (Howard, May, Sunak) there hasn't even been a leadership contest! The system created for Sunak's election was almost specifically designed to prevent a leadership contest going to the members.

In Labour, the real battle is again amongst MPs.  Ed Miliband brought in the current system which was used to elect Corbyn (twice) and Starmer. Originally the support of 15% of MPs were required to be on  the ballot, but this is hard for figures from the left of the party to attain. Indeed, Corbyn only just got the right amount at the very last minute, but won comfortably with members (many of whom had paid £3 to vote in the election, a system which has since been scrapped). As leader Corbyn originally wanted to  reduce this to 5% - the theory being that once on the ballot, left wing figures would be able to be successful amongst members, as was the case with Corbyn. This was watered down to 10%, but has been increased by Starmer to 20%, which in theory should make it harder for another Corbyn-like figure in the future.

The Lib Dem system uses STV, which is lovely of them, but given that there have almost always been two candidates, it's basically pointless. Lib Dems need the support of 1 MP and 200 members from different parts of the party. Therefore, it is much easier to get nominated in the Lib Dems, and gives much more power to members.

Candidate selection

This is where it gets even more fractious. Local members want to have a say, and to be able to choose their own candidates, whereas party leaders want to be able to guarantee that they have a good standard of candidate who will maintain party discipline. Potentially strong candidates are 'parachuted' into safe seats, such as brothers David and Ed Miliband, who were from London, educated at Oxford, and represent(ed) South Shields and Doncaster.

Recently in Labour there have been some examples of local members taking action against MPs they disagree with. Under Corbyn, more central Labour MPs were threatened with deselection, such as Chukka Umunna, who eventually left the party. More recently Sam Tarry was deselected by his constituency (though this was the opposite, with a more left wing MP being removed). In the Conservatives, Nick Boles and Dominic Grieve were threatened with deselection due to their opposition to Brexit. Members of Leave.EU mass-joined the party in order to vote for candidates who were more supportive of Brexit. Furthermore, recently David Campanale was deselected by Lib Dem members, who were concerned by what they saw as anti-LGBT views. Still, it is VERY rare for sitting MPs to be deselected, with this only happening to Sam Tarry (poor Sam) since 2010.

Parties have attempted to boost their numbers of ethnic minority and women candidates through processes such as Women Only Shortlists (Labour - though they no longer exist) and A Lists (Conservatives). These have been effective, as demonstrated by the far greater numbers of minorities on the Conservative benches, including in cabinet posts, and by Labour now having more than 50% women MPs. However, these have not been without controversy, with criticism of these as an example of positive discrimination (and this was successfully challenged in court back in 1996).

Policy formation

All party leaders want to make policy as independently from their party members as is possible. Part of this is just practicality - a leader, especially when governing needs to be able to make decisions and respond to issues as they arise. However, the Lib Dems and Labour in particular have traditions of internal party democracy that can, at least in theory, hold the leadership to account.

For example, under Jeremy Corbyn Labour's conference voted that it wanted to retain Trident, Britain's nuclear deterrent. Corbyn, who is against nuclear weapons, was forced to retain this as part of his policy platform. The Lib Dem conference similarly forced Nick Clegg to abandon his policy on Heathrow expansion, which the Lib Dem conference was against. That said, party leaders will try to ignore or avoid listening to their conference - I find it very unlikely that Keir Starmer will stick to his party's pledge to bring in proportional representation at the 2022 Labour Conference.

A telling quote about the roles of conferences is as follows, from Democratic Audit: " ‘the Liberal Democrat conference thinks it makes policy and it does, the Labour conference thinks it makes policy but doesn’t and the Conservative conference knows it doesn’t make policy and doesn’t care’". In the Conservative Party, the tradition is that the leader makes a greater proportion of decisions. Famously, John Major said of the 1992 manifesto "it was all me", and David Cameron and Oliver Letwin wrote their 2010 and 2015 manifestoes. Still, it is clear that a massive departure from the expected policy preferences of members would be hard to achieve, like if the party pivoted to being pro-EU. That said, the current high tax policies of Sunak and Hunt may test out that theory.

