Legislatures and Parliaments

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Keir Starmer Is Quietly Bending the U.K. Labour Party to His Will

      by

      Political observers from his own side say he has been “ruthless” in reshaping the party as it looks to reclaim power.LONDON — The leader of Britain’s opposition, Keir Starmer, can often seem more like the technocratic human rights lawyer he once was than the no-holds-barred politician now reshaping the Labour Party with an eye toward making it more electable.But as his former allies on the left wing of his party have discovered, appearances can be deceptive.Mr. Starmer prompted a bitter rift recently when he banned his leftist predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, from running as a Labour lawmaker, leaving the former leader claiming democratic procedures had been trampled and warning that his supporters were “not going anywhere.”But beneath the ugly media brawl, the unceremonious purging of Mr. Corbyn was a substantive victory for Mr. Starmer, strengthening his already firm grip over the party. Three years after taking over, he has quietly but efficiently marginalized Labour’s once ascendant left-wing, enforced strict discipline over his top political team and grabbed control of the party machinery, including its selection of Labour candidates for Parliament.“So far the processes that he has put in place have been utterly ruthless, and the left underestimated him,” said John McTernan, a political strategist and onetime aide to the former prime minister, Tony Blair.The lesson for his enemies is perhaps not to mistake Mr. Starmer’s courteous and mild-mannered bearing — or absence of fanfare — for a lack of willingness to play political hardball.“Keir Starmer is not narrating what he’s doing,” Mr. McTernan added. “He’s just doing it.”Mr. Starmer banned his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, center from running as a Labour lawmaker.Henry Nicholls/ReutersTom Baldwin, a senior adviser to another former Labour leader, Ed Miliband, agrees. “In his absolute determination to remove all obstacles to victory, Keir Starmer is more ruthless and competitive than any Labour leader I’ve ever seen,” he said.He added: “Tony Blair had a very clear view about where he wanted to go, but did he chuck any of his predecessors out of the party? No.”A spokesman for Mr. Starmer did not respond to a request for comment.Under Mr. Corbyn’s leadership, Labour’s 2017 general election campaign scored an upset by depriving the prime minister at the time, Theresa May of the Conservative Party, of her parliamentary majority, signaling her political decline. At that zenith of his political career Mr. Corbyn, often likened to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, basked in the adulation of enthusiastic young supporters, some of whom sang his name at the Glastonbury rock festival.Two years later the bubble burst and Labour suffered its worst general-election defeat since 1935, while Mr. Corbyn’s leadership was tarnished by cases of antisemitism in his party.There followed a highly critical report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into Labour’s handling of antisemitism complaints. In 2020, when Mr. Corbyn claimed that the scale of the problem was “dramatically overstated” by opponents, Mr. Starmer suspended him from Labour’s parliamentary group, forcing him to sit as an independent.It was at Mr. Starmer’s behest that Labour’s governing body, its National Executive Committee, completed the political purge of the former leader last month, provoking a surprisingly muted reaction from the party’s left wing that underscored its dwindling influence.Jon Lansman, a founder of Momentum, a left-wing pressure group within the Labour movement, told Times Radio that Mr. Starmer “unfortunately is behaving as if he was some kind of Putin of the Labour Party. That is not the way we do politics.”But asked if he would campaign for Mr. Corbyn were the former leader to run for election not as a Labour Party candidate but as an independent, Mr. Lansman replied: “No, I certainly wouldn’t. I want to see Keir Starmer elected as prime minister of this country, and we need a Labour government.”Keir Starmer is widely expected to become the next occupant of 10 Downing Street.Henry Nicholls/ReutersOther internal critics have kept a low profile sensing that they, too, might fall victim to the purge. After all, Mr. Corbyn was not the first left-winger to be exiled to Labour’s equivalent of Siberia. In 2020, Mr. Starmer fired a lawmaker, Rebecca Long-Bailey, from his top team after she shared on Twitter an interview with Maxine Peake in which the actress claimed that the U.S. police tactics that killed George Floyd were learned from Israeli secret services.The silence from internal critics spoke of the political transformation Mr. Starmer has achieved seemingly out of public sight.Elected to Parliament in 2015, Mr. Starmer never adhered to the hard left of the party but nonetheless served in Mr. Corbyn’s top team and campaigned to make him prime minister.When Mr. Corbyn quit as leader in 2019, Mr. Starmer straddled the internal factions, reassuring the left by arguing that Labour should not “oversteer” away from his predecessor’s agenda.Mr. Corbyn’s supporters say that is exactly what Mr. Starmer has done, while other critics argue he has offered no vision to excite voters, seeming content to capitalize on the current Conservative government’s unpopularity.But breaking with Mr. Corbyn, as part of a wider “detoxification” strategy, seems to have helped opinion poll ratings that now put Labour well ahead of the Conservatives.National voting must take place by January 2025. With Mr. Starmer in a seemingly commanding position to become the next prime minister after four successive general-election defeats, Labour lawmakers have found a new discipline, reinforcing their leader’s authority.Mr. Starmer and Rachel Reeves, who leads economic policy for the Labour Party, canvassing last month in Swindon, England.Isabel Infantes/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesFor Mr. Starmer there are some dangers in purging his predecessor. Were Mr. Corbyn to run as an independent in the constituency in north London that he has represented since 1983 (including for more than a decade when Mr. Blair led the party), he might win. Even if he lost, Mr. Corbyn could attract media attention and distract from Labour’s wider campaign.Another risk is that the party loses some of the young, enthusiastic supporters that Mr. Corbyn attracted.James Schneider, a former aide to Mr. Corbyn, described Mr. Starmer’s approach as a “barefaced political attack on the ideas and social forces that were mobilizing to redistribute wealth and power in this country, and that came quite close to taking office” in the 2017 general election.The assault on the left had, Mr. Schneider conceded, been “in a technical sense extremely effective and swift,” catching that wing of the party off guard, adding, “I don’t think anyone thought it would be quite so dramatic and quite so total as it has been.”Such is the stifling control exercised by Mr. Starmer’s allies that only one candidate from the left has so far succeeded in dozens of Labour internal selections for parliamentary candidates, Mr. Schneider said.Critics have accused the party leadership of fixing the process, weeding out candidates it dislikes with “due diligence” checks (claims it denies).But ensuring that Mr. Starmer can rely on those elected on a Labour ticket could be critical if the next general election is close, and if the party wins a small majority.Allies say Mr. Starmer’s uncompromising tactics have paid off. Mr. McTernan, the former Blair aide, described his hold over Labour as “undislodgeable,” adding that he has tight control over its lawmakers, the National Executive Committee and the shadow cabinet — Mr. Starmer’s top team.“He also has the trade unions loyally lined up behind him, so it’s hard to know what else he needs to do,” Mr. McTernan said. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Scotland’s National Party Picks Humza Yousaf to Succeed Sturgeon

