Luke's Politics Blog

Blue Wave: The US Senate Elections

A few key terms before starting:

Primary Election – The way in which candidates for election in the US are selected by the members of their party

Special Election – Election conducted to fill a seat for the remainder of its term

GOP – Grand Old Party, refers to the Republican Party

2020 is a big year in America for one major reason: the Presidential Election. Donald Trump is set to fight former Vice-President Joe Biden who, quite frankly, isn’t the best the Democrats have. However, given the choice between a quasi-fascist and a moderate, the choice is pretty simple.

At this point in time, the polls point towards a solid victory for Joe Biden. The battleground states are swaying towards the Democrats, and the fact that states like Georgia and, most surprisingly, Texas are competitive, means the Republican Party is in trouble.

What’s more interesting, and what many people (especially outside the US) may not know, is that the Presidential Election isn’t the only election that’s happening this year. Every two years, the whole House of Representatives is up for election as well as one third of the US Senate. Both are also looking good for the Democrats, but the Senate is a much tougher battle.

The Battlegrounds

At the moment the Senate is composed of 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats. Up for election this year are the 33 Class 2 senate seats, shown on the map below. Blue represents the Democrats, and red,the Republicans:

Of the seats that are up, 23 are Republican held and 12 are Democrat held. If you’re good at quick maths, you’ll notice that there are 35 seats up, not 33. That’s because two of the seats up (Arizona (AZ) and one of Georgia’s (GA) seats) are special elections – essentially a by-election to fill the seat for the rest of its term (both seats are up at the next senate election in 2022).

There are about 13 seats which have the potential to change hands here; Alabama (AL), Alaska (AK), Arizona, Colorado (CO), both of Georgia’s seats, Iowa (IA), Kansas (KS), Maine (ME), Montana (MT), North Carolina (NC), South Carolina (SC), and finally Texas (TX). You may have noticed of the seats that are competitive, only one is held by the Democrats: Alabama. Doug Jones’ (D) shock win in 2017 was lucky (especially because the Republican candidate was accused of being a paedophile) but, as painful as it is to say, his seat is a lost cause.

In any case, this election cycle puts Republicans in a difficult place and Democrats in a great one. So let’s get into the seats.

Looking to Alaska

Alaska doesn’t appear to be a State that should be competitive at first. It’s a rural state and has voted Republican in the presidential election since 1972. But in statewide elections, Alaska has elected Democrats fairly often. From 2009 to 2015, one of Alaska’s senators was a Democrat (the same seat that’s up this year).

Dan Sullivan is the incumbent senator, currently fighting for re-election.

The seat is currently held by Republican Dan Sullivan, who will go up against Democrat/Independent candidate Dr Al Gross, an orthopaedic surgeon. Despite little name recognition, Gross has narrowed the race a lot. The latest poll for this seat had the two candidates tied on 43%, compared to a 7 point lead for Sullivan in July.

This does highlight one of the problems with this seat: only three polls have been conducted, so it’s difficult to gauge which way this seat is going to go exactly. The best indicator of this race may be to look at Alaska’s electoral history.

Alaska is one of, if not the most, independent minded State in the USA. In the 2016 Senate Race for Alaska’s other seat, third parties gained 44% of the vote, and in 2010 Senator Lisa Murkowski won the election on write-ins despite losing the Republican Primary. The Democrats polled 4th and 3rd respectively in those elections. In the 2000 presidential Elections, the Green party had a strong showing of 10% (this may not seem much, but it is significant in American Politics).

Democrat/Independent candidate Al Gross.

In 2018 the Alaskan Supreme court ruled in favour of allowing independents to run for the Democratic nomination. Looking back at Alaska’s independent streak and their poor performances, this was a great for the Democrats, demonstrated by Gross’ primary victory with 74% of the vote. But it isn’t just Gross’ independent credentials that make him a great candidate for Alaska:

While Gross is a very strong candidate, Alaska is still looking to lean Republican this year. Gross is definitely the underdog for this seat, but in the words of political analyst J Miles Coleman: Don’t sleep on Al Gross.

Arizona: Spaceman vs Top Gun

Incumbent Republican Senator Martha McSally (R) and her Democrat challenger Mark Kelly

That title is no exaggeration: Democratic candidate Mark Kelly, an astronaut for 15 years, is up against Republican incumbent and former combat pilot, Martha McSally for the Late John McCain’s seat.

Arizona has historically been a fairly solid Republican state, last electing a Democrat senator in 1988. Since WW2 the state had gone to the Democrats only twice (1948 and 1996). In recent years however, fortunes have begun to look up for the DNC, with Trump winning the state by only 4 points compared to 9 points in 2012. Things only got better for the Democrats in 2018 when Arizona’s other senate seat was won by Kyrsten Sinema (D) against McSally (although despite losing, McSally was appointed to John McCain’s seat after his death that year).

Much of this shift can be attributed to Arizona politics: The state tends towards more ‘moderate’ politicians, such as both its former senators John McCain and John Kyl. Trumps extremist and populist platform does not find a lot of love here and is badly impacting McSally in here re-election campaign. On the flipside, Democrats have found their appeal here. While he certainly isn’t anything special Biden easily attracts to moderates in Arizona compared to Trump. Senator Sinema has also been fantastic at navigating State politics, generally following the Democrat party line but being conservative enough to win over to the more Right-leaning Arizona.