Analysis

So, there are clear examples for both party of being democratic or not. Historically the Conservatives have been more centralised and top-down, and Labour at times have had a more chaotic, member-led party. However, at periods of success Labour has tended to adopt a more top-down approach as well, and it is clear that Starmer has tried to limit member influence in order to make Labour more electable. There are also questions about how much say party members should have when the success of the whole country is at stake, where it can result in something like Liz Truss's brief stint in office, and her failed mini-budget. Perhaps the lesson for parties is that less member democracy increases your chances of entering government.

What next for Scottish independence?

This week the UK's Supreme Court delivered a decision which has significant bearing on the future of the United Kingdom, and for politics students an impact on our understanding of issues such as devolution and the nature of our state.

In recent years the question has emerged, since the beginnings of devolution under the Labour governments of Tony Blair after 1997, about whether the traditional unitary state that exists in the UK still exists. Does the existence of assemblies in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and London (and English Votes for English Laws until recently) mean that the UK is now a federal state? Or does the differing strengths of those parliaments and assemblies (where the Scottish parliament is by some margins the most powerful, and London's assembly lacks power) mean that what we have is a form of asymmetric devolution, or what Vernon Bogdanor would call 'quasi-federalism'.

But the Scottish desire for a fresh referendum has meant the question of whether they can call it themselves has ended up at the Supreme Court, which has ruled that this can only be done by the Westminster government under our unitary system. This means that we can add a new sense of clarity to the existence of a unitary state which appeared to be slipping away.

The Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has said that the SNP will now pursue other avenues towards independence. One thing that is quite likely is treating the next Westminster elections as a de facto referendum, where, if 50% of the population vote SNP then this is seen as a green light. This is a path that is not without risks - firstly because the SNP only received 45% of the vote in 2019, an identical share to the Yes vote in 2014. Additionally, there may be significant numbers of voters who vote SNP to give Scotland a strong voice in Westminster, or vote for them on other policies, but would not vote for them if they knew their vote would be interpreted as a de facto vote for independence. Still, the SNP have dominated all Westminster and Scottish elections since the early 2010s, and it is not impossible that this threshold is reached.

The Donald is running again: can he win?

 

Whether Donald Trump can win the presidency again is actually two questions. The first is whether he can win the Republican nomination, and the second is whether he can go on from there to win the presidency itself. My answer to these questions is, respectively, 'no/maybe', and 'no' (though, as many will be aware, I've been wrong before).

It is abundantly clear that huge numbers of Republican voters are fiercely loyal to Trump. It is an article of faith to many of these voters that the 2020 election was stolen, and there is certainly a huge overlap between supporters of Trump and supporters of baseless conspiracies such as QAnon and 'Pizzagate'. It would be foolish to write Trump off; in 2020 many believed that other well established, experienced and mainstream candidates like Jeb Bush (a brother and son of a president, and a governor in his own right), Ted Cruz (a Texas senator) and Marco Rubio (a senator from Florida) would be well placed to beat him. But Trump's policies, stamina, unique debating style, and ability for attracting publicity made him a difficult opponent to beat.

This time, however, he does have another strong opponent in the form of Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, who has just won reelection in hugely convincing fashion. But Trump beat similarly strong opponents before - why not this time? Well, last time he was running as an outsider - all other candidates were painted by Trump as being soft, or working with Democrats, or any number of other more offensive ideas (like being the Zodiac killer in the case of Ted Cruz). This time Trump has to run on his record in office. Whilst president he failed to enact Obamacare reform, and many in the GOP will be unwilling to replicate 4 years that many found exhausting. It will also not have escaped the notice of those in his party that many of those endorsed by Trump in the recent mid-terms failed to win election, suggesting an aversion to him from some voters.

Still, the 2022 Republican Party is still the party of Donald Trump. It will be difficult for anyone to beat him, and he is hugely popular amongst Republicans. Whilst some of the sheen may have worn off it will still be very hard to beat him, and Trump can point to achievements such as the appointment of three arch-conservative Supreme Court justices, leading to the 2022 Jackson abortion decision. This would be likely to play very well with the Republican arch-conservative support base.

