The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are making a break for it, snapping off the strings of the public purse – but can they really forge a new financial way of life?
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Harry and Meghan, have made a bold move announcing their move towards a more financially independent life. They intend to completely step back as senior members of the Royal Family, and therefore the duties assigned to their Royal roles, meaning that they will no longer receive funding through the Sovereign Grant. According to their official website, this is “something they look forward to.” They have also committed to paying back the £2.4 million used to refurbish their UK home Frogmore Cottage, and they will also pay “commercial rent” on the property.
Frogmore Cottage – The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’ UK home
So far, they have received 95% of their funds from Prince Harry and William’s father, HRH The Prince of Wales – generated through another financial system called the Duchy of Cornwall. The remaining 5% is funded by the public through the Sovereign Grant.
The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 came into effect on 1 April 2012, and as gov.uk states, “It sets the single grant supporting the monarch’s official business, enabling The Queen to discharge her duties as Head of State. It meets the central staff costs and running expenses of Her Majesty’s official household – such things as official receptions, investitures, garden parties and so on. It also covers maintenance of the Royal Palaces in England and the cost of travel to carry out royal engagements such as opening buildings and other royal visits. In exchange for this public support, The Queen surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government.”
Essentially, the Queen gives the government the revenue made from the Crown Estate in exchange for a sum of money, provided by the public. The Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 will be £85.9 million.
The size of the Sovereign Grant for a given year is usually equal to 25% of The Crown Estate’s profit for the financial year two years prior. For example, The Grant for the years 2019-2020 is linked to the profit of the years 2017-2018. You can read more about this here.
A segment from the Royal couple’s original statement reads: “After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.” They have also maintained the fact that “public funding has never been used, nor would it ever be used for private expenditure by The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who also do not receive any tax privileges.”
In a recent speech given at a charity event in London, The Duke of Sussex said: “What I want to make clear is we’re not walking away, and we certainly aren’t walking away from you. Our hope was to continue serving the Queen, the Commonwealth, and my military associations, but without public funding.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t possible. I’ve accepted this, knowing that it doesn’t change who I am or how committed I am.”
However, the question still remains – how exactly will the Royal couple forge this new independent way of life? They are accustomed to a certain lifestyle, and some have raised questions have been raised over how they will afford their new way of life.
Many have speculated over what the couple will do next, Meghan – the Duchess of Sussex, is an ex-actor who rose to fame on the hit TV show “Suits” and the couple have both partnered with a number of charities in the past. However, they have both made a commitment to “continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty,” so regardless of their independence, it is clear that they are still a part of the Royal Family, and will remain under scrutiny, even if not as intense.
Last week, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced they will be stepping down from their positions as members of the Royal Family and moving to Canada.
This decision came as a shock to many, but for those who have been following the couple for a while, things have materialised as expected as we reach the climax of their ongoing battle with the British press and right-wing public. Ever since the announcement of their engagement in 2017, Meghan has been the target of a relentless hate campaign from the right-wing press.
In October last year, Harry and Meghan were pushed to press charges against Associated Newspapers for the unlawful publishing of private family letters. The treatment of Meghan by the British press has come at the expense of her personal wellbeing and has now left the couple no choice but to leave the UK. It is evident that the media’s ongoing disdain for Meghan is evidently down to her bi-racial identity, and the couple has been driven to pack up and leave to escape the racist intolerance of the right-wing media.
With this decision has come an enormous surge of debate surrounding its justification. Earlier this week, Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu featured on a panel on BBC Two where she spoke on the nature of covert racism and how white privilege functions to reproduce systematic racism. She expressed her concern at the fact that ‘people are more outraged about the so-called race card than being outraged by racist behaviour’. Rightfully so, it is a reflection of the nature of intolerance within British society; that speaking out on forms of discrimination is viewed as more of a threat to civil liberties than the existence of racism is.
On Good Morning Britain, Piers Morgan decided to repeatedly shout ‘Where is the racism?!’ at a fellow panellist, who was not allowed to answer him in full with his endless interruptions. When interviewing (or hounding) Afua Hirsch, writer, professor and former barrister, he interrupted her countless times and even blamed her for ‘bringing race into this’. Piers even defended Danny Baker, who compared the three-day-old royal baby Archie to a chimp, saying ‘Danny Baker is not remotely racist’. The dynamic that unfolded during the interview demonstrated perfectly how exactly black people (and very often black women on panel shows) are silenced, blamed and patronised when they attempt to explain their experiences of racism.
An argument frequently played out by Twitter right-wingers, who mobilise at the first sight of a black panellist calling out racism, is that this is simply ‘identity politics gone mad’. Are people feeling entitled to be treated equally and valued as a member of society? What a load of communist woke rubbish! In all seriousness though, the identity politics narrative is as redundant as the myth of the race card. We can see that whenever someone refers to these concepts it is as a line of defence as if calling out racism in British society is a personal attack to their identity and they have to explain away the possibility of there being room for debate. By arguing that discussions around racism are simply identity politics, white people remain the gatekeepers of what constitutes as necessary discussion and undermine the need for conversations that confront racism in Britain whilst invalidating black peoples’ experiences.
More often than not, the ‘race card’ or ‘identity politics’ concept is brought up by a middle-aged, middle class, white male (or occasionally female) – despite probably never having experienced being treated differently due to their skin colour and/or ethnicity. Therefore, their ability to give any valid commentary on the lived experience of people who have is slim to none.
Our identity is inherently tied to how we are treated by others, all the aspects of who we are intersects when others form their perceptions of us and how they decide to treat us. As a heterosexual white woman, I personally cannot comment on the discrimination that black homosexual men face for example. But what I can do is listen, acknowledge and educate myself and others further who may be ignorant to these experiences. I would, however, be able to comment on the sexualisation of women in the workplace or the demonisation of Islam by the West. For when an element of our identity becomes politicised by society and impacts our lived experiences, is when we are able to speak on such forms of oppression.
When someone’s gender means they are paid on average 17% less, or their skin colour means they are 40 times more likely to be stopped and searched or 5 times more likely to die during childbirth, we have to consider that our identities are inseparable from politics and have significant impact on our quality of life. Starting conversations will only provoke change if people are willing to be receptive and acknowledge other peoples’ experiences, without becoming defensive or feeling that there is a personal motivation to attack or undermine an element of their being. This is why identity politics doesn’t exist as such – rather identity and politics do not exist in separate realms but are constantly interacting and shaping our lives.
Adele Walton is currently studying international development at the University of Sussex. Her interests lie in globalisation, socioeconomic inequality and modern culture.
The roll-out of new state measures, aimed at protecting girl’s education and supporting healthy lifestyles
From Monday 20 January 2020, all schools and colleges will provide students with free sanitary wear, such as tampons and pads. The state-run scheme will be funded completely by the Department of Education making products available to 20,000 schools across England.