Kelly himself is also a massive boost to the Democrats chances, and probably their best candidate this year. He’s already well known in Arizona, being married to former Representative Gabby Gifford. Together, they have set up a Non-Profit organisation for gun control after an attempted assassination on Gifford. His biggest advantage is his fundraising ability. While McSally has raised around $30 million, Kelly has raised $45 million: it’s the second most expensive race this cycle after Kentucky. In the second quarter of this year he raised a staggering $12.8 million, outraising McSally by $3.6 million.

Arizona is looking very likely to flip at the moment. Kelly has led the polls with an average lead of 8.5 points. Last time McSally ran, both her and her opponent were fighting for an empty seat. This time, she’s running as an unpopular incumbent against a popular opponent. Her fortunes are not looking good.

Colorado

John Hickenlooper (left) and Cory Gardner (right).

Colorado is looking to be yet another solid Democrat pick up. Traditionally a swing state, Colorado has moved towards the Democrats more in the last decade, putting incumbent Republican Cory Gardner in a difficult position. His close affiliation to Trump doesn’t help either. His opposition to Trump’s impeachment in a state that supported it,probably hasn’t boosted his popularity in a state that would have preferred it.

Gardner’s Democratic opponent is former two-term governor of the state John Hickenlooper. His tenure as Governor from from 2011 to 2019 was moderate and pragmatic, and he left office with positive approval ratings: this puts him in a very good starting position for the seat. His downside as a candidate is that he is fairly gaffe-prone, which has helped Gardner to narrow Hickenlooper’s lead in the polls. For example, the Colorado Ethics Commission has held Hickenlooper in contempt after he missed an ethics hearing over some of his actions as governor, including illegally accepting gifts.

Despite Hickenlooper’s pratfalls, a victory for Gardner is unlikely at this point. The state has solidified as a Democratic State, having gone for them in the past three Presidential Elections and voting in three successive Democratic Governors (Hickenlooper included). The best result for Republicans at this point is a narrow loss. That would be a fairly good result for a Trump-supporting Senator in a disapproving state.

Georgia: Here comes trouble and make it double

As mentioned earlier, both of Georgia’s Senate seats are up for grabs this cycle. While traditionally a solidly Republican state, it has been shifting towards a swing state, especially in the past few years. This was seen in 2018 with the Governor’s race, where Democrat Stacy Abrams came within 1 point of victory. This mostly comes down to the growth of Atlanta, in the north of the state, bringing in a lot more voters who lean towards the Democrats. There is the potential for the party to flip both of Georgia’s Senate seats.

Jon Ossoff (left) and David Perdue (right)

The seat up for regular election is currently held by David Perdue (R) who goes up against Democrat Jon Ossoff. Perdue is running for a second term, having narrowly won the seat in 2014.

Ossoff is a strong contender for the seat and probably Democrats best chance to pick up this seat. In 2017, he ran in the special election for Georgia’s 6th seat in the House of Representatives. The seat voted 62% Republican in its last election and wasn’t expected to be competitive. It ended up being one of the most expensive House of Representative races in US history and Ossoff narrowly lost in a 52-48 split. Overall for the race, Ossoff raised a staggering $23 million.

Ossoff is benefitting from some poor campaign moves from Perdue. In July, Perdue ran an ad featuring Ossoff and fellow Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer which was widely criticised as anti-semitic (both Ossoff and Schumer are Jewish). Ossoff’s nose appeared to be digitally altered to be larger, and it suggested that Schumer was trying to ‘buy’ Georgia. The ad was soon pulled. Despite this, Ossoff is at a large fundraising disadvantage with Perdue raising almost double his $7 million. Even still,Ossoff has narrowly pulled ahead, though the race remains a close one.

**A Crowded Race: Clockwise from top Right, Kelly Loeffler (R), Ed Tarver (D), Matt Lieberman (D), Raphael Warnock (D), Doug Collins (R)**

The special election for Georgia’s other seat, vacated in December 2019 and currently held by Kelly Loeffler, has less potential for a Democrat win. There isn’t a primary for this election from either party. Instead, all candidates will appear on the ballot in November, and the top two candidates will go in for a runoff in January 2021 should no-one win outright.

This is where a problem strikes for the Democrats: they’re running in a crowded field. Three of the eight Democrats running seem to have a chance: businessman Matt Lieberman, former State Attorney and State Senator Ed Tarver, and current senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church (Martin Luther King’s former congregation) Raphael Warnock. Warnock is the main candidate backed by the Democrats but has been running a lacklustre campaign. Lieberman has very recently been asked to stand down by the head of Georgia’s NAACP due to the novel he published in 2018, that relied heavily on racial themes. That would leave Tarver, who has yet to break through single digits in polls. But with the three splitting the Democrat vote, it’s looking like Loeffler and fellow Republican contender Doug Collins will compete in the Runoff.

The likeliest outcome is probably a split senate delegation of Ossoff and a Republican. But if Democrats are able to coalesce around one candidate in the special election, that would put them up two senate seats in one state alone, putting them ever closer to the 51 seats needed.

Iowa

You might remember Iowa from a few months ago with the chaotic Iowa Caucus back in February. Once again Iowa is important, with it being one of the tightest races this year.

Incumbent Republican Senator Joni Ernst has so far run a weak campaign. When she ran for senate in 2014 she cast herself as an independent Republican, promising to ‘Make Washington squeal’ (she used to work on a pig farm). However FiveThirtyEight, a polling analysis site, found that she voted in line with Trump about 91% of the time. Going from a supposedly independent-minded Senator to Republican establishment doesn’t seem smart.

To make things worse for Ernst, the Democrats have picked a great candidate to fight for her seat:Theresa Greenfield. She seems to be succeeding where other state Democrats have failed: connecting with rural voters. This in part comes from her emphasis on Social Security in her campaign, something which many Iowans can relate to – around 1/5 of the population and 1/4 of over 65’s in the state are beneficiaries. Putting Social Security front and centre is working very well for Greenfield and not so well for Ernst.