If Donald Trump can clear the hurdle of the Republican primary, we could well see a repeat of the 2020 presidential election, against Joe Biden, who would be 81, nearly 82, at the time of the next election against a 78 year old Trump. Trump could have the advantage of an unpopular president, but would obviously come with baggage of his own. The lack of success for Trump endorsed candidates in the recent midterms might suggest that he will struggle in 2024, and that women and other groups who have particular motivation to vote will turn out strongly to vote against Trump. Whatever happens, we are destined for a tumultuous couple of years with Donald Trump back at the forefront of American politics.

Could we have a general election soon?

 'May you live in interesting times' is a phrase which (apologies if I have used this before), could certainly be applied to the post-Brexit UK, and one can certainly understand the way in which this could be interpreted as a curse. Whilst at the age of 32 I had lived under 5 prime ministers in my whole life (1984-2016, Thatcher-Major-Blair-Brown-Cameron), pupils in our Sixth Form are now in some cases on their 6th (2004-2022, Blair-Brown-Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss). It is easy to see the appeal of a more boring political landscape after recent events.

The first thing to say on the above question is that there are actually two questions rather than one: whether there will be an election does not necessarily have any bearing on whether Liz Truss will remain as Prime Minister. Since the PM's 'mini-budget' a few weeks ago the country and the Conservative Party have been plunged into chaos. Firstly, the pound slipped heavily against the dollar, damaging economic confidence and financial markets. Additionally, a dramatic increase in interest rates has, amongst other impacts, had a hugely detrimental effect on mortgage offers, with the cost of borrowing hugely increasing for huge sections of the population who are already under pressure due to other cost of living increases.

Labour have opened up poll leads that range from the low 20s to as much as 34%, with a poll yesterday putting the parties on 53% and 19%. It scarcely needs to be said that such numbers would lead to a Conservative wipe out, and a result that could be even worse than 1997 (not that I necessarily expect that to happen). Perhaps most damaging for Truss is that Labour is now trusted on the economy above the Conservatives, and her personal approval rating is now lower than Boris Johnson's during party-gate. (A sub-plot here is that Labour probably don't want Liz Truss to go! She has been brilliant for them!)

Unhappy Conservative MPs have already forced two U-turns from the government at the time of writing - namely those of a cut to benefits, or more accurately not raising them in line with inflation, and reversing the decision to abolish the top rate of tax at a time when the country is already in financial crisis.

Yesterday the noises from journalists were that the Conservative Party were already considering how they could replace Truss with either Penny Mordaunt or Rishi Sunak. This would obviously be very unpopular with party members, who have only just chosen Truss, but MPs must be concerned that a huge number of them may lose their seats if things continue as they are.

So, to be clear, if the Conservatives choose to remove Truss there will NOT be a general election. But what could lead to one?

If a vote of confidence is called in the government it could currently be tricky for Liz Truss to win it, with so many unhappy MPs. However, it is unclear whether MPs would be likely to go for this, as this would certainly be a case of turkeys voting for Christmas. 

Alternatively if the government loses a vote over a new budget that could trigger an election. Again, it may be quite likely that a huge proportion of the measures in the mini-budget will no longer exist by the time this comes to a vote. 

What all this means is that I still view an imminent general election as very unlikely. However, I would also suggest that the chances of Liz Truss remaining as Prime Minister until the next election is scheduled in 2024 (or possibly the very beginning of 2025) are almost nil. She is not only deeply unpopular in the country, but has seemingly lost credibility amongst her own MPs. The near silence with which she was greeted by the Conservative side at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday does not bode well. 

We are watching a Prime Minister who will not be in post for long. The big questions are for the Conservative Party's own MPs, who are traditionally ruthless. How and when will they strike? Time will tell, but I am going to bet that it will be very soon. 