      by

      Humza Yousaf is on course to become the first Muslim to lead a democratic western European nation, and when that happens, he will confront several daunting obstacles.The pro-independence Scottish National Party on Monday elected Humza Yousaf, the country’s health secretary, as its top official, putting the 37-year-old minister on track to become the first Muslim to lead a democratic western European nation.Mr. Yousaf emerged with a narrow victory in a bruising leadership race that followed the surprise resignation last month of Nicola Sturgeon, who had dominated Scottish politics for almost a decade as the country’s first minister and leader of the S.N.P.In choosing Mr. Yousaf, members of his party opted for the candidate thought most likely to stick with Ms. Sturgeon’s progressive agenda, rejecting a more socially conservative contender, Kate Forbes.“We will be the generation that delivers independence for Scotland,” said Mr. Yousaf after the result was announced, and before a vote on Tuesday in the Scottish Parliament to confirm him as the country’s first minister.As the new leader of the S.N.P. — the largest party in Scotland’s Parliament — that should be a formality. But, referring to some of the wider problems he faces, Mr. Yousaf appealed for unity after a divisive leadership contest that fractured a party previously renowned for its discipline.“Where there are divisions to heal we must do so and do so quickly because we have a job to do, and as a party we are at our strongest when we are united,” he said.In a sometimes emotional victory speech, Mr. Yousaf thanked his family, including his deceased grandparents, who emigrated to Scotland.“I am forever thankful that my grandparents made the trip from the Punjab to Scotland over 60 years ago,” he told the audience at Murrayfield, Scotland’s national rugby stadium, where the leadership results were announced. “As immigrants to this country, who knew barely a word of English, they could not have imagined their grandson would one day be on the cusp of being the next first minister of Scotland.”Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, a research institute that focuses on identity issues, described Mr. Yousaf as “the first Muslim to be elected as a national leader in any western democracy,” writing that it was “a breakthrough moment that should resonate well beyond Scotland.”That in part reflects a growing diversity in the higher reaches of British politics. Anas Sarwar, leader of the Scottish opposition Labour Party, is also Muslim, while Britain’s prime minister Rishi Sunak, follows the Hindu faith.Though Mr. Yousaf was on top after the first ballot, he failed to win more than half of the votes cast by party members in the initial round of voting, as required to win the race. But once the third-place candidate, Ash Regan, was eliminated and her votes were redistributed, Mr. Yousaf won 52.1 percent, to 47.9 percent for Ms. Forbes.Scotland’s outgoing first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, center, at an heatlh center in Fife. She had dominated Scottish politics for almost a decadePeter Summers/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesHaving served as transport minister, justice secretary and health secretary, Mr. Yousaf was seen as the preferred candidate of the party’s establishment, but his record in government was questioned by his opponents.“You were transport minister and the trains were never on time, when you were justice secretary the police were stretched to breaking point, and now as health minister we’ve got record high waiting times,” said Ms. Forbes, his main challenger, during a televised leadership debate.The social conservatism and strong religious beliefs of Ms. Forbes, who was on maternity leave from her position of finance secretary when Ms. Sturgeon quit, featured prominently in the leadership contest.A member of the evangelical Free Church of Scotland, Ms. Forbes said she would have voted against single-sex marriage had she been in the Scottish Parliament when it was approved in 2014, and that she believed that having children outside of marriage is “wrong” according to her faith.Another social question — gender recognition — became a political battleground just before Ms. Sturgeon’s resignation, when Britain’s government rejected legislation from Scotland’s Parliament making it easier for people to change their gender. Mr. Yousaf said on Monday that he would seek to challenge the British government’s decision.Had Ms. Forbes been elected, the Scottish Greens might have withdrawn their support for the S.N.P.-led government in Edinburgh, reducing it to a minority administration.The new leader faces numerous challenges both in replacing Ms. Sturgeon, who was a popular leader and skilled communicator, and in charting a course to independence.Ms. Sturgeon took over the leadership after Scots voted by 55 percent to 45 percent against independence in a referendum in 2014. Since then, sentiment on the issue has not shifted significantly.Ms. Sturgeon’s resignation came after the British Supreme Court ruled that a second referendum could not be held without the agreement of Britain’s government in London, which opposes such a move. Mr. Yousaf’s task will be to try build support for independence to such a level — perhaps around 60 percent in opinion polls — that it would be politically impossible for London to ignore calls for another vote.His leadership victory also has implications for the rest of Britain, where a general election must take place by January 2025. If the result is close, the S.N.P.’s performance could play a decisive role in determining the next prime minister.Given the divisions within the S.N.P. and the difficulties replacing Ms. Sturgeon, Britain’s main opposition Labour Party, which once dominated Scottish politics but has seen its influence dwindle as the S.N.P. gathered strength, now senses an opportunity to claw back some of its old seats in Scotland. More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Rahul Gandhi, Leader of India’s Opposition to Modi, Disqualified From Parliament