Ernst’s challenger, Democrat Theresa Greenfield.

Most pollsters rate the race as a tossup. In the presidential race, Trump is favoured to win Iowa narrowly, so for Greenfield to win some voters will have to split their votes. This seems to be the case, with the latest poll of the race putting her in the lead narrowly by 3 points. With two months to go and the polls still very close, this seat is up in the air.

“Toto, I have a feeling it might not be red in Kansas anymore…”

Kansas seems to be another one that you wouldn’t expect to be competitive: the state last elected a Democrat to the senate in the 1930s. But this year they’re looking vulnerable in the home of Dorothy, with their incumbent retiring and a strong showing from the Democrats.

Barbara Bollier (left) and Roger Marshal (Right).

The Democrats are running with Kansas State Senator Barbara Bollier. Bollier was formerly a member for the Republican Party, she left the party in 2018, stating that “morally, party is not going where my compass resides.” Upon entering the race to receive the Democratic nomination the previous frontrunner Barry Grissom dropped out, wanting to avoid a split party. Bollier went on to win with 88% of the vote.

Republicans’ nightmare scenario for this seat was avoided when they held their Primary for this seat. Kris Kobach was their candidate for governor in 2018, losing out to Democrat Laura Kelly. He (fortunately for the GOP) lost the Primary to Roger Marshall, currently a member of the House of Representatives. This should have swung the seat comfortably towards the GOP but polling conducted after the primary showed a paltry lead for Marshall over Bollier, well within the margin of error for a Democrat gain. Bollier also has a significant fundraising advantage, having raised $8 million to Marshalls $3 million.

While Bollier is performing well in the race, the seat still has a narrow republican lead. Bollier is the Democrats’ best chance to win in Kansas and if she loses now, the seat is unlikely to flip for a long while.

The Maine Event

Susan Collins (R) was once the most popular senator in the USA, with a net +40% rating in 2017. Now she’s second from the bottom, with only Senate Leader Mitch McConnell ranking below her. That’s quite an achievement.

Susan Collins, Maines Republican Senator and one of America’s most hated.

Her fall from grace started back in 2017 with the controversial confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Despite often splitting opinions amongst Republicans, she managed to be popular with independents and Democrats. However when she voted to confirm Kavanaugh, her popularity began to slip with Democrats and independents. Voting to acquit Trump in the Impeachment proceedings only sent her ratings even further down. At one point she was even less popular than Mitch McConnell, which is no easy feat.

Similar to Alaska, Maine tends to electing more independent candidates. Maine’s other senator, Angus King, is an independent (he does sit with the Democrats) and is one of the Senate’s more moderate voices. His Predecessor was Republican Olympia Snowe, who was very highly praised for her bipartisanship. This is how Collins was able to continue to win in Democrat-leaning Maine. But due to her recent partisan turn, her chances of winning have tanked.

Sarah Gideon, the Democrat candidate for Maine.

To make matters worse for Collins, she’s facing some tough competition. Her opponent is Maine Speaker of the House Sara Gideon. Gideon has very successfully used Collins’ Supreme Court vote against her. $4 million dollars that was crowdfunded around the time of the Kavanaugh confirmation has been given to Gideon, giving her a significant fundraising advantage over Collins.

Gideon is also going to benefit from Maine’s voting system. Unlike the rest of America, Maine uses Ranked-Choice Voting, which allows voters to rank all the candidates in order of preference. When votes are counted the candidate in last place is eliminated, and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates in a second round of counting. This goes on until a candidate has over 50% of the vote. This helps to eliminate the spoiler effect in which two similar candidates split their votes and allow a third candidate to win. Why this benefits Gideon is due to the presence of a Green Party candidate, who has openly said to put Gideon as a second preference.

Collins’ fall from grace is possibly one of the biggest in American politics. Once praised for her bipartisanship, she’s essentially guaranteed the Democrats at least one more seat in the Senate.

Mighty Close Montana

Steve Bullock (left) and Steve Daines (right).

Montana is similar to Alaska in many ways: A rural state that is solidly Red in Presidential races but in statewide races it regularly votes Blue. Montana already has a Democrat senator with Jon Tester as well as a two-term Governor in Steve Bullock, who also happens to be this year’s senate candidate and a big reason that the state has become competitive.

Steve Daines first won this Senate Seat in 2014, succeeding six term Democrat incumbent Max Baucus. He is the first Republican to represent this seat in just over a century. He tied his campaign to president Trump which hasn’t helped him in regards to the shambles that was his coronavirus response. His seat became a lot less safe when Governor Bullock decided to enter the race.

Bullock was first elected governor of Montana in 2012. Despite the state breaking for Mitt Romney in the Presidential election by 13 points, Bullock pulled off a narrow win by just 7000 votes. Perhaps more impressive is,in 2016, Trump carried the state by 20 points, Bullock managed to extend his lead by 4 points. His response to the coronavirus pandemic has helped to propel his approval ratings, which are probably going to help his chances. Clearly Montana Democrats rate his chances as well: when he finally entered the race (on the last day to file), all other Democrats bar one dropped out, all endorsing Bullock.

While he is generally considered a moderate Democrat, he has shifted left slightly due to his brief run for President in 2019 which may damage his chances in the more conservative Montana. However, his popularity as governor is likely to offset this with 53% of Montanans holding positive views of Bullock (as of late July). His handling of the Coronavirus pandemic and his general effectiveness as governor, has also helped to win voters to his side, putting Daines in a more difficult position.