This is a part of the effort to tackle period poverty: when people, mainly women, lack the means to purchase sanitary products and have “a poor knowledge of menstruation often due to financial constraints,” as defined by Bodyform, the international female hygiene company. There have been a few campaigns against period poverty since, because it has become a prominent concern within the UK and internationally. For example, Bodyform pledged to donate 100k sanitary towels to those in need, every month, for three years.
Sanitary wear – Flickr
Plan International UK – a charity that campaigns for childrens rights and equality for girls – carried out research and compiled a report called Break the barriers (2018), in which they wrote: “Period poverty has previously been seen as an external issue affecting lower income countries. However, in the context of austerity and the rise of homelessness and foodbank use, combined with a lack of supportive and accessible menstrual health management education, it is also being experienced here in the UK.”
The government’s response to this is practical, and could have a huge impact on young children and adults lives in terms of product accessibility and reducing stigmatisation. Further research carried out by Plan International UK (2017) demonstrates the dire situations that some young females find themselves in.
Among other findings, they discovered that one in seven girls have struggled to afford sanitary wear, whereas one in ten girls have been unable to afford it at all. Furthermore, one in five girls have changed to a “less suitable” sanitary product, for cost reasons.
Lucy Russell, UK Campaign Manager at Plan International UK, writes: “This is a problem of stigma as well as affordability. Girls feel embarrassed by their periods, and that can’t be right. We need a society-wife approach to bust the taboo…”
The provision of free sanitary wear to females, including those who struggle to afford monthly costs, is certainly seen as a step in the right direction. Some members of the public have been vocal about their opinions.
What the government SHOULD be doing is taking the VAT off of sanitary products, like they're a fucking luxury! I'm not entirely convinced that #periodpoverty is a thing….then again, I'm not in that environment. I've bought pads from supermarket for just over £1 before??♀️
Free sanitary products for girls in school is welcome but long long overdue. Now make them free for ALL females. Periods aren’t a choice. Tampax aren’t a luxury, they’re a human right. End #periodpoverty
Children and Families Minister Nadhim Zahawi reportedly said: “This government is determined to ensure that no-one should be held back from reaching their potential – and wants everyone to lead active, healthy, happy lives.” Lack of access of sanitary products directly affects girls from low income families most acutely. The National Education Union survey found that in 2018 over 137,000 girls missed school because of their period, which could lead to a gap in attainment. It also comes after Scotland became the world’s first country to supply all 395,000 of it’s students with sanitary products at schools, colleges and universities, with Wales following suit last year providing free products at all state schools and colleges.
As well as addressing a deeply concerning societal issue, there is a possibility that the new move by the Government will go a long way to creating a more equal society for girls in particular – ensuring that they are educated, confident and equipped. It must also be accompanied by open advertisement of the scheme across schools, using it as a way to end the unnecessary stigma around periods and generate much more open conversation around health, hygiene and wellbeing to empower students.
A report by The Wildlife Trust has warned that HS2 could threaten irreplaceable natural habitats, heaping more pressure on the project to be abandoned.
Several delays, £7.5bn already spent and now this week a harrowing report from The Wildlife Trust warning of the damning and irreplaceable environmental impacts of HS2.
As the prospects of the high speed rail line linking London and northern England suffer heavier and more severe criticism, the question of alternatives to the project or even a complete U-turn have to be asked. As the report reveals, we risk the destruction of 693 local wildlife sites, 108 ancient woodlands and the threat of extinction of endangered species if it continues to go ahead. Though the report concedes that the project includes a construction of a ‘green corridor’, it states it is nowhere near ambitious or adequate enough to offset the damage.
Time to rethink?
In a time of global environmental concern, the report from the The Wildlife Trust is not to be overlooked or undermined. The report is a collection of findings from 14 local trusts affected by the plans in what the Wildlife Trust has called the “most comprehensive” assessment of HS2’s environmental impact. Certainly compared to improving existing lines, HS2 does not come out well.
The Wildlife Trusts report is inaccurate and misleading. The fight against climate change needs to be based on facts. Read our response below. #HS2 1/15 pic.twitter.com/wOmeNta55A
The complete dismissal of the report is a strong sign of the relentless delusion anti-HS2 protesters have accused of their opponents. Since the announcement to build HS2 was made in 2012, its progress has been anything but smooth sailing. Initially estimated to cost £33bn, this figure was increased to £55bn in 2015. Most recently in September 2019, Transport Minster Grant Snapps advised this figure could rise further to around £88bn, an eye-watering £26bn over budget.
The aim of HS2 is to improve rail links between London and the North of England, reduce congestion on the commute and increase investment to the Midlands and North of England to combat regional inequality.
However, no harsher critic to HS2 has come than that from the deputy chairman of the HS2 review panel, Lord Berkeley. He has said that the “benefits are overstated and the costs are out of control.”
Work has already started on the HS2 route. Source: BBC
There may be truth in Lord Berkeley’s comments. HS2 is one of Britain’s largest infrastructure projects in decades and it’s no secret that it’s been riddled with controversy and challenge that has created great scepticism around whether the benefits truly outweigh the costs.
The loudest and most vocal supporters of HS2 have unsurprisingly and understandably been business leaders from Midlands and North of England. Desperate for investment and sick of regional inequality between the North and the South, business heads North of London are frothing at the mouth upon talk of a HS2 abandonment.
Unfortunately for these supporters, the CBI regional heads included, hunger for investment and improved rail services in the North have come at the cost of critical reasoning around the damaging realities of HS2. Compiled with this is the government’s unwillingness to concede that, after some evaluation, the full completion of HS2 may not be in the country’s best interests. Granted it’s an egg on the face moment but it’s certainly better than the dangerous do or die attitude that could pose irreversible environmental impacts – not to mention the ever rising cost.
Additionally, after leaving the independent Oakervee HS2 Review (set up by the government) in October due to disagreeing with it’s position to go ahead in full, Lord Berkeley has released his own report independently. In it the civil engineer, who also worked on the Channel Tunnel, described HS2 as a “wrong and expensive solution”. He proposed an alternative to HS2 only building part of the line and upgrading existing train services in the midlands and north of England, saving project costs of £50bn.
The show must go on
In response to the The Wildlife Trust, HS2 Ltd have reminded the critics of their planned ‘green corridor’ which has already identified at risk areas listed in the report. In addition, they’ve said they plan to plant millions of trees of along the line, and ultimately there will be “no net loss to biodiversity.”
That said, HS2 promoters see no reason why the line should be abandoned. Indeed, business heads in the midlands and north of England have argued that there are no credible HS2 alternatives to unlock the growth in the North and Midlands.
Phase 1 of the line which is planned to run from London to Birmingham has already been granted Royal Assent as of 2017. Therefore while Phase 2a (West Midlands to Crewe) and 2b (Crewe to Manchester and Birmingham to Leeds) await the same permissions, there should be no reason to cancel the plans.
