type here...
Home Blog

“Trump vs. The World: Will Tariffs Break the Global Economy?

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
“Trump vs. The World: Will Tariffs Break the Global Economy?



On April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump declared what he termed “Liberation Day,” unveiling a comprehensive tariff strategy aimed at reshaping America’s trade relationships. This initiative introduced a universal 10% tariff on all imports, with significantly higher rates for specific nations—most notably, a cumulative 104% tariff on Chinese goods and 20% on imports from the European Union. The administration asserts that these measures are designed to bolster domestic manufacturing, reduce trade deficits, and reclaim economic sovereignty. However, these sweeping tariffs have ignited global controversy, prompting retaliatory actions from key trading partners and raising concerns about potential economic repercussions both domestically and internationally.

Understanding Tariffs

At their core, tariffs are taxes imposed by a government on imported goods. When foreign products enter the U.S., importers are required to pay these taxes, often passing the additional costs onto consumers through higher retail prices. Governments employ tariffs primarily for two reasons: to generate revenue and to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. By making imported goods more expensive, tariffs can make domestically produced products more attractive to consumers, thereby encouraging local production and preserving jobs. However, this protective measure can also lead to higher prices for consumers and potential retaliation from trading partners.

President Trump has long championed tariffs as a tool to address what he perceives as unfair trade practices that disadvantage American workers and industries. By imposing these tariffs, he aims to reduce the U.S. trade deficit, incentivize companies to relocate manufacturing operations back to American soil, and ultimately strengthen the nation’s economic sovereignty. The administration argues that such measures are necessary to rectify longstanding inequities in international trade relationships and to ensure that other nations provide reciprocal market access to American goods.

President Donald Trump delivers remarks on the reciprocal tariff policy in the Rose Garden on April 2, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Is there a positive case for these tariffs?

Deep in Trump world, there are those who believe these tariffs will help Trump achieve his stated ends. They believe it will achieve some of the following objectives:

  • Revitalizing Domestic Manufacturing: By making imports more costly, domestic products may become more competitively priced, potentially leading to increased production and job creation within the U.S. To make this point, the Trump administration has been pointing to past instances where targeted tariffs led to job gains in specific industries, suggesting that a broader application could yield similar results.
  • Reducing Trade Deficits: Higher tariffs could discourage imports, potentially narrowing the trade gap between the U.S. and its trading partners. By making foreign goods less competitive in the U.S. market, consumers might shift their purchasing preferences toward domestically produced items, thereby improving the trade balance.
  • Enhancing National Security: Strengthening domestic industries, particularly in critical sectors, can reduce dependence on foreign suppliers and bolster economic security. By ensuring that essential goods are produced domestically, the U.S. can mitigate risks associated with global supply chain disruptions.

Could they work?

Despite the intended benefits, many economists and analysts have expressed significant concerns regarding the implementation of these tariffs. Here are some of the key things that might happen as a result:

  • Increased Consumer Prices: Tariffs function as a tax on imports, and businesses often pass these costs onto consumers. This can lead to higher prices for a wide range of goods, from clothing and electronics to automobiles and household items. For example, the Yale Budget Lab estimates that the tariffs could increase annual expenses for the average American family by approximately $3,800.
  • Risk of Retaliatory Measures: Targeted countries may respond with their own tariffs on American exports, potentially harming U.S. industries that rely on international markets. This tit-for-tat escalation can lead to broader trade conflicts, negatively affecting global economic stability. China, for instance, has already announced retaliatory tariffs of 34% on all U.S. goods, deepening the trade war between the world’s two largest economies.
  • Potential for Economic Slowdown: The increased costs associated with tariffs can contribute to inflationary pressures, prompting central banks to adjust interest rates. Additionally, disrupted supply chains and decreased international trade can slow economic growth, potentially leading to recessionary conditions. Economists warn that these tariffs could reignite inflation and raise the risk of a U.S. recession, with potential GDP growth reductions and increased unemployment rates.

Why can’t we go back?

The notion of reverting to a past economic model centered on domestic production faces significant challenges in today’s interconnected world

Perhaps the biggest challenge to Trump’s vision of an economically self-reliant America is that the world simply doesn’t work that way anymore. The days of entire goods being produced within a single national economy are long gone. Globalization has woven the economies of countries together into intricate webs of cooperation, competition, and co-dependence.

Take, for example, the humble smartphone. It may be branded in California, but its microchips come from Taiwan, its rare earth metals from Africa, its glass from Japan, and its final assembly might happen in Vietnam or China. Attempting to unravel and nationalize this supply chain isn’t just difficult—it’s economically counterproductive. As economist Chad Bown from the Peterson Institute for International Economics has pointed out, “No country can truly ‘go it alone’ anymore without risking significant economic self-harm.”

Moreover, American companies rely heavily on export markets. Retaliatory tariffs from other countries, such as those announced by China and the European Union, will inevitably hit U.S. exporters—from soybean farmers in Iowa to aircraft manufacturers in Washington state. Even Harley-Davidson, once a symbol of American grit and industry, moved some of its production overseas in response to EU tariffs during the first round of Trump-era trade wars. The current wave of tariffs may only deepen this trend.

PM: I’ll only sign US tariffs deal if it suits UK – EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock

A central appeal of Trump’s tariff strategy is its emotional resonance. The promise to bring back American jobs and industries that were “stolen” by globalization is powerful, particularly in regions hollowed out by decades of deindustrialization. But this strategy leans heavily on nostalgia—on the idea that if the U.S. just hunkers down and slaps enough tariffs on foreign goods, Detroit will roar back to life and textile mills will hum again in the Carolinas.

However, the economic landscape has changed dramatically. Automation, not foreign labor, has been the primary driver of U.S. manufacturing job loss. According to a report from Ball State University, 88% of the manufacturing jobs lost between 2000 and 2010 were due to technological advancements, not trade. Rebuilding American manufacturing requires not just protectionist policies, but massive investments in innovation, workforce retraining, and education—areas that tariffs alone cannot fix.

The politics of it all

There’s also a political logic to tariffs. They are visible. They are headline-grabbing. They allow a president to appear tough on trade without needing congressional approval. Trump’s announcement of “Liberation Day” played into this spectacle perfectly. It gave his base a clear narrative: America has been exploited, and he is the strongman putting an end to it.

But this kind of politics-by-tariff is risky. As Bloomberg columnist Tyler Cowen recently warned, broad-based tariffs on nearly all imports amount to a massive tax hike on American consumers disguised as economic patriotism. “The tariffs are, effectively, a new VAT—except one that disproportionately harms the poorest,” he wrote.

Early economic indicators suggest that the tariffs are already having tangible effects. According to data from Moody’s Analytics, inflation has ticked up by 0.7% in the month since the tariffs were enacted, and consumer confidence has begun to slide. The retail and hospitality sectors, both highly sensitive to changes in consumer spending, are showing early signs of contraction.

Meanwhile, Wall Street has reacted with volatility. The S&P 500 dipped 3.2% the week following the tariff announcement, with tech and automotive stocks taking particularly sharp hits. These sectors rely heavily on international supply chains and markets—precisely the areas disrupted most severely by the new trade rules.

It will have a big impacts on small businesses

While large corporations might have the resources to restructure supply chains or absorb losses, small and medium-sized businesses don’t have that luxury. For these entrepreneurs, the tariffs are less about trade policy and more about survival.

Take a small camera accessory company based in Oregon that sources parts from Japan and Korea. Suddenly, its production costs rise by 10% overnight. With slim margins and no pricing power, the business is forced to either eat the cost or pass it onto customers—neither of which are sustainable option.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, small businesses are likely to be the hardest hit by these tariffs. They account for 98% of U.S. exporters, yet they have the fewest resources to navigate the bureaucratic and financial complexities introduced by such sudden policy shifts.