At the moment the seat is rated as a tossup by most polling groups. Daines has led the last three polls in the state but with an average lead of 2.2 it’s close enough for Bullock to pull through. Even if Trump wins the state, it is entirely likely that enough Montanans will split their votes for the Presidential and Senate election. In the 2018 elections, incumbent Democratic Senator Jon Tester won reelection, while Montana’s seat in the House of Representatives was won by a Republican on almost the same margin as Tester. And that seat is looking mighty close this year too.

North Carolina

Cal Cunningham (left) and Thom Tillis (right).

In North Carolina, incumbent Republican Thom Tillis faces up against veteran and state senator Cal Cunningham in a race that is looking good for the Democrats. Tillis won the seat narrowly in 2014.

Cunningham’s campaign is unusual to say the least. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has given the strategy of a ‘windowless basement’ in North Carolina. Rather than holding rally’s and other traditionally campaign events, the strategy runs on fundraising a lot, then using the money to run negative ads against Tillis. The strategy appears to be working because, as mentioned before, Cunningham has been leading the polls since February.

While Tillis has recently started associating with the President more closely, Cunningham generally avoids speaking about Trump, instead focusing on other issues like healthcare. This may seem odd, but this tactic helped to get many Democrats elected in the 2018 midterms and is helping Cunningham in an important swing state. It helps even further as Tillis is polling worse than the president in the state, so tying Tillis to Trump may help him slightly. By focusing away from Trump, Cunningham can focus on the failings of Tillis himself.

While the state is close in the Presidential race, Cunningham has maintained his lead against Tillis. North Carolina is very much looking to be a Democrat gain in the senate.

South Carolina

Jaime Harrison (left) and Lindsey Graham (right)

The last time Democrats won a Senate race in South Carolina was 1998, and that was with a six term incumbent. They haven’t won a statewide race since 2006. This year is looking extremely good for them in the Palmetto State.

Lindsey Graham (R) currently holds this seat. He is amongst the more famous senators, who used to be one of Trump’s most vocal Republican critics. Now, he’s turned into a top Trump advocate which is now starting to backfire for him. He’s increasingly unpopular with his base of voters, and losing moderates to the Democrat challenging him, Jaime Harrison. He’s a moderate, well-connected Democrat with a solid fundraising ability and the best chance of flipping this seat.

Harrison has a lot going well for him. Graham’s growing unpopularity is turning a lot of voters against him: His actions around Trump, plus his behaviour during Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court Hearings have made previously friendly voters to turn against him who are starting to lean towards Harrison instead. Graham’s inaction around Coronavirus relief and belief that the unemployment benefits were ‘too generous’ are being well exploited by Harrison. Playing a moderate campaign is also boosting him, especially in a conservative state like South Carolina.

While Harrison’s campaign has been limited by the pandemic (he had intended to travel around the state and try to push voter registration up), he has adapted well to a digital campaign spending the most of any senate candidate on Facebook adds. What also benefits him is the other party on the ballot, the Constitution Party. This party is (somehow) further to the right of the Republican party and is campaigning fairly hard in South Carolina. They don’t have a hope in hell of winning but they are likely to cause the spoiler effect, whereby two ideologically similar parties fight over the same voters, splitting their vote and allowing for someone else to win. This is what allowed the Democrats to win the Kentucky Governorship in 2019 and it could very much allow them to gain this seat.

What should have been a solid Republican hold has turned into a very competitive race. While South Carolina ultimately leans Republican, a victory for the Democrats would not be a shock. It might also offer a good template for making further inroads into other Southern States in the future.

The Lone Star State

You wouldn’t really expect Texas to be a competitive state. It’s what a lot of people use to define the Republican Party: after all, it is the home state of the Bush family. Slowly but surely though, the State is shifting blue.

The primary reason for Texas’ move leftward is demographics. Texas’ cities are some of the fastest growing in the US, which attracts young, well-educated voters who boost the Democrats. Add on to that Texas’ growing Hispanic population who are a fairly solid voting bloc for the Democrats and the shift of college educated suburban voters from the GOP towards Democrats, then you have an increasingly smaller core of voters the GOP can rely on.

The 2018 Midterm elections show the changing electorate of Texas. The state’s other Senate seat was up for election, and Democrat, Beto O’Rourke came within 3 points of winning the seat, a massive improvement from the 16 point gap when the seat was up in 2012. In the House of Representatives, Democrats gained two seats, both in the suburbs, and managed to increase their vote share by 10 points to 47%. While Democrats are looking to flip a number of close races in the House, the challenge comes with flipping this year’s Senate Seat.

MJ Hegar, the Democrat running for Texas Senate.

The Democratic challenger in this race is veteran MJ Hegar. Before she entered politics, Hegar led a case against the Combat Exclusion Policy, which essentially blocked women from going into certain jobs. Lobbying politicians for the case is what got Hegar into politics, and in 2018 she ran the the US House of Representatives, though she narrowly lost her race against the Republican Incumbent. Her campaign ran an add for the race titled ‘Doors‘ detailing Hegar’s story, and it garnered a lot of attention and garnered her campaign a lot of money.

Her opponent is John Cornyn, one of the most senior Republicans in the Senate. He was selected as the Republican Whip (his job is to enforce the party line) in 2012, a position he held until 2019. He’s running to win his seat for a fourth term, but is in for a much tougher race than previously: in 2014, he won by 27 points. The latest poll for this race gave Cornyn a lead of only 5 points. What makes that more impressive is that Hegar started the race 15 points down.