HS2 route connected London to the Midlands and North. Source: ITV Hub
So much work has already been completed toward HS2: from buying property along the line to the tune of £1.25bn, knocking down buildings to prepare the route from London to Birmingham and even moving thousands of dead bodies underneath the line. With £7.5bn spent already, it’s not a hard sell that the government should see out the task to reap the future benefits of a decreased north south divide.
A recipe for disaster
All things considered, it’s clear HS2 needs serious reevaluation. The issue with HS2’s promise of “no net loss to biodiversity” is that once endangered species are made extinct, there’s no way to recoup them. The same is true for ancient woodlands.
The costs already incurred on this turbulent HS2 journey would be heartbreaking for any taxpayer should the government decide to do a U-turn. However, to see the cost rise past £100bn, as Lord Berkeley has predicted and to see the materialisation of the potential environmental impacts, would be far worse.
The Midlands and the North desperately need investment and doing so to their rail services should be a matter of urgency. The government and HS2 promoters alike must concede that the full completion of the project as it stands may not be the best way to achieve this, when current rail services have stood for decades without proper funding and the impact on wildlife might be too much to bear. Either way, Boris Johnson is expected to make a go/no go decision on the future of the HS2 project next month, at the same time that the full Oakervee review will be made public.
In the age of capitalist individualistic meritocracy, where even royals have no control over where or what circumstances you are born into, Harry and Meghan Markles decision to ‘step back’ from their public roles as ‘senior royals’ has brought these tensions into sharp focus.
Understandably, pleading the case for people to feel sorry for a royal couple, especially one born into the family, at a time where child poverty and homelessness is at record levels in the UK, will more than likely sound absolutely ridiculous. And will probably incense a few people as its been a long week of debate on the topic. But bear with me.
I wouldn’t say I’m a royalist. I don’t really understand the frothing and the fawning at either end of the spectrum of feelings about the Royal Family. I honestly don’t let it take up much of my thinking space. Not because I think I’m better than anyone who does, whatever news site or paper you read. But because it does not really relate to my interests or experiences and doesn’t really fit into my preferred type of escapism either.
The Royal Family on Buckingham Palace balcony // bbc.co.uk
Either way, Harry and Meghan are being held to incredibly ridiculous double standards. The cries of ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it too’ are holding these people up to an insane standard that has no basis in reality. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are examples of a couple trying to make their own moves away from being a part of the institution Prince Harry was born into. Their statement reads:
“After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.”We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.”
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex // cnn.com
If anyone else from any other background or circumstance was making a similar move; to go their own way, create their own path to have impact, they would be absolutely lauded. Individualist capitalist society encourages us to ‘be our own person’, constantly self-optimise and, certainly for millennials, we’re brought up to believe that if we put our minds to it we can be and achieve anything (and that we should). Financial freedom and independence, high-powered careers and meritocracy would define our success; it’s all possible if you just believe.
Whatever your thoughts or personal experiences, this is the system in which we operate. The Royal Family and it’s institution is the direct opposite of this. Prince Harry certainly had no choice about who conceived him, or the place into which he was born in life. Up to now he’s had about as much control over his own life as a dairy cow; you are born and you die being squeezed dry for the sake of a ‘brand’. But now that the couple choose to take back some control of their own lives and experiences, and the impact they want to make on the world, not to mention have a family life more of their own design, they are held to outdated feudal structures that have no place in our actual day-to-day society and culture.
With the revelations around Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein at the end of last year continuing to swirl around the Royal Family, there is no wonder the Queen (read: HRH communications team) would be absolutely incensed by the timing of this announcement. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, alongside William and Kate were absolutely key to the public face of the palace and its brand. Having a huge dent in this most outward looking and human asset that the Royal Family has probably ever had, at a time of such backlash and questions being raised of its members. The fact that the ex-spokesman to the Queen commented on Good Morning Britain that the Queen will be “angrier about this than the car-crash Prince Andrew interview on Newsnight”, because this was “a bombshell” while the Prince Andrew scandal had been “going on for ages” makes me feel cold.
Similarly, as part of a BBC2 documentary aired this week, Prince Charles’s friendship with convicted peadophile Bishop Ball was examined, as a part of the culture of silence and protection afforded him by the establishment. Ball boasted of his role as ‘counsellor to royalty’, and had letters personally written to him by Charles after the initial allegations of abuse in 1995 stating “I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated.” He later stated to an enquiry he had been ‘deceived over a long period of time’ about Ball’s actions, after Ball was convicted of sexual offences against 17 teenage boys. I wouldn’t blame Harry and Meghan for wanting to distance themselves from the institution.
The Queen travelling to Sandringham to hold crisis talks // thesun.co.uk
Yes, the way in which they made their announcement, reportedly left the Royal Family ‘blindsided’ could have arguably been carried out better to not cause such shock within their own family, this doesn’t take away from the quality and basis of what they are trying to achieve. I do agree with commentators such as Alastair Campbell, saying that they have possibly only made themselves “more of a target” for the media by carrying things out in this way. With their combined global fame, there is absolutely no doubt that they will struggle to navigate the move and any sense of a ‘normal life’ will be seen through a lens of security and scrutiny.
But if we’re going to use the ridiculous phrase “have your cake and eat it”, shouldn’t we be talking about the Royal Institution? They can’t spend years pushing the “fab four” William, Kate, Harry and Meghan as the woke avengers and then be entirely shocked when the values of two cause them to step away. Why should the Duke and Duchess of Sussex be held so stringently to account? I think the time for seeing Royal Family members as Disney characters who never put a toe out of line is over. Prince Andrew saw to that. If I would expect to be able to make my own decisions and have autonomy over them, and most importantly to be held accountable as an individual, I wouldn’t disallow Harry and Meghan from the same.
On Monday, the Queen gave her blessing, if reluctantly, to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s wishes to step back from public royal life and splitting their time between England and Canada after 90 minutes of ‘crisis’ talks at Sandringham. The informal tone of her statement was conciliatory, stating My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family”. Using first names and omitting any sense of continuation of royal duty and focusing on the couples stated intention not to be reliant on public funds raised questions as to whether titles will be retained in the future and whether they will have any official role as representatives of the crown at all.
The Queen’s statement on Harry and Meghan’s ‘period of transition’ // thesun.co.uk
Everyone seems fine with the Royal Family being publicly funded as long they tow the line. At a time of political and social anxiety, upheaval and inequality, the Royal Family may no longer be able to be the calming force upon the people it once was. When something relies on it’s hereditary nature alone and an ability to be the physical embodiment of the ‘stiff upper lip’, you can’t give it a “character”. It makes it too human and therefore admitting it’s own infallibility. Harry and Meghan’s decision is the full manifestation of the uncomfortable separation of the ‘institution’ from the people inside it that more negative accusations around other members have shown. A turn to more “progressive” work of their own design will be more possible outside it. Will it descend into tacky corporate strategy? Possibly. We should at least give Harry and Meghan the chance and space to try.