Further reading:

Truss weak position https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2022/10/truss-starmer-and-sturgeon-are-all-poised-for-political-overhaul

Marr https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/andrew-marr/marr-its-deranged-to-think-truss-will-be-ousted-but-a-sudden-political-collapse/

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2022/09/liz-truss-survive-no-confidence-andrew-marr

Pound crash https://www.omfif.org/2022/08/if-truss-becomes-prime-minister-sterling-will-crash/

Labour under Starmer: what do they stand for?

 Keir Starmer will today make a pitch for the political centre ground. Since he took power in 2020 it has been a clear mission of Starmer to shed some of what he sees as the baggage of the Corbyn years, in particular with regards to the stain of anti-semitism, and regain trust in the party. That hasn't been without issues, and it is clear that he has lost the support of some support from the left of the party, who have been frustrated by what they see as broken promises on issues, for example on wide-scale nationalisation and tax increases, as well as scrapping tuition fees.

There cannot have been a more clear demonstration of this than in the sight of the Labour front bench standing, singing God Save the King at their conference this week. There has been a negative reaction from some on the left to this (I saw one online comment that likened it to a BNP rally, and Jeremy Corbyn described it as "very odd"), but Starmer will not mind that at all. There was always a suspicion on behalf of many that Corbyn did not seem particularly 'patriotic', being quizzed before the 2017 election about whether he would use nuclear weapons, and seeming out of touch with the public in the aftermath of the Salisbury Novichok poisonings by Russia. Starmer will be keen to draw a line between them.

It is clear that Starmer and the Labour Party sense an opportunity. One poll yesterday gave Labour a 17 percent lead, their biggest since 2001 under Tony Blair, which, if reflected in an election, would give Labour a strong majority. The recent decisions by the Conservatives on issues such as bankers bonuses and the top rate of tax have made it clear that there are ideological divides between the two big parties, whereas these divisions were less clear with a Boris Johnson led Conservative Party, with its focus on 'levelling up' and his popularity amongst Leave voters in traditionally Labour areas. In short, Labour knows how to oppose a traditional Conservative Party more than a Johnson led, ideologically amorphous one.

And I would make the point that much of what Labour has agreed is actually very traditionally left-wing, or at least traditionally Labour. They have said that a Labour government would reinstate the 45% top rate of tax on high earners. They would invest money into green energy and green industry, as well as other things like adopting a commitment to some form of proportional representation in the future (though Starmer has refused to say it would be one of his election pledges). Labour have promised to spend the revenues from increases on tax on more nurses, again playing up a clear division between the two parties. The question will be whether the Conservatives can convince the country of their ultra-low tax approach in a circumstance when the economy is struggling, or whether there will still be reluctance to trust Labour will their mixture of Blair-style messaging and socialist, or democratic socialist, policy.

What sort of leader will Liz Truss be?

 Liz Truss, to nobody's great surprise, emerged comfortably victorious in the Conservative leadership contest. This was predicted by pollsters from early August, with Yougov getting the result more or less right, as they have done in most recent Labour and Conservative leadership contests. 

The Conservative contest rumbled on throughout most of the summer. Interestingly, most of the campaign events are likely to have had almost no impact on the vote at all, as polling showed Truss significantly ahead of Sunak early on, and most members returned their ballots early, so the majority of events actually took place at a point where they couldn't actually change anything. That said, they were quite revealing about the ideological position that Truss is likely to attempt to run the government from.

It might be useful to first address the ideological position of the Boris Johnson government. Due to the focus on Brexit, and some policies regarding immigration, it is easy to simply view Johnson as having pulled the party to the right. However, it is also true that Johnson was seen by some as being more liberal, due to his previous stint as Mayor of London, and it ignores that the major focus of his election campaign in 2019 was regarding 'levelling up'. This refers to an attempt to improve services, infrastructure and quality of life in under-served areas of the country, that traditionally have voted Labour, and was part of the reason, along with Johnson's unique media appeal, that the Conservatives were able to achieve such success in parts of the north that they had been unable to win in for decades. It was also a departure from Cameron-era fiscal conservatism, or 'austerity', with huge restrictions on spending.