While the race has narrowed, Cornyn still holds a significant fundraising advantage, having raised $22 million to Hegar’s $6.5 million. Funding is very much a big part of winning a raise, and in Texas you need a lot if you want to win. In the 2018 Race, O’Rourke outraised his opponent Ted Cruz by $30 million, but still lost the race (albeit narrowly). On the other hand, the fact that the race is currently narrowing despite the funding differences shows the danger for Texas Republicans now.

Texas is a seat that is more unlikely to flip compared to other seats. Even if it doesn’t , the now competitive nature of the state puts the Republican Party in a difficult place for the future.

Once in a Blue Moon: a Democrat Majority?

It’s very likely that only a few of these seats will turn Blue in November. Democrats only need to pick up four or five seats to gain control of the Senate. Should this be the case, Democrats can still be positive: they are competitive in places like Texas, South Carolina, and Georgia, not just in the Senate but in the Presidential Race as well. For the Republicans, it looks like a rather bleak future for them.

Personally, I think the result is most likely to be a narrow Democrat majority of one or two seats. Their likeliest pickups are Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, and Maine. Georgia’s main seat, Montana, and Iowa could go either way, and all other seats are leaning towards the Republicans but it wouldn’t be a surprise if one or two of them ended up flipping. Whatever happens, the Democrats are likely to control the Senate again after five years. With majorities in the Senate and the House, plus winning the Presidency, it could mean they are going to have a very productive few years in power. Fingers crossed.

EDIT: SUPREME COURT VACANCY

Much of this was written before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her death is a huge tragedy, and means that there is now an open seat on the Supreme Court. Within hours of her death, the Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell released a statement saying that they would move to fill the vacancy before the President’s inauguration in January 2021. Not only is this deeply offensive, it is a blatant power grab by McConnell to give the Supreme Court a conservative majority and it also breaks the precedence he himself set four years ago with Merrick Garland.

The vacancy now on the Supreme Court and the Republican Leadership’s eagerness to fill the seat, puts many of the Senate races into chaos. Susan Collins of Maine has said that she believes the vacancy should be filled after the President’s inauguration, though she hasn’t said which way she’d vote should it happen before. If it does and she votes against filling the seat, she could salvage a possible re-election.

If the confirmation hearings are held after the election has taken place, i.e. in December, many of the sitting senators who have now lost their seats (new senators don’t begin their terms until January) may choose to vote for a conservative justice, having nothing to lose from doing so.

A-Levels 2020: Hey, Gavin, Leave Our Grades Alone

So today was A-level results day. It has not been a good day. Students up and down the country received grades far below what their schools predicted, because of a system that appears to have downgraded pupils in disadvantaged areas, whilst protecting the grades of those at independent schools. Who could possibly have seen this coming from a government that is building its legacy on classist cronyism?

In all honesty, my personal experience could’ve been a lot worse. I got two Bs and two Cs, and as much as I would have liked an A, I know that there isn’t the evidence to show this. But experiences like mine are unfortunately a rarity. A friend of mine was predicted AABB by his school, but the government system pushed him down to CBBB. He missed his offer for University and is currently trying to appeal it. Scroll through any social media platform, and you’ll see countless students who were predicted As and A*s given Cs and Ds. Stories like this are echoed across the country, as my generation tries to make sense of this bizarre and unjust system.

We Don’t Need No Education (Secretary)

The results system was flawed. For all the Prime Minister’s platitudes about looking after children’s mental health by getting them back to school, at the moment when it really mattered, his government failed us by sacrificing our prospects on the altar of bureaucracy. It is a particularly cruel irony for a government that professes disdain for process to strangle a generation’s future in reams of red tape.

The end of our school life should have culminated in the opportunity to prove how much we had learnt, how far we had come and what we were capable of. It should have been the chance to achieve grades that we would use to demonstrate our employability and our academic skills. When the pandemic hit, it undermined what we had worked for, but knowing that our teachers would spend hours considering what we deserved was at least some comfort. And then the government decided that a global pandemic and no exams wasn’t enough of a problem to deal with – we needed to be treated as faceless numbers in a system instead of hardworking individuals with goals and aspirations.

You cannot use a statistical model when the system is based on individual performance. Treating us as numbers, facsimiles of our peers last year, takes away everything our education has been about. Work hard? Prove yourself? Why bother. None of us had the chance to prove what we could do in the shape of an exam. All of our coursework counted for nothing. This was a system where it really did not matter how long or hard you worked – no hours of reading or revision counted in the face of the government’s model. So much for pulling yourselves up by your bootstraps eh?

These exam results will influence our lives for years to come. The Education Secretary and Ofqual have ensured that COVID-19 won’t just impact us until there’s a vaccine, but probably for life.

Williamson’s attempted ‘olive branch’ of Mock Grades is, quite frankly, a mockery. My school administered full papers under exam conditions; no extra help, no ‘easy/partial’ questions and stringent marking. In my school, mock exams were supposed to motivate students to work hard to get a good grade in the end. Like many schools, this was a system that was designed to galvanise students before exams, and not to deliver a finished product months in advance.

My twin brother did mocks completely differently. He had three separate exam occasions, with a gradual build up of intensity over time: supported questions, topic warnings, take-home papers. In his school, the philosophy of mocks was to build confidence and gradually increase technique.

Neither idea is wrong and neither is right: like most things, schools will find different ways to do things that work well for them and their pupils. But to then use them to adjudicate on the final grade is not at all fair. Any two students on different sides of the country will have had widely varying experiences of mock exams, and yet the government blindly assumes this could somehow carve a level playing field from the minefield that their system left.