Trump promised a look forward, but we are looking back

The American economy of the 1950s—a world of steel mills, textile factories, and GM plants employing millions—no longer exists. Trying to force it back into existence with sweeping tariffs is a bit like trying to fix a modern smartphone with a hammer. It may feel cathartic, but it’s not going to work.

Yes, the desire to protect American jobs is valid. Yes, the trade system has flaws. But the solution cannot be to pretend the global economy doesn’t exist. In today’s hyper-connected world, trade policy must be smart, collaborative, and forward-looking. Tariffs may win political points in the short term, but they are unlikely to deliver the economic renaissance they promise—and they may very well make life harder for the very Americans they claim to defend.

In the end, America faces a choice: to lead a future built on cooperation, innovation, and global engagement—or to chase a past that can never truly return. The tariffs, for all their theatrical appeal, are a bet on the latter. And as history and economics often remind us, nostalgia makes for poor policy.

How ‘Woke’ Was Hijacked—and Why We Still Need It

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
How ‘Woke’ Was Hijacked—and Why We Still Need It

Once upon a time, to be “woke” was to be aware. To be sensitive to the injustices in the world—particularly racial, economic, and social. Rooted in African-American Vernacular English, “stay woke” was originally a call to vigilance, a warning to stay aware of the structural forces of oppression. But like many culturally significant terms, it has taken a long, strange journey through the cultural meat grinder, emerging on the other side with a meaning almost unrecognisable to those who first used it.

Today, “woke” has become a term of derision. It is routinely weaponised by commentators on the political right as shorthand for a certain kind of perceived overreach: hypersensitivity, virtue signalling, and the censorship of ideas. What was once a mark of consciousness has become a punchline. But how did we get here? And more importantly, is there a way to reclaim the word—or do we need something entirely new?

From vigilance to villainy

To understand this trajectory, it helps to consider the insights of linguist and cultural commentator John McWhorter. In his book Woke Racism, McWhorter outlines how the word “woke” evolved into a creed-like ideology embraced by what he calls the “Elect” – a class of progressive thinkers for whom anti-racism has become a religion of sorts. While McWhorter is deeply critical of the excesses of modern woke ideology, he is also clear about its origins. The early use of the word was not pejorative but a powerful tool of consciousness-raising, born from the Black experience in America.

As McWhorter notes, language is fluid, and meaning often shifts depending on usage and power. The transformation of “woke” from an awareness of social injustice into a symbol of ideological extremism wasn’t organic—it was strategic. The political right, particularly in the Trump era, understood the potency of culture war narratives. By co-opting “woke,” they created a caricature of progressivism that could be easily attacked.

The trump effect and the rise of mockery culture

Donald Trump, in particular, has played a central role in this cultural regression. His political ascent was built on a backlash to perceived political correctness. His rhetoric, often dismissive and inflammatory, gave permission for a kind of public crudeness to re-enter the mainstream. Complexity was abandoned in favour of soundbites. Nuance was traded for outrage. In this context, “woke” became an easy target: a label for anything that required intellectual or moral effort.

Yet despite this weaponisation, the spirit of what “woke” once meant remains important. We still need a language to describe the moral imperative of being alert to systemic injustice. The idea that it’s a virtue to care about racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or climate injustice shouldn’t be controversial. But when “wokeness” is used to mock those very concerns, we risk erasing the necessity of these conversations altogether.

Certainly, there are examples of the overuse or misapplication of woke ideology. A university speaker being disinvited for a decade-old tweet. A children’s book removed from shelves due to the lack of diversity in its illustrations. These moments invite ridicule and understandably so. But focusing solely on these extremes distracts from the core value: fostering a more just, empathetic, and equitable society.

London Black Lives Matter Peaceful Protest from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square via Buckingham Palace

It is easy to forget that the alternative to being “woke” is not neutrality but ignorance. To reject the idea of social awareness entirely is to imply that injustice is either solved or irrelevant. Both are dangerous assumptions. Consider the rise in hate crimes, the persistence of racial wealth gaps, or the disproportionate effects of climate change on poorer communities. These are not woke fantasies; they are empirical realities.

In the absence of “woke,” what do we say to describe the people who do care? The activists fighting food deserts in urban communities, the teachers adapting their curriculum to be more inclusive, the corporations trying (however imperfectly) to reflect the diversity of their consumer base—are they all just “woke” in the pejorative sense? Or are they trying to engage with a world that is complex, diverse, and in desperate need of more empathy?

We are in an age where people are tired. Tired of culture wars, tired of being told they are either heroes or villains in a moral play they never signed up for. But tiredness is not an excuse to retreat into apathy. If anything, it should spur us toward a more mature engagement with the world’s challenges.

Rebuilding language, restoring Balance

This is where the reclaiming of “woke” becomes not just an aesthetic or semantic project, but a political one. We need language that encourages us to care without being paralysed by fear of saying the wrong thing. We need frameworks that help us grow in understanding, rather than trap us in ideological echo chambers. That doesn’t mean agreeing with every tenet of modern progressivism. It means acknowledging that awareness is better than ignorance, that compassion is better than cruelty, and that sensitivity to others is a strength, not a weakness.

We also need to differentiate between legitimate critique and bad-faith argument. When critics dismiss “wokeness,” are they engaging with the ideas or simply mocking a stereotype? Is their issue with the cause or with how the cause is communicated? These distinctions matter. They help us move from reactive to reflective conversations.

Research shows that people often agree with the goals of social justice but are put off by the language used to discuss it. A 2021 study by the More in Common project found that while most Americans support equality and inclusion, they recoil from what they perceive as divisive or moralising rhetoric. This suggests the problem is not the values but the packaging. Reclaiming “woke” might then involve less about using the word itself and more about embodying its original meaning in ways that are thoughtful, inclusive, and unassuming.

There is a deep irony in the fact that many of the same people who criticise wokeness also call for a return to traditional values—values like kindness, respect, and accountability. These are not mutually exclusive. The original call to “stay woke” was precisely a call to live by those principles, particularly when it came to recognising others’ suffering and responding with dignity.

So, can we reclaim the word “woke”? Perhaps. But even if we can’t, we must preserve what it stood for. We must resist the urge to swing from one extreme to the other—from blind outrage to cynical indifference. We must make room for a new cultural vocabulary that welcomes nuance, encourages humility, and honours our shared humanity.

In the end, the goal isn’t to win the culture war. It’s to build a culture worth defending.

References:

  • McWhorter, John. Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. Portfolio, 2021.
  • More in Common. “America’s Hidden Tribes.” 2021. https://www.moreincommon.com
  • DiAngelo, Robin. White Fragility. Beacon Press, 2018.
  • Williams, Patricia J. The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Harvard University Press, 1991.
  • Coates, Ta-Nehisi. Between the World and Me. Spiegel & Grau, 2015.

Reform Is Growing Fast — But So Are Its Internal Cracks

Aaron Fenton-Hewitt
-
0
Reform Is Growing Fast — But So Are Its Internal Cracks

March 2025 has marked a dramatic chapter for Reform UK. In just a few weeks, 29 councillors — from both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats — have defected to the rapidly growing movement. On the surface, this might seem like a win for Reform, but beneath the headlines lies a growing tension that could shape the future of British politics.

The Rupert Lowe Fallout

The defections come in the wake of a high-profile internal dispute. MP Rupert Lowe was suspended by the party following accusations of verbal threats and workplace bullying made by Reform chairman Zia Yusuf. The matter has now been referred to the police. Lowe has denied all allegations, claiming his suspension was an act of political retaliation after he publicly criticised party leader Nigel Farage.