      by

      The expulsion of Rahul Gandhi is a devastating blow to the once-powerful Indian National Congress party. He and several other politicians are now in jeopardy through India’s legal system.NEW DELHI — Rahul Gandhi, one of the last national figures standing in political opposition to Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, was disqualified as a member of Parliament on Friday, sending shock waves across the country’s political scene and devastating the once-powerful Indian National Congress party Mr. Gandhi leads.Mr. Gandhi was expelled from the lower house the day after a court in Gujarat, Mr. Modi’s home state, convicted him on a charge of criminal defamation. The charge stemmed from a comment he made on the campaign trail in 2019, characterizing Mr. Modi as one of a group of “thieves” named Modi — referring to two prominent fugitives with the same last name. Mr. Gandhi received a two-year prison sentence, the maximum. He is out on 30 days’ bail.Any jail sentence of two years or more is supposed to result in automatic expulsion, but legal experts had expected Mr. Gandhi to have the chance to challenge his conviction. A notification signed by a parliamentary bureaucrat appointed by Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party on Friday stated that Mr. Gandhi had been disqualified automatically by the conviction itself, per the Constitution of India.“They are destroying the constitution, killing it,” said Srinivas B.V., president of the Indian National Congress Party’s youth wing. “The court gave Mr. Gandhi 30 days to appeal against the order, and hardly 24 hours have passed since.”Mr. Gandhi said in a Twitter post on Friday, “I am fighting for the voice of this country. I am ready to pay any price.”Lawmakers from the Congress Party and other opposition parties protesting outside of India’s parliament in New Delhi on Friday.Altaf Qadri/Associated PressMr. Srinivas said the party will fight the expulsion, politically and legally. One of the party’s most prominent members, Shashi Tharoor, who like Mr. Gandhi is a member of the lower house in the state of Kerala, said on Twitter that the action ending his tenure in Parliament was “politics with the gloves off, and it bodes ill for our democracy.”Mr. Gandhi, a scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family whose father, grandmother and great-grandfather served as prime minister, has taken pains to improve his national profile in recent months. He led an unexpectedly popular march late last year across swaths of India, rallying crowds to “unite India” against the Hindu-first nationalism espoused by Mr. Modi. And since the fortunes of Gautam Adani, a tycoon long associated with Mr. Modi, collapsed under pressure from a short-seller’s report in January, Mr. Gandhi has been using his platform in Parliament to call for an investigation of his business empire.The Congress Party is not alone in worrying about the implications for India’s democracy that Mr. Gandhi’s disqualification poses. With parliamentary elections coming next year, the government’s attempts to clamp down on dissent seem to be gaining momentum, other opposition leaders pointed out.Last month, Manish Sisodia, the second in command of the Aam Aadmi Party, was arrested on charges related to fraud. Earlier this month Kavitha K., a leader from a regional party that recently turned to national politics, was questioned by federal investigators in connection with the same case.The string of criminal cases against politicians — though none have been brought against high-profile members of Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P. — contrasts awkwardly with Mr. Modi’s presentation of India as “the Mother of Democracy” during a global publicity blitz to accompany its hosting the Group of 20 summit meeting this year.Police raids against the BBC’s office in India and some of the country’s leading think tanks have intensified doubts about the strength of India’s democracy. Eliminating the opposition from parliament through the courts might heighten those misgivings dramatically. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Macron Appears Ready to Tough Out France’s Pension Crisis