From reading the news and talking to teachers, it would appear that the only aspect of teacher assessment that has had an impact on moderation of grades is the ranking of classes. Again, this doesn’t work. This idea of pre-determined ‘rankings’ in a class somehow corresponding to overall grades is grossly unfair. It presumes that there are a set number of high and low grades in each class, and effectively nullifies the idea that grades are there to be earned through hard work and dedication. Equally, it minimises prospects for ‘middle’ pupils in high-achieving state schools with large classes, whilst maximising them for equivalent pupils in independent schools with smaller classes. The Tories should print it on t-shirts at this point: “You’ll be fine as long as you went to the right school.”

There has always been some form of moderation in exams and coursework – teachers are used to proving that their students deserve the marks they have given. From Year 6 writing through to Year 13 coursework, any teacher is ready to use evidence to prove that the marks they have given are fair and justified. Why could we not have used a system like this ? Why not allow the professionals to do the job they trained for? Why not use the people who knew us and who had actually seen our work and our potential? Moderation isn’t a new thing in education but moderating without evidence is and it’s not a positive change. It sucks.

All in all? It’s just another brick in the wall

No one could have seen a pandemic coming. No one expected the answer to be perfect but we did perhaps expect that, with five months to consider it, the government’s attempt would be fair or logical. At the very least, we hoped they would listen to the teachers who know us and knew what we were capable of.

Instead, we were left with a system that disregarded our years of hard work, tore up our teacher’s assessments and left us at the mercy of a statistical model that disproportionately lowered the grades of already disadvantaged students.

Today is a painful and upsetting day for young people. But frankly, it is just another example of the Tories’ disdain for our generation. A decade of Tory rule has given us crushing austerity, soaring inequality, and the knowledge that we will be poorer and less secure than the generations who came before us. I wish today came as a surprise. However, from the party that tore a nation apart to keep itself together, it’s just another brick in the insurmountable wall that they’ve built in front of young people in this country.

COVID-19 robbed us of the chance to show what we were capable of in exams. But the Conservatives have robbed us of our future.

“Liberating” the Lib Dems: Where does the party go?

Note: this was written before the election report that was released on the 15/5/20

Luck hasn’t particularly been on the Liberal Democrats side in the past few years. Having been quite shafted at the 2015 election, then the 2017 election, and then the 2019 election, it’s obvious to see why. In that five year period, we’ve gone through four leaders.

It hasn’t been all bad though. The results for us in the Local Elections were our largest gains in over a decade, and the European Elections were our best ever. And there are still silver linings of the 2019 General Election, with our vote share increasing by the largest it ever has. But still, things aren’t looking good for the foreseeable future.

A good starting point would be the General Election. It ended up being pretty poor for the party; we made a net loss of 1 and our leader lost her seat. Why did we do poorly? Well tactical voting for one thing, as it is in every election. Considering Brexit was still the biggest issue, much of our potential vote went towards a remain party/candidate whether we stood down in a seat or not. The other tactical reason in other seats came down to the fears of a Corbyn government. For many people, the election was a choice between the two unpopular figures of Johnson and Corbyn, and a lot of people would rather have had the latter. And as the campaign went on, the Lib Dems became a less and less viable alternative.

So going into the election campaign, it didn’t feel like a strong position to be in. The Lib Dems were a rock in an excruciatingly hard place and it would require a very skilled campaign to do that.

Unfortunately the subsequent campaign wasn’t the best. For starters, it came off quite ‘presidential’ with Jo Swinson put front and centre. Her face was plastered on the side of the ‘battle bus’ and on the ballot paper, the party was called Jo Swinson’s Liberal Democrats. It’s easy to see why this was done – it helps to clearly identify the party leader. Voters should know who they’re potentially putting into number 10 (although this was optimistic). But at the end of the day, adding in the message of “your next Prime Minister” the campaign looked egotistical and put people off.

Another issue with the campaign that was no-ones fault was unfortunately, sexism. I have little to say about this other than the fact that it’s incredibly disappointing that it’s still a part of politics at all and we have to work to remove from every level of politics.

An issue outside of the general election and, probably more important in post-brexit Britain, is party identity. When I’ve spoken to people about politics and the Lib Dems, there generally seems to be a lack of what people identify us with. The Conservatives are seen as the pro- business, traditional party and Labour are the party of workers, unions, and welfare. A lot of people see the Lib Dems as simply the inbetween party, with little else. Obviously we aren’t just that, but a lot of people seem to see us like that, unfortunately.

When Brexit came along, however, it offered us an opportunity: to be the anti-Brexit party. This did seem to help in the European Elections and especially in the summer of 2019 as things came to a boiling point. But it could never really be a long-term identity to hold because at some point Brexit had to end and once it did, what do we do?

Now we get to the leadership question. At the moment the party president Mark Pack and deputy leader Ed Davey are the interim co-leaders until we elect someone else. But the big question there is when? The federal board or the party set the date as May 2021 – a stupid idea. The election was set to take place after the local elections on the 6th of May. Not only is it local elections in councils across the country, you have London elections (for mayor and the Assembly), the Welsh Parliament, and Scottish Parliament. For a lot of Lib Dems, it seems a fantastically stupid idea to go into these all-important elections without a leader. Fortunately the Federal Board was found not to have the power to set the date as May 2021, but there’s still no solid plan for when the election will take place.

So how do you fix these problems? Well let me, a lowly member of the Lib Dems for a year and a half, offer my two cents.