This is not the kind of story any rising political movement wants dominating the news cycle — but it points to something deeper.

Reform UK is arguably the fastest-growing political party in modern British history. According to YouGov, around a quarter of Britons say they would consider voting for the party, which is now polling at an average of 23%, up from 15% in July 2024.

Reform’s appeal lies partly in what it isn’t. It’s not Labour. It’s not Conservative. To many, it represents a long-overdue shake-up — a break from a political system that feels stale, detached, and unresponsive. Those who have joined the party, including the 29 recent councillor defectors, often describe it as the only party willing to say the things others won’t, or to confront issues the others have repeatedly failed to solve.

The ‘Common Sense’ Brand

The party’s flagship stance is on immigration, but that’s just one part of a broader message rooted in what it calls ‘common sense’ values and a commitment to ‘stand up for Britain.’ This framing, combined with Farage’s political notoriety, has won Reform a kind of populist credibility that few outside the two major parties have been able to capture.

But credibility only gets you so far. Reform is now battling the same challenge that every rising party eventually faces: how to move from insurgency to institution, from protest to professionalism.

Farage seems to understand this. In a recent BBC interview, he admitted Reform had failed to properly vet some candidates, especially those with racist or extremist views. “There wasn’t proper vetting,” he said, “and it did us enormous harm — rightfully so.” He has made it clear that bigots are not welcome in Reform, and insists the party must “professionalise” if it wants to sustain its momentum.

This makes the Rupert Lowe saga particularly damaging. Lowe, who has publicly aligned himself with figures like Elon Musk and Tommy Robinson, has been a thorn in Farage’s side — accused by many within the party of appealing to a far-right base that Reform is actively trying to distance itself from. While Lowe claims to be speaking truth to power, many party insiders see him as a destabilising force and would prefer to see him expelled entirely.

Legacy vs. Momentum

The stakes are high. Reform has found itself in a moment of rapid growth, but that growth is fragile. Labour and the Conservatives may be deeply unpopular in some quarters, but they benefit from something Reform lacks: legacy. The two main parties have established identities, embedded loyalty, and institutional staying power. Reform does not — at least, not yet.

To compete long-term, Reform will need more than just public anger and catchy slogans. It needs discipline. It needs cohesion. It needs to shed the internal chaos and present a clear, united front. At the moment, Farage seems to be fighting on two fronts — against the establishment outside, and disunity within.

All political parties have their share of infighting and scandal. Labour faced its own crisis when MP Rupa Huq was suspended for racially charged remarks about Kwasi Kwarteng. The Conservatives are still grappling with the reputational damage from the ‘Partygate’ scandal. But what those parties have, and Reform does not, is a large, established voter base that can weather storms. Reform’s momentum, while impressive, remains volatile.

The question is no longer whether people want change. It’s whether Reform can be that change, or whether internal power struggles and extremist associations will sink its chances before it ever truly arrives.

If it can mature, Reform UK may well redefine British politics. But if it continues to fracture from within, it risks becoming yet another false dawn — a party that promised to challenge the system, but couldn’t escape its own chaos.

2025: Here are 5 political stories you should follow closely this year….

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
2025: Here are 5 political stories you should follow closely this year….


As the sun rises in 2025, we step into a year poised to redefine global politics, media dynamics, and ideological divides. The past year has been tumultuous, yet it has set the stage for profound changes across the globe. From the return of Donald Trump to the White House to the shifting sands of British politics, this year will demand attention, dialogue, and accountability. At The Common Sense Network, we’re committed to being your trusted guide through these complex times. Here are five key political developments to watch in 2025 and what they might mean for the future.

1. Donald Trump’s Return to the White House

In a stunning political comeback, Donald Trump will take the oath of office this month as the 47th President of the United States. His victory represents a sharp pivot for American politics, bringing his unorthodox leadership style back to the global stage. Trump’s return signals a shift toward policies that prioritize America First, with a focus on deregulation, stricter immigration laws, and a redefined foreign policy.

The question on everyone’s mind is whether Trump will attempt to govern differently this time. His promises of “draining the swamp” and dismantling the administrative state will likely take on a new urgency, given his determination to leave a legacy. However, the shadow of the 2024 campaign, with allegations of election interference and ongoing legal battles, looms large over his presidency.

Photograph by Evan Vucci / AP

Expect major shake-ups in international diplomacy, particularly with regard to China and Russia. Trump’s critics worry about increased polarization within the U.S. and his adversarial approach to traditional media. How will the nation handle a president more emboldened and divisive than ever before? Time will tell.

2. The Trump-Musk Alliance: A New Republican Power Dynamic?

One of the more intriguing dynamics this year will be the evolving relationship between Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and senior Republican leaders. Musk’s public endorsement of Trump during the 2024 campaign raised eyebrows, particularly given his significant influence in tech and media. The CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter) has become a major Republican donor and a vocal advocate for deregulation and innovation.

Photo by Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC

As Trump assumes office, Musk’s proximity to power could lead to policy shifts that favour tech giants. However, tensions may arise as Musk’s libertarian instincts clash with Trump’s populist agenda. Senior Republican figures, including Ron DeSantis and Mitch McConnell, will also have to navigate this shifting power dynamic. Will Musk remain aligned with Trump’s vision, or will their differences create fractures within the GOP?

The Republican Party’s ability to manage these internal relationships will be critical, particularly as they prepare for the 2026 midterms. Keep an eye on how Musk leverages his influence and whether his alliance with Trump endures through the year.

3. Kemi Badenoch: The New Face of the Conservative Party

Across the Atlantic, British politics is entering a critical juncture. Following a decisive leadership race, Kemi Badenoch has become the leader of the Conservative Party. The former Secretary of State for Business and Trade represents a bold new direction for the Tories, blending traditional conservative values with a focus on innovation and economic growth.

Kemi Badenoch is congratulated by her husband, Hamish. Pic: PA

Badenoch’s leadership comes at a time when the Conservative Party is facing an existential crisis. After years of declining public trust and internal divisions, the Tories must rebuild their base and craft a compelling vision to challenge Labour’s dominance. The question is whether Badenoch’s fresh leadership style will be enough to rejuvenate the party or if the damage is too deep to repair.

Her success will depend on her ability to address key issues such as cost-of-living pressures, NHS reform, and climate policy while uniting a fractious party. If she can restore confidence and bring younger voters into the fold, she may set the stage for a Conservative revival. However, if she fails, the party could fade further into irrelevance.

4. The Rise of Reform UK: A Threat or Ally to the Conservatives?

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said he was surrendering all his shares © Phil Noble/Reuters

Adding to the complexity of British politics is the meteoric rise of Reform UK, now under the leadership of Nigel Farage. This insurgent party has captured the imagination of disillusioned Conservative voters and an online audience frustrated with traditional politics. Farage’s populist rhetoric and focus on issues like border control and economic sovereignty have resonated with many, but the real question is whether their online popularity will translate into tangible support on the ground.

Reform UK’s success could pose a significant threat to the Conservatives, further fragmenting the right-wing vote and strengthening Labour’s position. Alternatively, there is speculation about a potential merger between Reform UK and the Conservatives, aimed at consolidating their forces to mount a more effective challenge to Labour in the next general election.

This year will be pivotal in determining whether Reform UK is a genuine disruptor or just a flash in the pan. Their ability to sustain momentum and expand their reach beyond social media will be key indicators of their future prospects.

5. The Media Reset: Trump, Tech, and the Battle for Truth

Donald Trump’s victory has already triggered a seismic shift in the media landscape. Facebook’s decision to remove independent fact-checkers and replace them with a community note system, similar to X, has raised serious questions about the future of disinformation. At the same time, major tech companies, including Meta and X, have aligned themselves more openly with Trump, with significant donations to his inauguration.