      by

      Amid protests in the streets and in Parliament, the French leader shows no sign of scrapping a law that raises the retirement age.PARIS — President Emmanuel Macron’s re-election program last year was short on detail. His mind seemed elsewhere, chiefly on the war in Ukraine. But on one thing he was clear: He would raise the retirement age in France to 65 from 62.“You will have to work progressively more,” he said during a debate in April 2022 with the extreme-right candidate, Marine Le Pen. She attacked the idea as “an absolutely unbearable injustice” that would condemn French people to retirement “when they are no longer able to enjoy it.”France heard both candidates. Soon after, Mr. Macron was re-elected with 58.55 percent of the vote to Ms. Le Pen’s 41.45 percent. It was a clear victory, and it was clear what Mr. Macron would do on the question of pensions.Yet his ramming the overhaul through Parliament last week without a full vote on the bill itself culminated in turmoil, mayhem on the streets and two failed no-confidence votes against his government on Monday, even as polls have consistently shown about 65 percent of French people are opposed to raising the retirement age.Had they not heard him? Had they changed their minds? Had circumstances changed? Perhaps the answer lies, above all, in the nature of Mr. Macron’s victory, as he himself acknowledged on election night last year.Looking somber, speaking in an uncharacteristically flat monotone, Mr. Macron told a crowd of supporters in Paris: “I also know that a number of our compatriots voted for me today not to support the ideas that I uphold, but to block the extreme right. I want to thank them and say that I am aware that I have obligations toward them in the years to come.”“Those ‘obligations’ could only be a promise to negotiate on major reforms,” Nicole Bacharan, a social scientist, said on Tuesday. “He did not negotiate, even with moderate union leaders. What I see now is Macron’s complete disconnection from the country.”Marine Le Pen, center, of the far-right National Rally party, says the pension plan would condemn French people to retirement “when they are no longer able to enjoy it.”Thomas Samson/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOpposition parties on both the left and the right have vowed to file challenges against the pension law before the Constitutional Council, which reviews legislation to ensure it complies with the French Constitution.“The goal,” said Thomas Ménagé of Ms. Le Pen’s National Rally party, “is to ensure that this text falls into the dustbin of history.”But the chances of that appear remote.After a long silence, Mr. Macron is set to address the turmoil on Wednesday. He will try to conciliate; he will, according to officials close to him, portray the current standoff as a battle between democratic institutions and the chaos of the street, orchestrated by the extreme left and slyly encouraged by the extreme right. He has decided to stick with his current government, led by Élisabeth Borne, the prime minister, and he will not dissolve Parliament or call new elections, they say.In short, it seems Mr. Macron has decided to tough out the crisis, perhaps offering some blandishments on improving vocational high schools and broader on-the-job training. But certainly no apology appears to be forthcoming for using a legal tool, Article 49.3 of the Constitution, to avoid a full parliamentary vote on a change that has split the country. (Only the Senate, the upper house, voted to pass the bill this month.)This approach appears consistent with Mr. Macron’s chosen tactics on the pension overhaul. Since the debate with Ms. Le Pen 11 months ago, inflation has risen, energy prices have gone up, and the pressures, particularly on the poorer sectors of French society, have grown.French lawmakers held up protest placards after the result of the first no-confidence motion against the French government at the National Assembly on Monday.Gonzalo Fuentes/ReutersYet, while he has made some concessions, including setting the new retirement age at 64 rather than 65, Mr. Macron has remained remote from the rolling anger. Most conspicuously, and to many inexplicably, after the government consulted extensively with unions in the run-up to January, Mr. Macron has refused to negotiate with the powerful moderate union leader Laurent Berger, who had supported Mr. Macron’s earlier attempt at pension changes in 2019 but opposes him now.“Macron knows the economy better than he knows political psychology,” said Alain Duhamel, a political scientist. “And today, what you have is a generalized fury.”A large number of Macron voters, it is now clear, never wanted the retirement age raised. They heard Mr. Macron during the debate with Ms. Le Pen. They just did not loathe his idea enough to vote for a nationalist, anti-immigrant ideologue whose party was financed in part by Russian loans.Mr. Macron is adept at playing on such contradictions and divisions. Because his presidential term is limited, he is freer to do as he pleases. He knows three things: He will not be a candidate for re-election in 2027 because a third consecutive term is not permitted; the opposition in Parliament is strong but irreconcilably divided between the far left and extreme right; and there is a large, silent slice of French society that supports his pension overhaul.All this gives him room to maneuver even in his current difficult situation.When Mr. Macron opted last week for the 49.3 and the avoidance of a parliamentary vote, he explained his decision this way: “I consider that in the current state of affairs the financial and economic risks are too great.”Protesters in Nantes, in western France, on Tuesday.Loic Venance/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOn the face of it, speaking about risks to financial markets while pushing through an overhaul deeply resented by blue-collar and working-class French people seemed politically gauche. It appeared especially so at a moment when Mr. Macron was turning away from the full parliamentary vote his government had unanimously said it wanted.“Saying what he said about finance at that moment, in that context, was just dynamite,” said Ms. Bacharan.It was also an unmistakable wink to the powerful French private sector — with its world-class companies like LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton — and to the many affluent and middle-class French people who do not like the growing piles of uncollected garbage or the protests in the streets, and who view retirement at 62 as an unsustainable anomaly in a Europe where the retirement age has generally risen to 65 or higher.If Mr. Macron has cards to play, and perhaps broader support than is evident as protesters hurl insults at him day after day, his very disconnection may make it hard for him to judge the country’s mood.Last week, Aurore Bergé, the leader of Mr. Macron’s Renaissance party in Parliament, wrote to Gérald Darmanin, the interior minister, to request police protection for lawmakers.“I refuse to see representatives from my group, or any national lawmaker, afraid to express themselves, or to vote freely, because they are afraid of reprisals,” she said.It was a measure of the violent mood in France.“If we have had 15 Constitutions over the past two centuries, that means there have been 14 revolutions of various kinds,” Mr. Duhamel said. “There is an eruptive side to France that one should not ignore.”The National Assembly in Paris. Opposition parties on the left and the right have vowed to file challenges against the pension law. Joel Saget/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAurelien Breeden More