26 people have lost their lives, dozens are missing, and 500 million animals are believed to have perished as a third state of emergency is declared in Australia since the bushfires began this Summer. Have we reached the brink or are we peering into the abyss of irreversible climatic change?Whatever the case, “unprecedented” may need to be replacing to describe extreme weather this decade.
Seen from Space? Sure. How about New Zealand?
Raging bushfires have illuminated the New Zealand skyline bright orange more than 1,200 miles away. A Sydney suburb was the hottest place on earth over the weekend. Penrith January 6th reached 48.9C, a record that had stood for 80 years until recently. Canberra has the worst air quality in the world accordingly to Swiss group Air Virtual having peaked at 7,700 Air Quality Index (AQI) at 1am Wednesday, shutting down the city – readings over 200 are considered hazardous to human health.
Homes in Turramurra, just 10 miles from downtown Sydney were threatened as thousands of firefighters deploying fire-retardant, long hoses and helicopters to hold back the blazes. More than 85 fires are still burning in New South Wales NSW, with half out of control.
Continent on fire // NASA
To put the fire damage in NSW into perspective, the 2019 Amazon fires destroyed 900,000 hectares, and the 2018 California wildfires some 800,000 hectares. NSW has lost at least 4 million hectares since 1ST July. The fires are not dissipating but growing with no real end in sight. 10,000s have been forced to flee their homes, and a third of Adelaide’s vineyards have been razed.
That’s no sunset over the bay… // Tim Fraser
Many Australians are asking whether the ferocity of these bushfires come down to climate change, with leading firefighter representatives and authorities demanding action to address the issue. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology state the country has warmed 1C since 1910, with most since 1950. The government has come under criticism for inadequate firefighter and response funding, poor preparation, with the Prime Minister being on holiday in Hawaii “sleeping at the wheel” and lack of back burning efforts. So which is it?
The iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge cloaked in thick smoke // Getty Images
What are bushfires?
Bushfires occur because of a combination of large quantities of combustible materials and hot, dry weather conditions. During such periods of high risk, a fire may start through deliberate action (arson), negligence, or natural events (like lightning) – or some combination (broken glass litter in strong sunlight).
Australia has large expanses of bush around her capital cities. During summer heatwaves, the bush can dry out and become highly flammable. The oil in many native plants – such as eucalyptus – can increase the risk of fire as well. Over a period of years, the undergrowth and the ground cover of dead leaves and branches can build up and become a dense combustible mass. This debris or bone-dry trash holds oil vapour from the eucalyptus. When fires pass through, this oil vaporises and burns explosively.
Positive Feedback Effect: Smoke plumes create lightning fires and flash flooding //Bureau of Meterology
Why are the flames so terrible?
Australia is a dry continent, lacking vast inland river systems like the United States. Water mismanagement has turned the rivers into trickling streams as drought has gripped the country for years. Political conservatives have granted cotton and rice growers carte blanche access to the water, stockpiled in large dams and reservoirs, furthering stressing a system on the brink. On the other side of the fence, you have Green parties vehemently opposed to hazard reduction burn-offs. Add it all up, and you have a large fuel load with no water to put the fires out. Towns are left trucking water in to survive. Arrogance and complacency in not listening to the private landowners, farmers and native aboriginal peoples who have practiced burn-offs for thousands of years, have left us with the current catastrophe.
“Unprecedented” anomalous average temperatures redefining the norm? // Prof Ray Wills
3 years drought in eastern Australia has been a normal phenomenon, “accelerated by climate change” says Michael Roderick, a climate researcher at the Australian National University. The record breaking summer temperatures in the mid 40 degrees centigrade, and high winds combined with a tinderbox landscape create the perfect storm for fires, making them an inevitable force of nature which the Australian population can try and manage, but once they reach a certain intensity, they cannot be stopped by humans.
Trending upwards // Prof Ray Wills
Climate Change
Chris Field, environmental studies director of Stanford University, commented that the sheer scale and intensity of the bushfires are “one of the worst, if not the worst, climate change extreme events” he had seen. Mike Flannigan, a fire scientist at the University of Alberta in Canada, said Australia’s fires are “a prime example of climate change”.
While the Australian government’s 2019 wildfire briefing report stated, “Human-caused climate change has resulted in more dangerous weather conditions for bushfires in recent decades for many regions of Australia.”
Australia has had bushfires for millennia. But this is far from business as usual. These are earlier, fiercer and more widespread now than in living memory.
Breaking 80 year records // BMO
Australia’s hottest day ever may be an isolated blip were it not for the record to be exceeded two days later, each one topping the last on what was historically 80 year standing records. Wheat production is down 40% since 2000 as plants struggle to cope with drought conditions and excessive heat.
The anthropogenic global warming makes the drier, hotter, longer bushfire seasons where planned burns can easily spiral out of control. The seasonal window for safe burn offs is narrowing year on year.
Former State Fire Chief
Two factors, however, that have not received adequate press attention are the lack of strategic response and strategic preparation.
As former State Fire Chiefs call for a summit on bushfires, expert and Scientist David Packham explains that it has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with fuel-loads.
“Maximum fire intensity you could extinguish with anything was around 3 to 4 megawatts per metre. Last Saturday in Victoria reached 70 megawatts per metre. Far greater than can be controlled by any means available to mankind. The only thing that will stop the fires is rains or it running [sic] into the Pacific Ocean. Every time the policy of fire control fails, the fire management have just asked for more money. They have had the whole east coast burn and conveniently can attribute this to climate change and ask for more money.”
Bushfire smoke covers far off New Zealand as fires race easterly // NASA
“The only thing that can be controlled by humans and original inhabitants of Australia for 60,000 years is the fuel. And that is by burning. Providing it is done how the indigenous people want it done: mild, small trickling fires over the surface during the cooler, wetter months.”
PM Scott Morrison’s Political Future Up In Smoke
There can be no doubt, the bushfires caught the Australian government flat-footed. There is no better evidence than the Prime Minister’s holiday to Hawaii despite weather forecasts from the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, information on hazard reductions, climate change models and yet no merging into a bushfire forecast. Morrison failed to meet 23 firefighters who had raised concerns in August about the fire season priorities and preparation.
Despair and resignation to mother nature: NSW locals rescued by Australian navy and local fishermen // Getty
Is the Government to blame?
Lack of Statistical Modelling Reflective of Wholly Inadequate Preparation
You may not be able to predict a solo arsonist, but it should be patently clear by now there are several morons in Australia who would toss cigarette butts out their car window or dump BBQ charcoals without any regard for fire hazards. Regardless of whether you warn them. These acts can be estimated by statistical modelling. There was no such strategic forecast. And lo and behold, no preparation based on such forecast.