The implications of these changes are profound. Will tech platforms recalibrate their algorithms to favor pro-Trump narratives? How will this affect the spread of misinformation? And what will happen to traditional media outlets, many of which have been critical of Trump?

In a video posted on Facebook and text posted to Threads, today Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced sweeping changes to the company’s approach to content moderation.

Critics fear that these developments could lead to a more polarized and less trustworthy media environment, with fact-based journalism taking a back seat to partisan narratives. However, others see this as an opportunity for independent platforms to step up and provide balanced, reliable information.

At The Common Sense Network, we’re committed to fostering a space where people with diverse perspectives can engage in meaningful dialogue. As the media landscape continues to evolve, we will strive to hold leaders accountable and provide you with accurate, unbiased reporting.

2025 is shaping up to be a year of transformation and challenge. From Trump’s return to the White House to the rise of new political movements and shifts in the media landscape, the stakes could not be higher. These changes will demand vigilance, critical thinking, and a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue.

At The Common Sense Network, our mission is to be a trusted voice in these turbulent times. We are dedicated to curating a space where different perspectives can coexist, holding leaders accountable, and helping you navigate the complexities of the modern world.

Join our community today to stay informed, challenge your thinking, and engage with a network of people committed to meaningful discourse. Together, we can make sense of the year ahead and work toward a brighter future for all.

Chris Kaba’s death was avoidable

Aaron Fenton-Hewitt
-
0
Chris Kaba’s death was avoidable
  • Police officer who fatally shot Chris Kaba, named as Martyn Blake, 40, cleared of murder
  • Kaba died from a single gunshot wound to the head
  • Kaba’s family said the verdict was “painful proof that our lives are not valued by the system”
  • The ruling comes after reporting restrictions imposed by Kaba’s family were lifted, with CCTV footage identifying him as the gunman at a nightclub shooting in Hackney

Chris Kaba has been named as the gunman in a nightclub shooting just days before he died, it can now be reported.

After a judge lifted reporting restrictions requested by Kaba’s family, CCTV footage has been released showing Kaba allegedly shooting a man in both legs at a nightclub in Tower Hamlets. It comes after the police officer who shot Kaba, named as Martyn Blake, 40, was cleared of murder but still faces other charges.

In protest at Blake’s murder charge, over 100 Met officers turned in their firearms permits. In fact, such was the concern that more officers would hand in their weapons if Blake was convicted, and the army was put on standby for armed responses.

However, Kaba’s family said that Mr Blake’s acquittal “wasn’t just a failure for our family, but for all those affected by police violence”. Sheeda Queen, a cousin of Mr Kaba, and a member of the Justice for Chris campaign group, described “a deep pain of injustice, adding to the unbearable sorrow”.

Met Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, said Mr Blake had paid “a huge personal and professional sacrifice” in the two years since the shooting.

He said the officer had made “a split-second decision on what he believed was necessary to protect his colleagues and to protect London”.

An avoidable tragedy

It is unfortunate that a man’s death has been politicised. We often become so caught up in the spectacle of the latest controversy that we often forget about the victims themselves. A man has died – some would argue unnecessarily – which should not invoke feelings of happiness or joy from any self-respecting person.

With that being said, many questions arise out of this incident. Should he have been shot in the first place? Was there a way to bring him to justice without killing him? What justifies his shooting?

Many sceptics would argue that he should have been shot due to his criminal history. The public was allowed to see CCTV footage of Kaba allegedly shooting a rival gang member at a nightclub in Hackney, east London.

His links to a Brixton Hill-based gang called ‘67‘, and his extensive criminal record (including stabbing with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, affray, possession of an offensive weapon and possession of an imitation firearm) dating to when he was just 13 years of age, do not help matters. On paper, this is a remorseless career criminal.

However, we are quick to forget that even ‘career criminals’ are entitled to due process and to have their day in court. Police officers making a judgment based purely upon who they perceive a person to be can be quite dangerous and set a dangerous precedent.

If that were the case, we wouldn’t have a criminal justice system. Innocent people would be wrongfully harassed, arrested and even jailed – something which has happened to the black community in the past, and in some cases, to this very day. This could have contributed to why his family did not want his criminal history or any footage of him in the public domain.

This is not to say that the police aren’t or shouldn’t be allowed to make split-second decisions on whether not to use deadly force against someone; it’s more to do with the justification for doing so and the mental logic that goes into making such a decision that matters, here.

With that being said, it is also impossible to ignore a person’s history and reputation when deciding how to take action against them. The police (and their supporters) will argue that Kaba is not a petty criminal who’s only known for smaller crimes such as phone snatching. This is a hardened criminal who will not hesitate to use violence and weapons to achieve his goals.

The aforementioned CCTV footage is a testament to this, as well as body cam footage from the shooting itself – Kaba, upon being told to exit his vehicle (which was linked to an earlier crime involving a firearm) by armed police, rammed the police car in front of him.

This was when Sergeant Blake shot him. It’s arguable that had Kaba simply obeyed the officers and surrendered, he would be alive today.

Was he part of a gang? Yes. Did he have a criminal record? Yes. Did he attempt to use violence against the police? Yes. Therefore, did the police have reason to believe he was dangerous? Yes.

There have been several times in the past where police officers have been rightfully found guilty of wrongdoing against someone. This is not one of those times.

The mountains of CCTV evidence and body cam video have violently and emphatically put to bed any accusations of discrimination or foul play on the police’s part. Even the most police-sceptical must concede the police had the right to act in this scenario.

What now?

It is still unclear as to whether or not firearms officers are as confident as they were before the case, as it has set a precedent as to how firearms officers are treated if they exercise their power.

Many argue this whole case is a result of politics and the history between the black community and the police. Should officers be under greater scrutiny as to when they’re permitted to shoot? Should the history of the tension between the black community and the police give the former a greater influence on how the police should operate?

Kaba’s former gang has put a £10,000 bounty on Sergeant Blake’s head, forcing him and his family to go into hiding. The Met Police Federation said Blake ‘should have never stood trial’ [in the first place].

Is Harris really a Socialist?

Ayodeji Afolabi
-
0
Is Harris really a Socialist?

Donald Trump has called Kamala Harris a Marxist, Communist, Socialist and Fascist amongst other things. Is this just another politician hurling insults or is there any truth to these claims?

With election day in the US fast approaching, tensions are rising, and candidates Donald Trump (Republican) and Kamala Harris (Democrat) are ramping up their campaign rallies. In what may be their only debate on the 10th of September, 2024 Trump made a range of claims.

Trump is well known for his insults and mischaracterizations of others, and so far, his campaign has been no different. However do these political terms even fit together, or is it all just noise? Here’s why the mix of ideologies doesn’t add up—and what it says about political discourse today.

Former President Donald Trump speaks during a rally Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2024, in Savannah, Ga. (AP Photo/John Bazemore

Why is Communism so hated in the US (and other Western countries?

In some areas, it’s common to see statements like “A good communist is a dead communist” or “Only you can prevent Socialism.” Many claim the country is becoming socialist due to certain left-wing policies. While I’m not advocating for communism, I question whether those making these claims truly understand communism, Marxism, socialism, or fascism. It seems likely they don’t, and neither does Trump. These misconceptions arise from associations of failed communism with adversaries like Cuba, China, North Korea, and Russia, which the right uses to label the left.

Source: unsplash.com via David Todd McCarty

When Trump and other right-wing politicians use these terms, they often rely on a vague understanding of them. So what are Marxism, communism, socialism, and fascism?