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      France’s Battle Over Retirement

      by

      Will Reid, Mooj Zadie and Paige Cowett and Diane Wong and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Amazon MusicThis episode contains strong languageMillions of people have taken to the streets in France to protest a government effort to raise the retirement age to 64, from 62, bringing the country more in line with its European neighbors.Today, as Parliament holds a key vote on the proposal, we look into why the issue has hit such a nerve in French society.On today’s episodeRoger Cohen, the Paris bureau chief for The New York Times.A rally in Paris against the government’s plans. The main banner in front translates as “Retirement reform: No to working longer!”Yoan Valat/EPA, via ShutterstockBackground readingAfter large protests, all eyes were on the French Parliament on Thursday as it prepared to vote on the measure to increase the retirement age by two years.Here are some of the reasons so many people in France are protesting the proposals.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.Roger Cohen More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Estonia Election Delivers Vote of Confidence for Ukraine Aid

      by

      In a blow to the Kremlin’s hope that economic pain in Europe would soften public support for Ukraine, Estonian voters have given a big election win to a center-right government that has been one of Ukraine’s staunchest backers, despite soaring inflation and other problems.A member of both the European Union and NATO, Estonia is one of the European bloc’s smallest countries but has taken an oversize role in prodding bigger member nations like France and Germany to impose sanctions on Russia and to provide arms to help Ukraine defend itself.The center-right Reform Party of Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, who has pushed the West to send more weapons to Ukraine and impose tougher penalties on Russia, finished far ahead of eight other parties in a general election on Sunday, according to near final results Monday morning.To stay in power, Ms. Kallas’s party now needs to form a coalition with members of Parliament from rival parties, a task that will involve much haggling over posts but should be within reach. Because of the format of the Estonian political system, coalition governments are almost inevitable.Ms. Kallas’s Reform Party won nearly 32 percent of the vote, about double the tally of the second-place finisher, EKRE, a far-right populist party that, though sometimes critical of Russia, wants to curb Estonia’s spending on Ukraine and put more money into helping Estonians pay their energy bills and withstand an inflation rate of nearly 20 percent, one of the highest in Europe.Estonian soldiers at a military camp in their home country in January. Estonia donates around 44 percent of its military budget to Ukraine.Valda Kalnina/EPA, via ShutterstockRussia, struggling on the battlefield in Ukraine after a year of war, has increasingly based its hopes for victory on calculations that economic problems in the West, severely aggravated by cuts in the supply of Russian energy, would diminish solidarity with Ukraine and curb the delivery of weapons for use against Russian forces.Estonia has a large ethnic Russian community, which makes up around a quarter of the population of about 1.3 million, but its political clout has been weakened by divisions over the war in Ukraine. The Center Party, which has traditionally represented the interests of Russian speakers but alienated some of them by criticizing Moscow’s miliary onslaught, came in third place with under 15 percent of the vote.Ms. Kallas, speaking late on Sunday in Tallinn, the Estonian capital, said that the election result was “much better than we expected” and had provided a “strong mandate” to continue aiding Ukraine.Estonia, which donates around 44 percent of its military budget to Ukraine, is one of only seven countries out of 30 NATO members that meets a military spending target of 2 percent of total gross domestic product. Ms. Kallas, Estonia’s first female head of government, says she wants to increase that spending to 3 percent. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Nicola Sturgeon Resigns as Scotland’s First Minister, Citing Toll of the Job