Nowhere to run, flames engulf the south coast forcing residents to flee / Port Macquarie fires // ABC
As result, brave firefighters tackled blazes as those had forced to last century. Israeli drones with Infra-Red vision are deployed in their nation to detect fires when they start and can douse the flames with a swift waterbomb. Russian Be-200s scoop water from lakes and bays without landing in a mid-air pirouette, thus flying several sorties in quick succession.
Australia is a relatively rich country, and the losses this Summer alone will dwarf any equipment hire you can imagine. They can afford state of the art firefighting. This does, however, require strategic direction from the top down or from the bottom up where government has failed their people.
Green Policies Nonexistent
Meanwhile, Australia’s National Government’s environmental policy includes no price on carbon, no plans to phase out gas, no plans to phase out coal, with their federal environmental approvals for Adani Carmichael coal mine and offshore oil field exploration and drilling in the Great Australian Bight. There is no policy on Great Barrier Reef protection. No plans to transition workers from fossil fuel industries and manage structural economic transition. The emissions reduction targets of 26-28% by 2030 on 2005 levels are largely in line with wider transition globally by 2030 among developed nations. The Climate Solutions Fund is seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia through the existing Emissions Reduction Fund without extra funding.
Modern Land Management and Indigenous Experience
Not only have the Australian government refused to do anything about climate change or listened to experts in land management fields, but indigenous people haven’t been listened to.
People around the world associate Australian bushfires as routine “standard run of the mill” affairs. They sure care for California, Notre Dame and the Amazon rainforest. The bushfires on the continent completely dwarf all previous 2019 media covered fires combined, and yet radio silence until very recently because of 60 Minutes Australia, social media and celebrity campaigns to raise awareness. Why it took a singed mother koala holding her baby amid charred eucalyptus forest to spur global compassion is beyond this writer.
Alternative Perspective
Bowing to the court of public opinion
Attributing the bushfires to climate change is rather clutching at straws. Peddling such narratives while fires rage killing animals in their millions and destroying lives is a travesty atop the suffering.
As in California, there has been a movement in Australia by the Greens to cease hazard reduction burns as these remove the habitats of animals living among the dead sticks and grass.
Local and federal governments bowed to the court of public opinion to curtail firebreaks and forcing manual slashing instead of backburning in national parks and private land.
Unintentionally, these “do-gooders” turned millions of acres into tinder.
People protest without having a clue what they are talking about.
The government listened, and now the land that the protesters think they were protecting is decimated with hundreds of millions of wildlife burned to death, billions in property damages, billions lost in economic disruption and thousands traumatised by fleeing certain death only to return to ash and dust.
Ricky Gervais’ monologue in need of repeating for those suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect (cognitive bias where people cannot see their own incompetence in the face of law of unintended consequences) // NBC
If Ricky Gervais’ mixed reception for hosting the 2020 Golden Globes went down in flames, his message to the winners deserves repeating for those at the back: “So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a political platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So, if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent and your God and f**k off. OK?”
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced they will step back as “senior” royals and work to become financially independent. In a joint statement, Prince Harry and Meghan also said they plan to split their time between the UK and North America. According to reports, other royals – including the Queen and Prince William were not consulted before the statement and Buckingham Palace is “disappointed”.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex released a statement saying they intend to step back as senior members of the Royal Family. Here’s that statement in full:
A personal message from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex:
“After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.
“We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.
“It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment.
“We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to the Queen, the Commonwealth and our patronages.
“This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.
“We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties.
“Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.”
Buckingham Palace responded with a statement saying:
“Discussions with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage.
“We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”
For many, cries of ‘I told you so’ will undoubtedly ring over dinner tables across the country. Many saw this coming and some commentators have been less than kind when reporting the news. There is no doubt that Royalists at this moment in time are frothing with anger at what this may mean for the Royal Family.
Piers Morgan on Daily Mail Online described Megan Markle as ‘an unsavoury manipulative social-climbing piece of work who has inveigled her way into Prince Harry’s heart and used his blind love as a platform to now destroy everything he once held so dear.’
He also said ‘None of this has surprised me. Meghan’s been doing this kind of stuff all her adult life. She’s disowned 99 per cent of her own family. She’s ditched and ghosted numerous old friends. She got rid of her ex-husband when she tasted TV stardom. Nothing said more about Me-Me-Meghan than her wedding day when she plonked newly-acquired A-list celebrity friends like Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney up the front where most brides usually put their family.”
Piers’s fiery article is a composition of shock, disbelief and annoyance many seem to be making sense of. He is channelling a national shock that has gripped the country as they ponder what happens next.
Prince Harry and Meghan leave following a visit to Canada House in London on Tuesday
We should have seen this coming
Perhaps we all saw this coming but chose to ignore it. It is no secret that Prince Harry and Megan have at times struggled with royal life. Prince Harry loved the crowds but struggled with the royal duties and ceremonies. Megan Markle who had tried to develop a voice of her own was railed every time she opened her mouth in the media and later stopped speaking altogether. So much about their behaviour seemed at odds with the institution to which they belonged. From holding hands, something other royal couples seldom did, to the ease at which they connected with the general public, Prince Harry and Megan seemed cut from a different cloth.
Both have also uniquely struggled with the British media. Prince Harry’s own rocky relationship with the tabloids dates back to the life and eventual death of his mother, Princess Diana in 1997.
Harry brought up his distaste for the UK papers in a recent statement announcing Markle’s lawsuit against the owner of The Daily Mail for publishing a private letter she wrote to her father.
“I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditized to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person,” Harry, 35, wrote.
“I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
In light of these historic challenges, along with abandoning their “senior” roles in the Royal Family, they also leave behind Britain’s mainstream media.
The couple shared their revised media policy on their website, which includes them stepping away from a system called the “Royal Rota,” which gives pool reporters from various British news organizations exclusive coverage of the Royal Family.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
The unfortunate truth here is that you cannot really retire from the Royal Family. Megan Markle knew before she married in that her decision was largely irreversible and would change her life forever. She also admitted her friends had echoed these warnings. Despite this, she married in. Since that decision, the Royal family has been more than accommodating.
The Queen, Meghan, Prince Harry, Prince William and Kate at Buckingham Palace in July 2018
One exasperated aide told the Daily Mail, ‘People had bent over backwards for them. They were given the wedding they wanted, the house they wanted, the office they wanted, the money they wanted, the staff they wanted, the tours they wanted and had the backing of their family. What more did they want?
This is the centre of my critique. It seems Prince Harry and Megan are still only concerned about what they want. Whilst their decision may be good for them, that’s not the only thing at stake here. Elizabeth at the age of 93, and with her 98-year-old husband Prince Philip who is suffering ill health had to scramble to give a statement as they were blindsided by the announcement.