Marxism is a socioeconomic ideology focused on class struggles, developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It critiques capitalism, arguing that societies—particularly Western ones—are divided into two main groups: the working class (proletariat) and the wealthy, owning class. Marxism is the philosophical foundation of communism but isn’t necessarily a blueprint for communist governments. Rather, it is an analytical tool used in sociology and economics.

Communism advocates for communal ownership of the means of production in a classless society, rejecting private property and profit-driven economies. Such economies often feature one-party governments. Examples include the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and Cuba, though North Korea is more of a dictatorship than a true communist state.

Source TCSNetwor/Ayodeji Afolabi

Socialism allows for public and private ownership, with government involvement in sectors like healthcare, transportation, and education to ensure social welfare. Countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark practice democratic socialism, combining capitalism with strong social safety nets.

Fascism is different from all others. Examples of fascists include figures like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Fascism is a far-right nationalist political movement that suppresses opposition. A fascist opposes the interests of communists, socialists, and liberals. Fascism places the state or nation above individual rights and is inherently opposed to communism and socialism, making it contradictory to call someone both a fascist and a communist.

Is Harris really a Socialist?

The US is a free-market, capitalist economy where most production is privatized, though regulated by the government. This system fosters competition, innovation, and growth. Like many countries, the US embraces capitalism.

Given these definitions, it’s confusing that Trump labels Harris with such terms, as she is a Democrat. Because of her more liberal views on immigration, healthcare, and social equity, some might say her policies lean toward socialism, though they aren’t truly socialist. This suggests that Trump doesn’t understand these terms and is playing to an audience that may also be uninformed. Ironically, nationalist and racist groups, including the Proud Boys, KKK, and Oath Keepers, who support Trump, align more with fascism.

People watching the Presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris Sept 10th, 2024 at the Giipsy, Las Vegas, NV. AP Photo via John Locher

Harris, on the other hand, supports economic growth through policies favoring the middle class, tax incentives for small businesses, and investments in entrepreneurship. While the political right often demonizes socialism, the U.S. incorporates certain socialist principles through programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance, though it remains a capitalist economy.

While Trump mischaracterizes opponents, as seen in past debates, calling Harris these terms is factually wrong and relies on his supporters’ misunderstandings. In today’s political landscape, voters must research and stay informed about the meanings behind political labels and policies.

Now the riots are over, we need far stronger communities

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
Now the riots are over, we need far stronger communities

In the days since the UK faced pockets of racially motivated rioting, it has become commonplace to depict the police reaction as the first step before the real work begins. However, it is important to consider why these riots caught fire in communities up and down the country.

On one side, there are lawless racists that we need not appease. Their arguments are invalid, and there is little to gain by trying to rationalise their lawless behaviour. However, on the other side, there is another group, those who did not riot, but supported the display because they feel Britain is no longer British. This group found an unlikely spokesperson in a young man who called up LBC, a popular radio station, and told a national audience that the ‘Asians and blacks are taking over the UK’. It’s this group I believe we need to address.

Let’s move past lip service

Now that it seems like these breakout riots across the country have stopped, it would be a good time to start a national conversation about community cohesion. As someone who’s been working in the community cohesion space for many years now, I’ve often found that there are a lot of people happy to pay lip service to ‘bringing the community together’. Many government agencies speak at length about the importance of integration and community resilience but there aren’t enough people who are willing to get on the ground, commit money and stay engaged long enough to see things change.

One of the most powerful phrases I often use in community work is that ‘it’s not enough to simply prevent war, but folks interested in the community have to wage peace’. This means as a community builder, I don’t only want to be known for what I’m against but rather, for what I’m for. What are members of the community rallying for? What do they want? What are they animated about?

UK riots latest news: Boy, 15, in court for disorder along with Southport ‘ringleader’ who threw bricks at police | The Independent

This means community work is far more than stopping riots, it’s about helping communities genuinely come together, promoting shared values and constructing a vision of British values large enough for everyone to fit in.

One of the major challenges for community builders and those working in the community cohesion space is working out how to measure success. During ‘good times’ funding is often pulled from community work because people say there are no issues, so what’s the need for funding community work?

Rather than seeing things this way. we ought to reorientate what success means. The truth is, Tommy Robinson’s message would not have landed in communities if they had deep enough ties. When he tried to turn people against each other, people would have replied, ‘In this community, we know each other’. In this community, we understand our neighbours.

Meters apart but miles apart

The sad reality many of us may not want to admit is that Robinson’s message landed because many societies and communities across the UK are fractured. There’s a cosmetic unity in that we all come together during the Olympics and football games. We all smile at each other when we are getting on the bus. However, if you take a deeper look, many people live meters apart geographically but are miles away ideologically so much work is needed to foster genuine community cohesion.

In a 2018 survey, fewer than half of Labour and Conservative voters said they were willing to talk about politics with someone from the other side, and around 75% wouldn’t be happy for their child to marry someone from the opposite political side. 

When political views become political identities, we see people who agree with us in a positive light (intelligent, selfless and open-minded) and people who disagree with us as the opposite. Researchers have found that, when people disagree politically, they disregard each others’ expertise in unrelated domains

What does off-ramping look like?

I have been studying Far-right parties for the past 11 years and one area that needs far more work and research is in the space of deradicalisation and ‘off-ramping’. In other words, It’s not enough to simply label someone ‘far-right’. That doesn’t help them change their viewpoint. Instead, we need to put far more language and work into how we help those who have fallen prey to and believe in dangerous ideologies change. Those currently consuming far-right materials and engaging with people fanning the flames of their bad ideas. What does progress look like for them? There is nothing morally wrong with being right wing but where does right-wing being far right and then does it spill over into dangerous and unlawful behaviour that puts the safety of others at risk?

Huge anti-racism march in Walthamstow |
Charlotte England

How can we help these people think more broadly and engage with more nuance? We have to help them reject the often binary framing that far-right leaders use to cajole and mobilise followers to act. We can’t simply demonise these people. We have to engage with them and help them come in contact with reality. These ideas presented only matter if we want to build up strong communities that can reject the attempts of far-right leaders to stoke division in the future.

Like many, I was horrified looking at the riots, it made me feel uncomfortable. It made me feel unwanted in a country I’ve grown up in, served in and quite frankly, is my home. The headlines might now have changed, but the community or the deep community work should now begin.

The Southport tragedy has brought out the worst in us

Aaron Fenton-Hewitt
-
0
The Southport tragedy has brought out the worst in us
  • More protests planned over Southport stabbings
  • Local mosques to take safety precautions after far-right backlash against Islam and Muslims
  • Counter-protests are being organised across the country to combat misinformation and far-right rhetoric
  • Farage calls for urgent and stronger action to be taken to combat ‘societal decline’

A 17-year-old has been charged with the murder of three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport.

Axel Muganwa Rudakubana has also been charged with 10 counts of attempted murder after eight other children and two adults were seriously wounded in his attack on 29th August 2024.

Following pressure from media due to the serious nature of the crime, Recorder of Liverpool Judge Andrew Menary KC felt it necessary to name the Cardiff-born attacker – which was previously impossible due to his age – as it was in the public’s interest to know and to ‘prevent misinformation’.

The Southport murders sparked violent scenes across the town with five arrests, a police van being set alight and a local mosque being vandalised. Copycat riots occurred across England, with over 100 arrests being made on 31st August in London.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said “action will be taken” following the “violent disorder“.

He added: “These thugs are mobile, they move from community to community, and we must have a police response that can do the same.“

A local resident describes the events as ‘Southport’s 9/11’ – Alex Taylor-Brown

Not even tragedy can escape politics

It is undeniable that this situation is a tragedy. Three innocent children murdered in cold blood, with their lives ahead of them. One can only imagine the pain, grief and sorrow that the parents of the three girls must be experiencing. It takes a certain kind of character to be willing to take the life of a child, let alone three.