In some senses it looks like Truss will seek to be a more traditional conservative that Johnson, whilst trying to maintain Boris's popularity and Brexit-loving core. Many of the statements she has made refer to taxation, especially with regards to the energy crisis and the National Insurance rise brought in earlier this year, which are very much in line with traditional Conservative Party thought. Sunak, who claimed to dislike higher taxes, was unable to shake off being responsible for the NI rise, with his pleas about fiscal responsibility falling on deaf ears. Additionally, in early exchanges with Keir Starmer, Truss has held firm about not introducing a 'windfall tax' on energy producers and suppliers to pay for her actions on energy prices. The net result of this will be that it will increase debt hugely - though of course Conservatives normally argue that a freer, more libertarian, low tax economy will result in growth to the economy, which will ultimately decrease debt.

This theme is further seen in the actions of the new Chancellor, Kwasi Karteng, who is due to repeal restrictions on banker's bonuses in the City of London. All of this paints a picture of a government which will be unashamedly pro-business. Her appointment of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Business Secretary, a man who once said that there shouldn't be an automatic right to paid holiday, further demonstrates a government which will be highly ideological in its pro-business conservatism. On social issues, Truss has also said that she doesn't view trans women as women, and drew back from including trans conversion therapy in the general ban on conversion therapy. Additionally, her appointments of Therese Coffey as Health Secretary, an individual who is anti-abortion, and Suella Braverman as Home Secretary, who took a staunchly ideological approach in her role as Attorney General, suggests that Truss will look to run a strongly conservative government.

One issue that we have with party leadership contests is that relatively small and unrepresentative groups of people can elect party leaders whose job it is to run the whole country. During the leadership race Truss won the support of the majority of the 170,000 Conservative Party members with her neo-Thatcherite, post-Johnson leanings. Only time will tell if this line will work with the country as a whole.

How much does the monarch actually do in the UK political system?

As a teacher of History and Politics it can often be the case that I find myself correcting misconceptions about the role of the monarchy in students (of all ages). These come in two forms: those that think the Queen is utterly irrelevant politically, and those who believed her to have been immensely powerful. In both of these cases, they are incorrect.

 

Writing, as I am, in the week following the passing of Elizabeth II, I am not offering any viewpoint about the monarchy itself, but it is interesting to have seen some points raised by commentators offering constitutional monarchy as a somewhat ideal form of system. That is to say, that by having a neutral, non-political monarch the system is superior to one where a head of state can attract loyalty and/or division. Ian Leslie quoted Clement Attlee in saying that "the monarchy attracts to itself the kind of sentimental loyalty that might otherwise to the leader of a faction." I am not 100% certain that this is always the case, or rather that one needs a constitutional monarchy, or a monarchy at all, for a head of state to rise above day to day politics.

The traditional view of the role of the monarch in modern British politics is that they 'reign but do not rule'. That is to say, they are notionally in charge but not involved in the day-to-day running of the country. The Queen is constitutionally bound to follow the advice of the government in almost all areas, with her principle role being the appointment of Prime Ministers/governments, and the granting of royal assent to legislation. Whilst the Queen has performed other roles, such as the chairing of meetings of the Privy Council, her other role was that of being a figurehead for the nation.

It should also be said that papers released in recent years have suggested that the Queen may have applied more pressure than some would have imagined on legislation. Newsweek reported in 2021 about 4 laws where the Queen allegedly threatened to withhold consent from signing new legislation, including one about revealing the extent of her personal wealth. This isn't quite the same as vetoing laws, something that hasn't happened since Queen Anne in 1708 with the Scottish Militia Bill. However, this would appear that the Queen did apply pressure occasionally, though obviously on a tiny fraction of those she saw overall. The new King Charles III when still Prince of Wales was comparatively more involved in the affairs of government, regularly contacting the government on a range of issues, from the Iraq War to organic farming. This could raise question about how likely he is to remain silent about government policies with which he disagrees.

Edit: after writing this post, I found an interview with David Cameron where he said that he had help weekly meetings with the then Prince Charles in order to prepare him for the throne, and that Charles never overstepped in terms of influencing governmental affairs.