Nothing in life is all good. We most certainly cannot choose to cherry-pick parts we want and parts we don’t. Being part of the Royal family affords you many benefits but also handicaps. You have to embrace both. You cannot have the most-watched wedding in the world, be afforded various luxuries and benefits and then decide which journalists have a chance to talk to you. You cannot treat the country as though it were some cafeteria. Besides, the privacy they are looking for doesn’t really exist because being part of the Royal family is a life-defining thing.
The Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince George pose on December 18 in a photograph to mark the start of the new decade in the Throne Room of Buckingham Palace
Royal historian Prof Kate Williams said it will be “difficult” for Harry and Meghan to lead “normal” lives, as media interest in them will increase after their “unprecedented” move.
She told BBC Breakfast: “Harry and Meghan are global celebrities. Meghan was already famous [due to her former acting career]” as was Harry, who will become even “more significant” when his father – and later his brother – becomes king.
“He is always going to be very close to the royal fold. It is going to be difficult if Harry and Meghan are going to live in Canada for a certain period of time and try and get on with business and be normal, charitable CEO.
“They will require security because I don’t see the media interest in them waning, I see it as probably increasing because what they’re doing is so unprecedented for royals.”
In any event, it will be interesting to see how this story develops. As Buckingham Palace has said these are complicated issues that will take time to work through. Many keen eyes will follow the story.
A brief look at the political candidates who have announced that they’re running for Labour leadership.
The Labour party suffered a crushing defeat in the 2019 general election of the UK, losing 59 seats whilst the Conservatives gained 47 seats – some in strongest Labour heartlands.
The Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn continues to be outspoken about his socialist views on societal politics online, but as he announced, he will not be leading the party into another general election. According to the Evening Standard, he has said that he will continue to lead the party during a “period of reflection.”
This means that a spot has opened up in the leadership of the party – the official leadership contest will conclude on 4 April when a new leader is elected. The race has begun, with six candidates standing so far. Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) has reportedly decided that the contest will last three months, with the first round ending 13 January, according to The Guardian.
So what would new leadership look like according to the candidates?
One of the candidates is MP Jess Phillips – she has been a constant critic of Corbyn and seems to represent those who want a change in the direction and policies of the Labour Party. She recently appeared on the morning TV show Good Morning Britain, and a short clip posted on her Twitter account shows what she says are her top priorities.
On Good Morning Britain this morning I spoke about some of my top priorities: ????social care reform ????truly universal childcare ??a green new deal Join my campaign to make people’s lives better https://t.co/EHAXtzZxu4pic.twitter.com/TPICORi8Kb
Presenter Piers Morgan asked for her “top three priorities” and she replied: “First, without question, we have got to sort out the crisis in social care and we’ve got to do that by being completely honest with the country.”
She goes on to say that the party needs to “make universal childcare literally universal because I think that it would improve the productivity in our country,” and “we have to have a radical overhaul of what we’re doing on the Green agenda because it’s simply not working.”
Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer has also announced his bid for leadership. He was elected to serve the area of Holborn and St. Pancras in 2015 and was previously awarded a knighthood for his work and services to law and criminal justice when he was the director of public prosecutions. He is deemed to be “too middle class” by some, but he does seem to be a popular candidate. Instead of critiquing Corbyn, he appears to be intending to build upon what he has done.
Keir Starmer on the left of Jeremy Corbyn, “revealing” Brexit documents – Flickr
In December 2019 he reportedly said: “What Jeremy Corbyn brought to the Labour Party in 2015 was a change in emphasis – a radicalism that matters, and the rejection of austerity. We need to build on that rather than oversteer and go back to some bygone age.” (As reported by The Independent).
Manchurian MP Rebecca Long-Bailey is also running for leadership – in an article for left-wing magazine Tribute, entitled “To Win We Must Unite All of Labour’s Heartlands”, Bailey expresses her reasoning for standing.
She wrote: “Labour needs a socialist leader who can work with our movement, rebuild our communities and fight for the policies we believe in – that’s why I’m standing.”
Rebecca Long Bailey – profile shot – Commons Wikimedia
One of her key statements was: “It is true that one reason we lost the election was that Labour’s campaign lacked a coherent narrative. But this was a failure of campaign strategy, not of our socialist programme. Labour’s Green New Deal is the most ambitious agenda for tackling climate change of any major political party. And throughout the election, it was tragically undersold.”
Her perspective is that Labour needs to change the way things are done, and not necessarily what they believe in (their principles).
Next is Clive Lewis, who grew up on a council estate in Northampton, UK, with his mother ad father who migrated to the UK from Grenada. His past work includes being a BBC journalist, army reservist and working in a processing factory – one might say that he is the jack of all trades. Before joining Labour’s parliamentary ranks, Mr Lewis grew up in a council estate in Northampton with his English mother and father, who came to the UK from Grenada, and worked in a good processing factory before becoming a full-time trade union official. Mr Lewis eventually worked as a BBC journalist, and an army reservist, who served in Afghanistan.
One of his aims is to address inequality and encourage diversity. In a recent article for The Independent, he wrote: ” The last few years have been a tumultuous time for ethnic minorities and migrants in the UK. A toxic debate around Brexit has unleashed a torrent of racism into British society, leading to a climate of fear and a sharp rise in hate crimes and racist attacks since the 2016 referendum. Labour’s inability to deal effectively with the antisemitism crisis has contributed to a sense of division between our communities, which we urgently need to address.”
Considering that the party’s media coverage was dominated by the antisemitism crisis, especially towards the end of the campaign, Lewis’ approach could see him elected as the new leader.
Wigan MP Lisa Nandy announced her run very recently by writing to an exclusive letter to The Wigan Post.
She wrote: “I wanted to tell you first that I’m standing to be leader of the Labour Party because, after a decade of having the privilege to represent you, I have a deeper understanding of what has gone awry in our discredited political system.
“I’m standing because I know too many people in places like Wigan no longer feel they have a voice in our national story. So many of you have told me you believe many leaders are not interested in what you have to say and are unable – or unwilling – to understand your lives. I believe you are right.”
Lisa Nandy addressing a committee – Flickr
Nandy was elected to represent the Wigan area in 2010, and reportedly wrote that she was “heartbroken that so many working-class constituencies had chosen the Conservatives over Labour at the last general election.” Her focus is bringing the issues of her local constituency to the national front.
Last but not least is Emily Thornbery, who is currently Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury, and the Shadow foreign secretary.
Like Lewis, she grew up on a council estate, and grew up to study law at Kent University and become a human rights barrister. She has more recently been very outspoken of her critique of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, over the current Iranian crisis.
She believes that it is time to “rebuild, reunite and revitalise our party [Labour party] and take the fight back to the Tories. But we must do this together.”
It’s time to rebuild, reunite and revitalise our party, and take the fight back to the Tories. But we must do this together. Join my campaign today and let’s start fighting back.https://t.co/eJEKGPSN0b#EmilyForLabour#FightingBackTogether
We may not know who will survive the first round of the Labour party’s race for leadership, but it is clear that they have a big task of reviving the party’s image and winning back the hearts of voters.