It is understandable that people are in desperate need for some sort of justice. There is a growing sense of anger amongst Britain’s citizens, and rightfully so.

Unfortunately, with that anger comes agendas from all sides of the political spectrum, with all of them trying to prove that they are right. In some cases, the victims of the crimes are actually forgotten and simply become a means to an end; that is, to use their tragedy as proof that either political side uses to further their narratives. Both are wrong, in this case.

To a certain degree, the right have scored a massive own goal. Within 24 hours of the incident, on social media, incorrect claims were made that the killer was called “Ali Al-Shakati” who had arrived in the UK illegally on a boat last year and was a Muslim, which led to a local mosque being vandalised.

Chants of “f*** Muslims, f*** Allah” were heard and many rioters attacked the police directly.

Far-right English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson posted to his X page, “There’s more evidence to suggest Islam is a mental health issue rather than a religion of peace….They’re replacing the British nation with hostile, violent, aggressive migrants … Your children don’t matter to [the Labour government].”

The police say that the perpetrator was in fact born in Cardiff, Wales, and does not practice Islam religiously.

Merseyside Police shared bodycam footage of the disorder in Southport – @MerseyPolice

This has sparked a national conversation about xenophobia, Islamophobia and how the spread of online misinformation has real-world consequences. It has also given further ammunition to those who believe social media companies have a responsibility to prevent misinformation to be spread online (especially X, formerly Twitter).

This will certainly hurt the cause of the ever-growing negative sentiment towards immigration in the UK, both legal and illegal, which is welcome to the left. Unfortunately, they are also partly wrong.

In this particular case, the right – specifically the far right – got it wrong. Their preconceived biases against Islam and migration led them to spread false and inaccurate information, without which their narrative would crumble.

However, to suggest that this incident wholly represents those who have legitimate concerns about rising levels of immigration to the UK – which is what certain figures on the left are attempting to do – is a misnomer. The two situations are not mutually exclusive.

It is possible to believe that the current levels of migration are unsustainable whilst also condemning xenophobia, violence and civil unrest. The majority of the people who expressed anger were normal, law-abiding citizens – it is simply unfortunate that the far right capitalised on the anger to spread their rhetoric.

To suggest that this situation is wholly representative of the immigration debate is to label anyone concerned about it as a far right, violent, bigoted hooligan with no respect for law enforcement.

Not only is this false, but it also damages relations with those on the conservative side of the debate, ironically pushing them towards actual far right rhetoric that the left claims to be against.

A man with a swastika tattoo joins a far right demo – Stand Up To Racism

What now?

Protests have continued to happen across the country.

The Muslim Council of Britain predicts and expects riots to happen in Liverpool, Glasgow, Lancaster, Blackburn, Newcastle, Birmingham, Sunderland, Dover, Middlesbrough, Leeds and Hull.

On Friday 2nd August, in Sunderland, protesters were seen vandalising an Uber driver’s car, whilst some were openly spotted with Nazi tattoos. Riot police and K-9 dogs were deployed.

The Prime Minister has promised a ‘tough response’ to the disorder on the streets whilst calling for his National Violent Disorder Program to be used, which gives police extra powers and the ability to use highly controversial facial recognition technology.

UK Election: What are the key Parties pledging?

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
UK Election: What are the key Parties pledging?

With just over two weeks to go until the General Election, the politicians have set out their stall this week. The publication of the party manifestos is a big moment in any election because it’s when those seeking your vote have to come off the fence. They’re forced to put their plans on the table.

The manifestos are big documents – 80 pages from the Conservatives, and more than 130 from Labour. They cover all the important policies – from the economy and tax to defence, education, the NHS and immigration. They are a detailed snapshot of the services the politicians hope to deliver and how they intend to make us pay for them.

Realistically, there are only two likely outcomes when we wake up on 5 July. Either Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer will be Prime Minister. So, we are going to focus on the Labour and Conservative manifestos. And we’re going to concentrate on the measures that will directly affect our personal and household finances.

Where the other parties have something interesting to add to the debate, we’ll look at their proposals too.

THE ECONOMY

Conservatives – Tax cuts are the centre of its plan to reignite economic growth, while at the same time the party wants to reduce borrowing and debt.

Labour – Its plan focuses on wealth creation. It will be “pro-business and pro-worker” and introduce a new industrial strategy, which will end short-term economic policy.

Liberal Democrats – It wants a better relationship with the European Union and an industrial strategy focused on renewables and other sectors.

Ed Davey (Photo: Getty)

Greens – It wants to raise taxes for the wealthy, invest more in health, and bring railways, energy companies and water providers back under state control.

Reform – It would reform the planning system, speed up house building and infrastructure projects and cut red tape, including employment laws in order to make it easier to hire and fire workers.

TAXES

Conservatives – The party has promised to cut taxes by 17.2 billion pounds a year by 2029/30, with a 2-percentage-point cut in National Insurance. Self-employed workers would be exempt from National Insurance by the end of the next parliament.

Labour – It has pledged not to raise taxes “for working people”, with no increase in the basic, higher, or additional rates of income tax, National Insurance, or VAT. It will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25%.

LibDems – Its priority would be to raise the personal allowance when the public finances allow. It plans to reform capital gains tax to raise around 5 billion pounds ($6.3 billion).

Greens – It would introduce a wealth tax on individuals with assets above 10 million pounds.

Green Party parliamentary candidates (left to right) Ellie Chowns, Carla Denyer, Adrian Ramsay and Sian Berry during the Green Party General Election campaign launch in Bristol (Jonathan Brady/PA) (PA Wire)

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

Reform – It would raise the point at which people begin paying income tax, reduce the tax on buying property and abolish Inheritance Tax on all estates under 2 million pounds. It would also reduce the main rate of corporation tax to 20%.

Conservatives – The party has committed to above-inflation increases for the National Health Service (NHS) every year, and will recruit 92,000 more nurses and 28,000 more doctors.

Labour – It will cut waiting times by adding 40,000 more appointments every week. It will also double the number of cancer scanners.

LibDems – It has pledged a 9 billion pound package commitments, including increasing the number of community doctors and higher pay for care workers.

Greens – The party wants to increase the NHS budget by 8 billion pounds in the first year, rising to 28 billion by 2030.

Reform – It would cut tax for frontline healthcare staff for three years, offer tax relief on private healthcare, and provide some NHS patients with vouchers for private treatment.

DEFENCE

Conservatives – The party wants to boost defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030.

Labour – It will set out a path to the same 2.5% target.

LibDems – It would raise defence spending every year of the parliament, also with an ambition to spend at least 2.5%.

Greens – The party would cancel Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

Reform – It would increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by year three, and then 3% within six years. It would recruit 30,000 army staff.

IMMIGRATION

Conservatives – The party has promised to bring in a binding cap for legal migration. On illegal migration, it says monthly flights will take those arriving on small boats across the Channel to Rwanda.

Rishi Sunak told Sky’s political editor Beth Rigby that he accepted the public’s cynicism about his failed promises to lower net migration CREDIT: Stefan Rousseau

Labour – The party wants to reform the points-based system, by bringing in restrictions on visas and by training workers where there are domestic shortages. On illegal migration, it will scrap the government’s Rwanda plan, and focus on stopping people-smuggling gangs and beefing up border security.

LibDems – It will tackle people-smuggling, lift the ban on asylum seekers working and scrap the government’s Rwanda scheme.