Top of the list: get the leadership election done. A new leader is the best starting point the Lib Dems can have to move towards success. For me personally, that leader needs to be someone who can start the party afresh and move away from the recent history of the coalition. Quite frankly, it’s holding us back. Fortunately, only three of the party’s MPs were around for the coalition, and two of them have ruled themselves out of the leadership race. So that leaves plenty of room for any new leader to wipe the slate clean. A leadership election should take place as soon as realistically possible. Obviously Coronavirus seems like a huge obstacle but it really shouldn’t be. Because of that ever-so-useful thing called the internet, Hustings for candidates could be held entirely online to avoid large gatherings and already most of the voting in party elections is done online so that’s another plus.

Another fix is to move on from Brexit. It’s ‘done’ and we are properly out at the beginning of 2021 (whether a deal has been reached or not). The focus should move from arguing to be in the EU towards getting us the best deal we can in the position the country is now in, whether it’s EFTA, or something else. And that’s not to say that our internationalism should be abandoned at all. In the long term, if Brexit does go to sh*t, we should avoid adopting a smug ‘I told you so!’ stance and instead be pragmatic and work to fix the problems that arise. A rejoin policy should be held back until circumstances are good enough that it’s a viable policy. At minimum this is probably about 15-20 years, but it could be a whole while longer.

What these two ideas also tie into is building a proper party identity. As I’ve said, a new leader gives us the chance to wipe the slate clean; move on from the past decade of politics that haven’t been the best to us. This opportunity should be used to show people that we aren’t simply the middle party sandwiched between Labour and the Tories, but to put us forward as a genuine alternative to the two-party duopoly that this country has had. To do this, we should emphasise policies that stand us out from them. Electoral reform is at the top of that policy list. The Tories definitively do not support it and as much as Labour say they support it, they always seem to pass it by when they get a chance to push it through. We have always supported as a party, but I believe it should a the biggest part of any election campaign. Another idea could be a UBI ( Universal Basic Income) which both parties have written off but is currently enjoying a wave of support, especially within the Lib Dems.

There’s still five years to the next election, and we’re in some pretty exceptional circumstances right now with Coronavirus. We’ve got a lot of time as a party to start learning from our mistakes and put ourselves in a better position for that time. The local elections in 2021 are the first elective hurdles in our way, so lets make sure we’re ready for them.

My political beliefs

A vital part of running a politics blog is having political views. It’d probably be good to explain what mine are, so here they are.

Neoliberalism

The immediate thought that comes to mind with the mention of Neoliberalism is not a particularly good one in my mind: the mass unemployment under Margaret Thatcher, the rabid deregulation of markets, with a sprinkling of social conservatism. That’s not the kind of Neoliberalism I associate with.

One unfortunate thing with the term is that it doesn’t seem to have a proper meaning.

The kind of Neoliberalism that I, and many others, tend to follow is a far more modern and genuinely liberal ideology. There is a clear belief in individual liberty, and the idea that authority must be justified, questioned, and limited to prevent abuse of the individual. Like almost every form of liberalism, the market economy is still the most efficient economic system, with its ability to create wealth and the attachment to individual liberty with choice.

Where this new Neoliberalism (Neo-Neoliberalism sadly hasn’t caught on) differs from that of the 1980s is the market, social policy, and the welfare state. Leaving the market to be regulated by the ‘Invisible Hand’ is not always the best course of action. Doing so leaves it vulnerable to the emergence of abusive oligopolies and monopolies. There are few occasions where these are a good thing – their general existence makes the welfare of the average citizen worse. Some kind of guiding hand from the government is needed in order to best position the markets to function effectively in a way that is in the best interests of all parties.

On social policy, the old Neoliberalism doesn’t hold a great track record. Margaret Thatcher’s introduction of Section 28 is a prime example. Across the pond, the attitude of Reagan towards the AIDs epidemic and disagreements with the Civil Rights Act (Reagan, the South and Civil Rights, NPR) doesn’t help to paint it in a good light. New Neoliberalism does not follow suit; in any modern society, equality is an absolute must. Human rights must always be respected, no matter your race, gender, ethnicity, sex, language, religion, or whatever else defines you.

In terms of welfare, gutting it for the sake of it or for some deeper ideological meaning is not such a good way of going about things. Any welfare state should act like a safety net, and one that is very strong. When someone falls, the system shouldn’t trap them in it or abandon them completely: it should help them to get back on their feet by providing a basic floor that keeps them away from poverty. The idea of a Universal Basic Income (giving everyone £1,000 a month) is growing in popularity, especially with the current situation cutting off a lot of people from their work.

Now this may all just sound like liberalism at it’s most basic, and broadly speaking it does follow the core ideals. Where it breaks from tradition is based around the state. Neoliberalism is not the same in respect to traditional liberalism with emphasis on natural freedom. The idea that in a stateless society everyone would be free is not necessarily true; in a state of affairs with no state, there is nothing to protect people from the actions of others (rephrase?). The state can and should be used as a vessel to promote and enhance freedoms, protecting minorities and the vulnerable, and maintaining some kind of order.

For anyone looking to read more into Neoliberalism, there are some fantastic articles on it, from the Exponents Magazine (What is Neoliberalism?), Sam Bowman (I’m a neoliberal. Maybe you are too) and Arc Digital (Why would anyone want to be a Neoliberal?). A lot more information is up on the Neoliberal Project website.

Georgism

The landlord is a gentleman who does not earn his wealth – David Lloyd George

Georgism is the ideology of the Land Value Tax, to put it simply. Supported by three prime ministers (Asquith, Lloyd George, and Churchill) it’s a bit of a wonder as to how such an influential idea isn’t more well known.