US President Trump’s decision to carry out a military strike against a high-ranking Iranian official has caused great concern, sparking rumours of a “world war three.” However, the state of political hostility between the two countries, known as a cold war, has been going on for years – Trump’s decision was simply an escalation of ongoing tensions.
The American drone strike killed 62-year-old Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s Quds Force general, on the 2nd of January, at the country’s capital city Baghdad’s airport. Iraqi Shia militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes also died.
President Donald J. Trump – Monday, June 24, 2019, in the Oval Office, prior signing an Executive Order to place further sanctions on Iran. Flickr
According to CNN, there was a debate within the administration leading up to the strike, for fears that killing Soleimani would lead to “dramatic and unpredictable escalation.” Arguably, this does seem to be the case, as Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations (UN) has reportedly said that the US “has started a military war by an act of terror,” and that Iran “has to act, and we will act.”
However, the general had a tremendous influence on Iraq as well as Iran – Iraq’s parliament hit back on Sunday by voting to expel U.S. troops from the country. This could mean that, according to the Los Angeles Times, more than 5,000 U.S. soldiers and an “unspecified number of contractors” currently stationed in Iraq are removed.
Sunday also saw “hundreds of thousands” of Iranians turn up to Qasem Soleimani’s funeral, and at least three rockets landed near the US embassy in Baghdad late on Sunday night, according to The Telegraph.
The daughter of slain Iranian general Qassim Soleimani warned the US of “a dark day” to come as hundreds of thousands of Iranians gathered in the streets of Tehran for her father’s funeral
Some of his comments included: “Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain US assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, and badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protestors…”
….hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have…..
Trump’s unique way of expressing the majority of his views and reasoning out his decisions on social media, results in more engagement online – it contrasts greatly with when former US President Obama ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden. Views on the current world-wide tension differ – social media users have labelled the situation as “world war three” – some, in jest. However, others have pointed out the seriousness of the situation.
Twitter user Tahla Malik tweeted: “I hope and pray that there will be no WW3 because war is not a joke. War is not a meme, war is not friendly #WorldWarThree.”
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson spoke out on Sunday 4th January – asking for “de-escalation from all sides” and that “we will not lament” the Iranian general’s death because he was “responsible for a pattern of disruptive, destabilising behaviour in the region”.
This conflict can be difficult to understand if you are unaware of the history, which spans roughly 65 years. It started in 1953, when the CIA from the US and intelligence services from Britain conspired to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq – they started a, now infamous, coup.
The foreign secretary of Britain was Sir Anthony Eden, who according to the Guardian, regarded Mosaddeq as a “serious threat to its strategic and economic interests” because the Iranian prime minister had nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company – also known as BP. This is still given as the main reason of Iranian mistrust towards the Western powers Britain and US, and the overthrow of Mosaddeq’s consolidated rule of the US-backed Shah of Iran – Mohammed Reza Pahlev, for the next 26 years. Official documents revealed that Britain and the US described Mosaddeq as one of the “most mercurial, maddening, adroit and provocative leaders with whom they [the US and Britain] had ever dealt”.
However, on the 16th January 1979, the Shah was ousted after months of protests and strikes against his rule – which led to Islamic religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini returning from exile. After a referendum took place, the Islamic Republic of Iran was proclaimed on the 1st of April.
Image of Ayatollah Khomeini, Islamic religious leader. Flicker
As history continued to unravel, momentous events shaped the relationship between Iran and the US as well as Britain – such as the US embassy hostage situation (1979-81), and ongoing Western fears about Iran developing nuclear weapons.
You can read a brief overview of the history of the Cold war, here.
In light of this, the steps that President Trump takes are especially important, as an escalation of the current situation could have an effect on politics, the use of military weapons, and the civilians of the different countries that are involved.
Climate change adversely affectingZambia leading to first food relief in 15 years
Some residents in Zambia have gone days without food and have turned to wild fruits and chopping trees for charcoal to survive.
The food and economic crisis in the country dominated headlines last year – with rolling electricity blackouts lasting 18 hours a day to the United Nations’ (UN) announcement that 2.3 million people will need emergency food aid by March 2020, or 25% of the rural population.
Experts and the countries own leader, President Edgar Lungu, linked the severe drought which is caused by “dwindling” rainfall to climate change.
President of Zambia Edgar Lungu in 2017 Source: www.qz.com
Speaking to BBC, Allan Mulando from the World Food Programme (WFP) said: “In the last 15 years the effective start of the rainy season was October. As we speak now, the effective start of the rainy season is mid-December. Now, this is basically an obvious issue that climate Is actually changing. The second part is the distribution of rainfall.”
According to the WFP, Zambia rarely needs the organisations to help with food and this is the country’s first food distribution for 15 years.
The dry spells between rains and crop failure left populations in southern and western parts of Lusaka and the Eastern and Central provinces with food shortages in what has been a two-year drought and as a result, food prices soared last year – causing frustration among locals.
In the recent report, the BBC also found that locals were chopping down trees in the hope of finding charcoal to sell and make money for food. But some villagers disagreed with the idea – with the fear that the land may turn into a “desert.”
What happened last year?
31% of the population, get most of their power from the hydroelectric dam on the Kariba Reservoir. But as rains fail, water levels in the dam have fallen to record levels such that power is now scarce and is being rationed impacting urban and rural populations. Source: climateafricareporters.co.zw
“We are talking about people who truly are marching towards starvation,” is how the situation in Southern Africa was described by David Beasley from the United Nation, World Food Programme.
The heightened conversations on drought, famine and the countries debt meant local organisations, groups and residents voiced their frustrations on all mediums possible.
The coalition of civil society organisations, Civil Society Scaling Up Nutrition Alliance (CSO-SUN), had said at the beginning of August 2019 that the “government has no choice but to declare the hunger situation a national emergency for the country to access support from cooperating partners.”
Hakainde Hichilema, President of the UPND tweeted: “The world is now speaking about the famine in Zambia where many of our people are starving to death. We must put politics aside and address this issue NOW. We are formally writing to DMMU, so we can engage and resolve this crisis and save millions of our innocent citizens’ lives.”
One local commented on a famine report pleading with the President: ” Please @EdgarCLungu declare the situation in Zambia an emergency. People are starving. You are our leader, therefore, you should put the people’s interests and well being first.”
Another tweeted: “ClimateEmergency has brought parts of Zambia to the brink of famine. Does the international community need to see starving babies before there is a substantial response?”
Just Zambia?
Given is a small-scale farmer from the Western Province of Zambia. Given says: “When it does rain, it pours to the point that crops are damaged. And when it is dry, the heat is damaging to our crops. “Climate change is negatively affecting our community. We are not able to know if it is going to rain or not. Heat is damaging our vegetables and our crops.” Source: https://actionaid.org/stories/2019/families-are-surviving-one-meal-day-drought-hit-zambia
This drought, which is said to be the worst in 40 years for the continent is affecting a number of countries across Southern Africa.