Greens – It wants to help migrants “put down roots”. It would end the minimum income requirement for spouses of work visa holders and provide safe routes for those fleeing persecution.

Reform – It would freeze non-essential immigration and bar international students from bringing dependents. It would detain and deport those arriving illegally, and pick up migrants in small boats and take them back to France.

EUROPEAN UNION

Conservatives – The party said it will “build” on its post-Brexit relationships in Europe, including through new defence treaties.

Labour – The party wants to reset, deepen and improve its relationship with Europe.

LibDems – It has promised to “fix the UK’s broken relationship”, ultimately resulting in seeking to join the single market. EU membership remains its longer-term objective.

Greens – It wants Britain to rejoin the European Union as soon as possible.

Reform – It would scrap the more than 6,700 EU regulations which Britain retained after leaving the bloc. It also plans to abandon the so-called “Windsor Framework” deal with the EU and renegotiate the EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

Credit: Getty Images

CLIMATE POLICY

Conservatives – The party wants to cut the cost of tackling climate change, while sticking with its 2050 net zero target. It pledged to treble offshore wind, scale up nuclear, partly through using new Small Modular Reactors, and promised no new green levies or charges.

Labour – It will aim for clean power by 2030 by doubling onshore wind, tripling solar power and quadrupling offshore wind. It will establish state-owned Great British Energy, backed by 8.3 billion pounds, and it will not issue new licences for oil and gas fields in the North Sea.

LibDems – It has committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2045 at the latest.

Greens – The party wants to stop all new fossil fuel extraction in Britain, phase out nuclear power, and rely increasingly on wind power plus solar.

Reform – It plans to ditch the net zero target and related subsidies and fast-track licences of North Sea gas and oil. It was also fast-track clean nuclear energy.

EDUCATION

Conservatives – The party has pledged to protect day-to-day spending per pupil. It will ban mobile phones during the school day and introduce a new “Advanced British Standard” for 16-19 year-olds. For 18-year-olds National Service will become compulsory, with a choice between military or civic duties.

Labour – It will recruit 6,500 new teachers in key subjects, establish 3,000 new primary school-based nurseries, and introduce free breakfast clubs in every primary school. It will also charge fee-paying schools Value Added Tax.

LibDems – The party will put a mental health professional in every school, increase funding and create life-long skills grants to spend on education and training.

Greens – The party wants a 2 billion pound pay uplift for teachers. It would scrap university undergraduate fees, which are currently 9,250 pounds per year.

Reform – It wants children to be taught about their heritage, and plans to ban “transgender ideology” in schools. It would also provide a 20% tax relief on private education to reduce pressure on state schools.


Celebrating Three Years Of Impact

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
Celebrating Three Years Of Impact

We recently took an organisational break at The Common Sense Network to explore the last three years. We looked at what is working and what’s not, focusing on how we can have more impact as an organisation in the coming years.

We believe now more than ever, that there is a great need for bi-partisan spaces where people with differing perspectives can interact and learn from each other.

We are even more committed to creating that space for fruitful dialogue—our impact report details where we have seen the most growth and impact.

2021 – 2023 Common Sense Impact Report (Final)Download

Donald Trump found guilty on all counts in historic criminal trial

The Common Sense Network
-
0
Donald Trump found guilty on all counts in historic criminal trial
  • A jury in Manhattan, New York reached a verdict in the criminal hush money trial of former President Donald Trump.
  • Trump was charged with falsifying business records related to a 2016 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels by his fixer Michael Cohen.
  • Trump is set to face President Joe Biden in November’s presidential election.

A New York jury on Thursday found former President Donald Trump guilty of all 34 felony charges of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels by his then-personal lawyer before the 2016 election.

Trump is the first former U.S. president to be found guilty of any crime.

His sentencing was quickly scheduled for July 11 at 10 a.m. ET. That is four days before the beginning of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where Trump is set to be formally confirmed as the GOP’s presidential nominee. Trump, who remains free without bail, faces a maximum possible sentence of four years in prison for each count.

Trump’s demeanour did not change during the reading of the verdict. His son Eric Trump looked angry after the jury foreman repeatedly said “guilty” to each count as it was read.

The 12-member jury deliberated less than 10 hours over two days before sending out a note to Judge Juan Merchan saying they had reached a verdict.

Before the announcement, Trump, his lawyers, prosecutors and reporters expected the jury to be dismissed for the day at 4:30 p.m.

Trump was sitting in the courtroom with his arms crossed and a resigned look on his face minutes after the announcement was made. The jury, which had asked for time to fill out the verdict form, was brought into the courtroom about a half hour later.

Trump, 77, was charged in the case with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels by his then-personal lawyer Michael Cohen before the 2016 election.

“Jurors, I want to thank you very much for your service,” Merchan said after the verdict was read. “That’s a long time to be away from your job, your families, your other responsibilities.”

“I want you to know that I really admire your dedication, your hard work,” the judge said.

The verdict in Manhattan Supreme Court came hours after jurors heard readbacks of testimony by Cohen and former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, as well as portions of legal instructions they received Wednesday from Merchan.

Trump is the first former U.S. president to be charged with a crime.

‘They don’t care about our future’: 4 in 5 children don’t feel listened to by politicians

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
‘They don’t care about our future’: 4 in 5 children don’t feel listened to by politicians

The biggest survey of children in England ever produced has revealed four in five children don’t feel listened to by politicians.

The Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza, who led the project, is calling on political parties to put children at the heart of their manifestos in the election.

It comes as charities have launched a mass-scale election for young people under 18, which will allow them to cast a vote for political candidates in their constituencies through their school or youth group.

The survey was sent to 367,000 children aged 0-18, as well as some adults, in every local authority in England.

It asked children to share their thoughts and opinions on things like family, education, health, online safety and their future, and then their responses would be shown to the politicians in charge of running the country

Why was the Big Ambition survey commissioned?

Dame de Souza said the survey “is a call to action to all politicians and policymakers in this general election year: listen to children and act on what they are telling you.”

“This is a generation of children faced with ever-evolving technology, stiff competition for jobs and university places, a postcode lottery in access to good healthcare, parents struggling with rising costs and lives played out over social media – but rather than becoming despondent or pessimistic, they are charged with energy and a passion for making change.” said Dame de Souza.

What did the results show

The questions in the survey focussed on ten main areas: family, education, social care, youth work, online safety, health, safety from crime, jobs and skills, unaccompanied children seeking asylum, and thoughts on ‘a better world’.

The results showed that just one in five children (22%) felt that the people who run the country listened to what they had to say, and only 10% of teenagers (ages 12-18) believe they have the power to influence the issues they care about.

Source: Unsplash

Dame de Souza said she wants to tackle this by asking every political party to agree to write a document for children, setting out what they will do, and how they will involve children, and hold a leaders’ debate about childhood. She also wants children to be talked to about every legislation and policy reform that affects them before it is made into law.

60% of children said they enjoyed going to school or college – with three quarters (75%) agreeing they have great teachers who support them.

On health and wellbeing, the survey showed that less than half of children (49%) agreed with the statement ‘You feel happy with the way you look’. 60% of boys agreed, compared to just 40% of girls.

71% of children say they have a healthy diet, and 68% of children with SEND (Special educational needs and disabilities), and adults answering on their behalf, said they can access good healthcare, compared to 84% for children without SEND.

Around 80% of younger children ( 6-11-year-olds) said they felt safe and protected in their local area, compared to 66% of 12- to-18-year-olds.

Almost three-quarters of children (72%) agreed that there were fun activities where they live, but that falls to 62% for children with special educational needs or disabilities.

Children said that activities and clubs should be better funded, accessible for every child, held in-person and should be easy to find, as a way to help children avoid falling into crime or gang activity.