The idea of the land tax primarily came from American economist Henry George (hence the name). His idea for the tax came from his visits to the cities of San Francisco and New York. In San Francisco, George saw how land values could grow rapidly and out of control as the population grew. In New York, he saw the devastating effects of renting on the city, with much of the city being owned by rich landowners from outside the city who were extracting the wealth from the city via rents. This led George to write Progress and Poverty, which became the second most sold book of the 1890s with 3 million sold (the Bible, as always, outsold it).

The early 1900s were a golden age for Georgism. In the 1908 ‘People’s Budget’ proposed by then chancellor David Lloyd George, the land tax was an instrumental part of funding for military projects and the new welfare state, with Asquith proposing “to free the land that from this very hour is shackled with the chains of feudalism.” Monopoly everyones favourite family-ruining board game, evolved from the 1904 The Landlord’s Game, designed to show players how Georgism worked. But past that, Georgism never truly emerged as a leading idea. Land taxes are in use across the world however, with Denmark, Estonia, Singapore all having some form of it. In the USA the state of Pennsylvania has implemented a land tax at a more local level within some cities.

*Monopoly* and *The Landlord’s Game*. See the similarities?

There are generally two groups of arguments for a land value tax/Georgism; the moral argument and the practical arguments. The moral argument generally stems from the idea of natural rights. Land is naturally occuring, necessary for life and not invented by a person. Like air, everyone needs land to live. So why do we allow some people to wall off a bit of land who then charge you to use it, when we don’t do the same to air? Land should be considered a public good; you cannot exclude people from using it, and someone else using it doesn’t stop others from using it. If you want to claim a piece of land and have your ownership be respected, you should pay a tax on the value of the land you own in order for that to happen.

The economic argument for LVT boils down to it being a very effective tax. There are four criteria which make it an effective tax (you can really see the A-level econ shining through right here) namely, it should be: 1) easy to collect, 2) easy to pay, 3) hard to avoid, and 4) should not create disincentives. A land tax fulfils pretty much all these criteria. It is generally easy to collect and could be a similar process to council tax but easier to find the taxable amount as there is less to take into account when valuing the site. In an age of direct debit, as with council tax, it is easy to arrange payment. Number 3 is probably one of LVT’s biggest advantages – it’s incredibly difficult to avoid paying tax on a physical piece of land. It’s not something you can move to a tax haven, and so long as your name is on the land registry as owning that plot, you’re going to have to pay. And number 4 is a no-brainer – LVT does the opposite of disincentivizing. An undeveloped piece of land suddenly becomes a bit of a burden if you have to start paying tax on it. I see this as probably the best advantage of LVT, because it could stop developers from holding on to brownfield sites, waiting for the value to rise.

And amongst economists, a Land tax isn’t an unpopular idea. Many of the world’s most famous economists like Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Milton Friedman suggested that a land value tax be used. Friedman, a man not known for his love of tax, called it ‘the least bad tax.’ That’s got to give it some credit as a concept.

Traditionally, Georgism was concerned with a land tax as a ‘single tax ‘; the abolition of all other taxes other than a land tax. Whether this is genuinely achievable is up for debate, but personally I don’t think it would. A land tax would be a good replacement for something like council tax with the potential to raise a lot of revenue. What this does depend on rather heavily is regular land valuations and a complete land registry of all UK land. Unfortunately, this isn’t something the UK does well so that hinders things. Although it does seem to be becoming a bigger idea in the UK with the Lib Dems and Greens proposing it in some form in their manifestos for the 2019 election.

For Georgism, Henry George’s Progress and Poverty is an absolute must read. As in, for a good explanation of more economic properties of LVT, this is a good post from a Georgist who I follow.

So that’s my politics. Hopefully I’ve explained everything well enough, but if you have any questions on anything feel free to message me on whatever platform you have me on.

The First Post

Hello there. If you’ve managed to somehow find your way on to this post, then you’ve found yourself on the first post of my brand new blog.

So I’m Luke. I’m eighteen and a former A-level student (before they were abruptly stopped by the notorious Coronavirus) who studied Politics, History, Geography and Economics. Outside of school, I obsessively follow politics (probably a bit too much). I’m a member of the Liberal Democrats, the best party ever (I say as I cry myself to sleep). Other than that, geography is a favourite topic of mine. Specifically the human side of it, and, more specifically than that, urban design. And linking to that yet again, architecture is something I enjoy a lot, to the extent that I designed a skyscraper once (it probably would have collapsed, but that’s besides the point).

So why start a politics blog? Well for one thing, the world of politics is massively interesting (that’s a given). Politics is an ever changing landscape (what a unique phrase). The way in which the institutes of our politics interact show this: the Supreme Court ruling in September last year perfectly shows the evolving shape of politics, with the emergence of a more prominent Supreme Court. This is again changing; The Conservative Manifesto at the last election promised to ‘to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts’ so the power of the Supreme Court is highly likely to be challenged. That’s one reason for making this blog, to talk about those interactions and offer an opinion on them.

On a more personal level, starting a blog is a way for me to express a lot of my opinions and ideas that I never really share properly. Writing my opinions gives me more time to properly articulate what I want to say. And as well, I think it’s a better way of giving a sort-of commentary on politics and giving my two cents on things.

For the most part, this blog will be me explaining various ideas about politics that I’ve picked up from all over the place. On top of that, I’ll do an occasional post on something else like geography or history, depending if I’m doing something related to them or if I just feel like it. I’m going to try to upload to this blog weekly, which shouldn’t be too difficult with the newfound abundance of free time that I now have. However, procrastination can persevere, so we’ll see.

But anyway, thanks for reading this, and tune in next week/at some point when I’ll put up a post on my political views. Probably quite important for a politics blog.