      by

      Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation removes one of the most formidable figures from British politics, one who has dedicated her life to the cause of Scottish independence.LONDON — Nicola Sturgeon, a fiery campaigner for Scotland’s independence who led its government for more than eight years, resigned on Wednesday, declaring that she was exhausted and had become too polarizing a figure to lead the country’s hurly-burly politics as it weighs another bid to break from Britain.Her resignation removes one of the most formidable figures from British politics. A skilled veteran of the United Kingdom’s system of power sharing and a sure-handed leader during the coronavirus pandemic, she outlasted four British prime ministers, while bedeviling each of them with her unyielding push for Scottish independence.But that goal has remained elusive and appears no closer than it was nearly a decade ago, when voters rejected a proposal for independence. Support for leaving the union has ebbed and flowed over the years, but the British government remains implacably opposed to another referendum. And Ms. Sturgeon said she was no longer the leader to see the battle through.“Is carrying on right for me?” Ms. Sturgeon, 52, said at a news conference in Edinburgh. “And, more important, is me carrying on right for my country, my party, and for the independence cause I have devoted my life to?”“I’ve reached the difficult conclusion that it’s not,” she said.In recent weeks, Ms. Sturgeon had also become embroiled in a dispute over the Scottish government’s transgender policy. Britain’s Parliament rejected legislation from Scotland’s Parliament making it easier for people to legally change their gender. Ms. Sturgeon said she would remain as first minister until the Scottish National Party, which controls Parliament, chooses a successor, most likely at a party conference next month. So dominant is her position that political analysts said there was no obvious successor — an acute problem for a party that faces a crossroads on independence, but a weakness that she said was another reason for her to relinquish the stage now.There was a distinct echo in Ms. Sturgeon’s resignation of the similar decision by Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister of New Zealand, who announced her resignation last month by saying she “no longer had enough in the tank.” Both women emphasized the relentless toll of their jobs and their yearning to focus on other parts of their lives.Journalists and members of the public gathered outside Bute House, the official residence of the first minister, where Ms. Sturgeon held a news conference.Pool photo by Jane BarlowLike Ms. Ardern, Ms. Sturgeon drew widespread attention for adopting policies on Covid that diverged from those of other countries — in her case, keeping lockdowns in place longer than in neighboring England. As with Ms. Ardern, Ms. Sturgeon’s Covid policies brought mixed results and her popularity, while still decent, dimmed as the urgency of the pandemic gave way to concerns about the economy.“While Sturgeon is effectively the equivalent of a state governor, she has an extraordinary international profile,” said Nicola McEwen, professor of territorial politics at the University of Edinburgh. “But she has become a figure who divides; there is a recognition that she may not be the person to get them to the next level.”Still, her announcement left Scotland’s political establishment slack jawed. Only last month, she told the BBC that she had “plenty in the tank” to continue leading Scotland and was “nowhere near ready” to step down.On Wednesday, however, Ms. Sturgeon said she had been wrestling for weeks over whether to resign. She spoke about only realizing now how exhausting the pandemic was for her, and said she had come to a final decision on Tuesday while attending the funeral of Allan Angus, a friend and leading figure in the Scottish National Party.Ms. Sturgeon has been married to Peter Murrell, the chief executive of the S.N.P., since 2010. She does not have children, but spoke about her twin niece and nephew during her resignation speech, noting that when she had entered government in 2007, both were very young and now they were celebrating their 17th birthday.Commuters heading home during rush hour in Edinburgh on Wednesday evening spoke of their surprise at Ms. Sturgeon’s choice. Regardless of their opinions on her politics, many said that it was an important moment for the nation.Sean MacMillan, 29, said he expected her decision to step down could have an impact on the push for a second independence referendum as she did not have a clear strong successor. “It is really unclear who is coming next, and I am sure it will change with that,” he said.Prime Minister Rishi Sunak offered restrained praise, thanking Ms. Sturgeon on Twitter “for her long-standing service. I wish her all the best for her next steps.” Mr. Sunak and Ms. Sturgeon have a cordial relationship, an improvement over the scarcely concealed hostility between her and one of Mr. Sunak’s predecessors, Boris Johnson.A photograph released by 10 Downing Street showing Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of Britain