Stephen Bush in the Financial Times, however, makes the point that the Queen was an outstanding political operator. She had weekly meetings with 14 Prime Ministers, with a 15th recently sworn in, and with only very rare and very limited comments about any ongoing issues. Ultimately the question of whether to have a monarchy is a political one, but she managed to normalise the idea of this and in fact increase support for the monarchy over the course of her time as Queen. Elizabeth II performed a stabilising role for the country which, since 1952, has been through many tumultuous times. It has been an age since the UK has experienced any other monarch, and it will be interesting to see the way that the new king views his role.

Sources:

https://www.ft.com/content/1fb11fc2-7884-40af-a6e9-e68382f07c3f

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/explainers/what-role-monarchy

https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1568538324180107264?t=85irUEsG_vrMw9dWIe__rQ&s=09

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/entirely-right-for-charles-to-have-lobbied-ministers-says-david-cameron

Thoughts on Roe vs Wade and the recent decisions of the Supreme Court

 This week has been one of the most momentous (and for many, devastating) in a long time in US politics. The Supreme Court, in their case Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organisation, have lifted restrictions on US states that have in effect guaranteed the right to abortion in all states since 1973 and the court case Roe vs Wade. 

Already some states have put restrictions in place, including some that had 'trigger laws' that were designed to come into effect the second that Roe was lifted. You can track the situtation here, but there are already bans in states such as Alabama, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, and even, surprisingly, Wyoming, a state that voted for Joe Biden in 2020, and which has reverted to a 173-year-old ban. A law in Florida that would have prevented abortion after 15 weeks has been struck down by a judge, though it is likely that this will be reviewed by higher courts. Restrictions on abortion now exist in 21 states, at the time of writing.

(As an aside, it should be noted that there are still limited rights for women in the UK, as Northern Ireland has only recently decriminalised abortion and still only up to 12 weeks)

The quest to overturn Roe is part of a long game by the GOP. It is worth remembering that the Democrats have won the popular vote in 7 out of the last 8 presidential elections, and only one current Supreme Court justice predates that time (Clarence Thomas). Through election victories with a minority of the vote, in 2000 and 2016, the Republicans have appointed 6 of the 9 current justices, and though Democrats have been in power for far longer over that period they have only been able to appoint 3. In one case, that of Merrick Garland, Barack Obama was prevented from appointing him by the spurious reasoning from Senate Majority Leader of the time, Mitch McConnell, that it was the last year of his term, and therefore he should not be able to appoint a SC justice. Republican senators refused to even meet with Garland, in order to begin the process. Of course, in 2016 when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died the Republicans rushed through the confirmation of Amy Coney Barratt in record time.

What this goes to show is that the Republicans have been consistently willing to play hardball, in a way that Democrats have not been. Republicans have been willing to use the system within Congress to block the Democrat agenda at every turn (the famous 'victory of no') and Democrats haven't reallty had an answer, being unwilling to remove the filibuster, acting in a less united way, and failing to fully take stock of the new political reality. Jamie Bouie, writing in the New York Times this week, said that the Democratic leadership didn't seem to understand the consequences of this, primarily using this as a funding opporunity for candidates, and pointing out that Biden (a famously centrist operator, who has friendships with many of those perpetrating the recent conservative revolution) recently praised Mitch McConnell, The article has one striking section: “Thank you for being my friend,” Biden said to a man who is almost singularly responsible for the destruction of the Senate as a functional lawmaking body and whose chief accomplishment in public life is the creation of a far-right Supreme Court majority that is now poised to roll American jurisprudence back to the 19th century." In short, Democrats continue to bring knives to a gun fight.

The overturning of Roe is not the only culture-war issue that has been taken on by the court. This week, they also overturned New York's handgun ban (NY State Rifle and Pistol Association vs Bruen), which has already led to changes in the state's system. Additionally, the court, in Kennedy vs Bremerton School District, has now decreed that school prayer should now be allowed, dramatically stripping back the separation of church and state. And in another case, the court has determined that Biden's environmental aims go beyond the powers granted to the Environmental Protection Agency. All told, this is a huge set of precedents, that could change the landscape in the US for years to come.