Tory donor ‘racism’ dispute is embarrassing for all involved

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
Tory donor ‘racism’ dispute is embarrassing for all involved

A Tory minister has said his party would take another £10m from a donor who allegedly made comments about Diane Abbott that No 10 called “racist”.

Tory Donor Frank Hester apologised after reportedly saying the ex-Labour MP made him want to “hate all black women”. Andy Street, a Tory mayor, told the BBC that he would return the cash, however, Post Office minister Kevin Hollinrake said that his party would accept more because Mr Hester’s apology demonstrated he was not racist.

The disagreement within the party comes as Downing Street faces calls to return the money.

What Happened?

The disagreements over returning Mr Hester’s money come after a day of internal party turbulence over Mr Hester’s comments, first reported by the Guardian on Monday.

In 2019 Mr Hester allegedly said: “It’s like trying not to be racist but you see Diane Abbott on the TV, and you’re just like I hate, you just want to hate all black women because she’s there, and I don’t hate all black women at all, but I think she should be shot.”

In further remarks reported by the newspaper from the same meeting, the Phoenix Partnership boss is claimed to have said that there was “no room for the Indians, then?” and suggested staff climb on a train roof.

In a social media post, published earlier, Mr Hester said he “abhors racism”, which he described as a “poison that has no place in public life”.

He added: “We should have the confidence to discuss our differences openly and even playfully without seeking to cause offence.”

Frank Hester made the comments at a meeting he called of his ‘foreign’ workers to defend himself against claims he had made racist remarks. Photograph: TPP / YouTube

Why did Downing Street take so long to call it racism?

No 10 and Conservative ministers initially stopped short of making that criticism of Frank Hester’s remarks. However, Sunak’s spokesperson released a new statement on Tuesday evening, after a day in which Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, the former chancellor, and William Hague, the former Conservative leader, all described Hester’s comments as racist.

The fact that it took our first minority Prime Minister 24 hours to work out whether clear evidence of racism was in fact racist is shameful. This demonstrates a weakness in Sunak to lead from the front which many of his critics have long complained about. This is the latest instalment in a series of unfortunate events from the Tory party in a week, including the defection of party deputy chairman, Lee Anderson.

The responses

This scandal has evoked some very eery responses from commentators across the UK. Top of this list has been an impassioned defence of Frank Hester by GB New’s Nana Akua

What is most egregious about this defence of the indefensible is the claim that Akua makes that she wasn’t personally offended as though that should have any currency here. The central point is that someone was criticised and their gender and skin colour were part of that criticism. Whilst it may be odd not to find that offence, this is a plausible position. However, the statement that Mr Hester’s comment wasn’t racist is pure fantasy.

In a statement released on Monday, Mr Hester’s company said he “accepts that he was rude about Diane Abbott in a private meeting several years ago but his criticism had nothing to do with her gender nor colour of skin”. It added: “The Guardian is right when it quotes Frank saying he abhors racism, not least because he experienced it as the child of Irish immigrants in the 1970s.

“He rang Diane Abbott twice today to try to apologise directly for the hurt he has caused her, and is deeply sorry for his remarks.

“He wishes to make it clear that he regards racism as a poison which has no place in public life.”

Ms Abbott said as a “single woman” she was already “vulnerable” when walking or taking a bus in her Hackney constituency.

“For all of my career as an MP I have thought it important, not to live in a bubble, but to mix and mingle with ordinary people,” she added.

“The fact that two MPs have been murdered in recent years makes talk like this all the more alarming.”

Is David Cameron winning over critics?

Shane Green
-
0
Is David Cameron winning over critics?

One hundred days, thirty-six different visits to twenty-six different countries, and eight different multinational gatherings including the G20 and G7. Lord David Cameron’s gargantuan diplomatic efforts since returning to high office are made possible only by the absence of democratic accountability, with no constituents to return home for, he can afford to be travelling seven days a week but is trading democracy for diplomacy really worth it?

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron recently marked 100 days since his return to government. Despite skepticism, he appears to have won over his critics for his energetic approach to foreign policy which has thus far seen him make four trips to the Middle East to meet key players in the Israel-Gaza conflict, a couple of visits to Kyiv amidst the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, complete a tour of the Americas including the Falkland Islands, and a visit to every major European capital. Such efforts have even led some to credit Cameron with restoring British influence in the world.

Nonetheless, such an approach is only made possible because Cameron has no constituency and thus no niggly pressing domestic concerns such as potholes and rubbish collection to concern himself with. As Lord Peter Ricketts put it, Cameron is clearly relishing his freedom to be Foreign Secretary for seven days a week, compared with his ministerial peers who must return to their second jobs as constituency MPs.

This evokes several interesting questions. Does the Foreign Secretary need a direct democratic mandate to conduct his duties on behalf of the British government and its people? And if he does not, should he?

Should the Foreign Secretary be an MP?

The Office of Foreign Secretary is one of the four great offices of state. The incumbent is, in effect, the highest-ranking British diplomatic, responsible for UK relations with foreign dignitaries and carrying out the government’s foreign policy. Inevitably, this results in an intense travel schedule.

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron with Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, following the October 7 deadly attack by the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas. November 23, 2023. Reuters.

And yet, traditionally, the British Foreign Secretary would still be expected to juggle such responsibilities with that of an MP tending to local constituents and their concerns. This isn’t feasible, not least if you want your leading diplomat to consistently show up on different stages across the globe. Not least, if simultaneously, you want your local MP to be both sincere and effective at addressing issues in your local area.

If the foreign secretary should not be an MP, should he be a Lord?

Where is the Foreign Secretaries’ democratic mandate?

When Rishi Sunak chose to appoint David Cameron as Foreign Secretary, the latter had taken a political leave of absence following the infamous Brexit referendum he called back in 2016. This meant that to become a minister, without an upcoming election, the only way was to appoint Cameron to the Lords, where no election is required – Lords are appointed by the King on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Members of the Lords cannot enter the House of Commons and thus do not face the same level of scrutiny a cabinet minister drawn from the House of Commons itself would face.

Instead, members of the House of Lords are scrutinized by their peers. This blurs democratic accountability when Lords are not elected, but chosen by politicians, and the representatives chosen by citizens to act on their behalf cannot provide the necessary checks and balance on their power.

However, some experts argue Lord Cameron is kept in check, not least, by four of his predecessors. Former holders of the Office of Foreign Secretary – Lord David Own, Lord Douglas Herd, Lord William Hague, and Lord Philip Hammond are said to be more capable of providing the necessary checks and balances on the current Foreign Secretary than even those in the Commons given their wealth of expertise and experience in the very role he fills.

Is it High Time for a UK Senate?

Come what may, so long as the Lords remains an unelected house there will remain an argument it has no place in a modern democratic society. So what other democratic alternatives are there?

Reforming the House of Lords has been an ambition of many in politics over the last century. The idea of a UK senate, akin to the one operating in the United States, is an idea that resurfaces infrequently.

Across the pond, the Senate consists of one-hundred senators, with two directly elected from each state. The Senate confirms the ministerial appointments of the government and provides the necessary checks and balances on behalf of the electorate.

Whilst across the Channel, in the case of the French senate, it also provides an opportunity for proportional representation, which has the additional benefit of helping to rebalance geographic divides, a well-known British problem.

Ultimately, the UK doesn’t have to trade democracy for diplomacy, but for now, it chooses to.

123...92Page 1 of 92

Editor Picks

Must Read

Hot Topics

About Us

Our mission is to make democracy healthier by creating spaces for people who disagree to have fruitful dialogue.

Contact us: hello@tcsnetwork.co.uk

Follow Us

© Copyright - Newspaper theme by tagDiv