and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon of Scotland during a meeting in Inverness, Scotland, last month.Simon Walker/No 10 Downing Street, via ReutersMs. Sturgeon denied she had resigned over the transgender legislation or any other short-term political setbacks. But she said that in the current hothouse political environment, “issues that are controversial end up almost irrationally so.”Scotland’s law would allow transgender people to have the gender with which they identify legally recognized, and to get a new birth certificate without a medical diagnosis. But the British government swiftly overruled the Scottish Parliament, saying the law conflicted with equality laws that apply across Britain.For Ms. Sturgeon, passing the legislation was part of what she said was a deeply felt commitment to protect minority rights, and she denounced the British government’s decision to block it. But the law was less popular with the Scottish public than it was in Parliament. And it quickly became a cudgel in the heated cultural clash over transgender rights, with both sides seizing on it to attack the other.The debate was inflamed by the case of Isla Bryson, who was convicted of raping two women before her gender transition. She was initially placed in a women’s prison, prompting an outcry over the safety of other female inmates. Ms. Sturgeon later announced that Ms. Bryson had been moved to a men’s prison.The handling of the case exposed Ms. Sturgeon to sharp criticism and put her in an awkward position when she was quizzed repeatedly at a news conference about whether she regarded Ms. Bryson as a woman.“She regards herself as a woman,” a visibly frustrated Ms. Sturgeon replied. “I regard the individual as a rapist.”A rally against a controversial transgender legislation in Glasgow earlier this month.Andy Buchanan/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWhen it came to independence, Ms. Sturgeon was rarely at a loss for words. Having joined the Scottish National Party when she was 16, she spent much of her time trying to secure for Scotland as much power over its own affairs as possible. Allies described her as one of the most important leaders of the era of devolution, when London delegated more power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.Ms. Sturgeon’s departure is unlikely to weaken Scotland’s independence drive. It is, after all, the Scottish National Party’s founding goal. But as the party gathers at next month’s conference to plot the next phase of the campaign, her absence could greatly affect their tactics and strategy.The Scottish government had at one point planned to schedule a second referendum next October, following the unsuccessful vote in 2014. But those hopes were dashed last November when Britain’s Supreme Court ruled that Scotland’s Parliament did not have the right to act unilaterally. The court upheld the authority of the British Parliament to consent to a referendum, which it has steadfastly refused to do.That has left the Scottish nationalists with a dilemma. Ms. Sturgeon has proposed that the Scots treat the next British general election, which must be held by January 2025, as a de facto referendum on independence. A clear majority for the Scottish National Party, she said, would effectively be a vote for independence.The problem with this approach, analysts said, is that it would lack legal or constitutional legitimacy. That could hurt Scotland’s quest to join the European Union, which it has said it wants to do after separating from Britain. There are practical questions about how Scotland would break away if Britain did not recognize the move.Other people in the party would prefer to continue to build support for independence in the hopes that the pro-independence majority would become so emphatic that the Parliament in London would have no choice but to go along.Ms. Sturgeon leaving the news conference on Wednesday where she announced she would step down.Pool photo by Jane BarlowSupport for independence has waxed and waned since 2014, when Scots voted against leaving by 55 percent to 45 percent. But the Brexit vote in 2016, which was deeply unpopular in Scotland, has built a durable, if small, majority in favor of independence. Scotland’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, which many viewed as more sure-footed than England’s, also fired up separatist sentiment.The prospects for independence, analysts said, will depend in part on how the Scottish National Party handles life after Ms. Sturgeon.“The downside risks are obvious,” said John Curtice, a professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde and one of Britain’s leading experts on polling. “That the party will not be able to find someone with the communications skills of Sturgeon,” leaving the nationalists divided and without a plan.Ms. Sturgeon herself emphasized the necessity of having someone fully dedicated to her party’s causes. “Giving absolutely everything of yourself to this job is the only way to do it,” she said, before acknowledging that she was no longer able to do that. “The country deserves nothing less.”Megan Specia More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How Does Scotland Fit Into the UK Government?

      by

      The news that Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland, will step down raises a variety of questions about how the United Kingdom — England, Scotland and Wales, along with Northern Ireland — is governed. Here is a quick guide.What role does the king play?The United Kingdom operates under a constitutional monarchy. While there is no single written constitutional document, laws and carefully documented traditions together form a Constitution that binds the monarch, currently King Charles III.These rules have accumulated in centuries of legislation. Together, they make the king a constitutional monarch: an embodiment of power and statehood with no personal public role in politics, and tight constraints even on private influence.Who runs the U.K. government?Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is the current leader of the government of the United Kingdom. He took over as the country’s 57th prime minister in October, after his predecessor, Liz Truss, lasted just six weeks in the post.The role of the prime minister, according to the U.K. government’s official website, is to oversee the operation of the civil service and government agencies. The leader also appoints members of the government and is the principal government figure in the House of Commons.Where does Scotland fit in?Here’s where it gets interesting. Mr. Sunak is responsible for some, but not all, of what happens across the United Kingdom. His government makes decisions for England, but some powers and responsibilities are left to elected officials in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland — a result of what is known as devolution.(Northern Ireland is having its own leadership issues at the moment, after the first minister resigned last year and the government remains in limbo.)In Scotland, the government makes decisions relating to the economy, education, health, justice and other areas. The government enforced its own Covid policies during the pandemic, and it has the power to set its own income-tax rates. Decisions regarding immigration, foreign policy and defense are left to the U.K. government.How are first ministers appointed?Following a Scottish parliamentary election, a first minister is nominated by the Parliament in Edinburgh and is appointed by the monarch.The first minister is responsible for appointing Scottish ministers to create a cabinet and is responsible for setting and carrying out government policy. More