Zambia’s neighbour, Zimbabwe, has faced the same issue with most of the rural country now without crops, livestock or water.
Tsitsi, a farmer and mother of four living in Zimbabwe told aid organisation Action aid that when the drought hit, her crops withered and died. She was left without food, with a hungry family to feed.
She said: “Both my mother-in-law’s and my crops wilted and we are surviving from hand to mouth. We are eating porridge in the morning and have one meal of sadza (cornmeal) in the evening. We do not put any sugar or peanut butter in the porridge, and this has affected the health of my baby twins who were diagnosed with kwashiorkor [a form of malnutrition] in September.
“As a breastfeeding mother, I need a balanced diet so that I can produce healthy milk for my twins. I haven’t managed to pay school fees for my eight-year-old son who is in grade 2. The school has not sent him home yet, but I fear that one day they will,” she told Action aid.
Abbianca Makoni is a reporter often writing on gender and social issues. Her most recent work was on child brides suffering from fistula in northern Nigeria being abandoned by their husbands due to costly health care. Her work can also be seen on The Independent, Evening Standard, and Belfast Telegraph.
‘The worst result for Labour since 1935.’ This summation is a haunting reality which Labour MPs must now deal with after the catastrophic defeat last Thursday which has prompted deep soul-searching in the party.
After the polls closed and counting began, the exit polls accurately forecasted a grim night for Labour. Many woke up to a nightmare of almost biblical proportions. Labour won 203 seats in the election, down 59, and saw its share of the vote fall by 7.8 percentage points to 32.2%, while the Conservatives won 365 seats, up 47, with 43.6% of the vote.
“It does look as though this One-Nation Conservative government has been given a powerful new mandate to get Brexit done,” a jubilant Johnson said after he was easily re-elected to his seat in Uxbridge and South Ruislip.
The Prime Minister said that his party’s victory would provide a “chance to respect the democratic will of the British people, to change this country for the better and to unleash the potential of the entire people of this country.” Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, appeared solemn as he announced he would not be leading the party into a future general election. Labour totalled just 201 seats (a net loss of 57), the lowest tally since Clement Atlee, who would go on to become premier in the aftermath of World War II, won 154 seats in 1935.
After four consecutive election defeats, with its support base eroded in the traditional working-class heartlands of South Wales and the North, Labour must realise that it faces extinction. This may seem far away, but with changing party types and weak leadership, this is a very real possibility. Just ask the Liberal Democrats.
Despite this, the current Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, not only fails to see this existential threat, he says we “won the argument” last Thursday and need just one more heave for the electorate to come to its senses.
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn insisted the policies he set out were genuinely popular (Picture: PA)
Some in Labour seemed surprised and deeply troubled by this response. Most notably Tony Blair who called on Labour members to abandon the policies and political leanings of Jeremy Corbyn to ensure the survival of the party. In a provocative intervention, the three-time election-winning former prime minister said that if Corbyn’s wing of the party remains in charge, then Labour will be finished as a political force. This is a sentiment, I, as an independent political commentator share.
Corbyn’s comment that he won the argument is a total and utter farce and merely a movement of the goalposts.
What is a leader?
Patronising as it may sound, I find it may be helpful to remind people of what it means to be a leader of a political party. The enduring purpose of political parties has and will always be to win elections and govern. Without winning, you cannot govern and your polices remain wishful thinking. This does not benefit anyone and makes things worse.
Tony Blair, former U.K. prime minister, poses for a photograph after a Bloomberg Television interview on the opening day of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg via Getty Images
A competent political party leader galvanises other MP’s around them and is ideologically capacious enough to allow for many differing MP’s to follow and fall under their shadow. What we have seen for Corbyn is a shallow and rigid leadership. A sort of ideological bully who only has time for MP’s who share this ideological perspective.
As Blair told Newsnight on Wednesday, “The Labour party, by its self-indulgence – and that’s what it was in the end – was the effective handmaiden of Brexit. It’s not our fault, because the fault is with those who advocated it. But our combination of misguided ideology and utter incompetence allowed it to happen.”
The fact that Corbyn thinks after 9 years out of office, labours supporters will be happy with virtual signalling and moral posturing, displays a thin understanding of the political party machine. Labour needs to win otherwise the country may be unrecognisable by the time they next win political office. It also needs to be a credible and effective opposition, something that has so far alluded Corbyn.
In another time
The great irony of last week’s election is that a credible, traditional Labour party, one led by a sensible centrist, could have won. After a decade of deep cuts to public services, anaemic growth and Brexit uncertainty, even prime minister Boris Johnson was desperate to distance himself from the Conservative record he has been intrinsically a part of. They sought to spin the narrative, vouching to reverse previous cuts and heavily invest in public services.
Any serious opposition with an electable leader and a plausible plan for the government should have been able to win the chance to serve the British people. Labour could have forcefully made the case that it would fix a society that the Conservative broke. Instead, it focused on winning the argument and moral superiority. And the blame for that defeat is of course…the media. Blaming media bias or Facebook skulduggery is the sound of a party refusing to face reality. It also the sound of a party that is in no way ready to win and govern. It is reminiscent of a party that has forgotten how to win.
We don’t trust you
Labours defeat is especially crushing when you account for who Corbyn was against. Boris Johnson is arguably the most morally bankrupt leader Britain has had. When described by Max Hastings, his previous employer in the Guardian he said, ‘I was Boris Johnson’s boss: he is utterly unfit to be prime minister.’
Hastings said ‘Corbyn is far more honest, but harbours his own extravagant delusions. He may yet prove to be the only possible Labour leader whom Johnson can defeat in a general election. If the opposition was led by anybody else, the Tories would be deservedly doomed, because we would all vote for it”
How sad then to know that faced with a choice between Corbyn and Johnson, the British electorate chose to trust Johnson and gave him a thumping majority. It seems despite the chest-beating about the moral argument, Corbyn lost the argument about trust. The British electorate trusted Johnson to deliver Brexit and simply did not trust Corbyn to bring to life all the promises in Labours exhaustive manifesto. This means Corbyn lost the most important argument, the one that ultimately resulted in who would win the opportunity to govern. Asked about the leader for today, the British people chose Johnson.
There is a place for people like Corbyn; it is not in party politics. Believe what you want as the reason. Perhaps he has transcended party politics or is too virtuous to be sullied by political manoeuvring or lacks energy and passion. He is an effective protest politician, a leader of a campaign or pressure group, winning hearts and minds to a moral cause. There he can worry about the argument and not political office. The cost of his leadership has been far too great for millions across the country.
Last weeks Election results showed a clear divide between young and old in the UK voting choices. 57% of 18-24-year-olds backed Labour while only 18% of the over-65s.
Labour’s election bid was one of hope. They appealed to the idealistic youth and made promises to deliver a functioning, modern socialist Britain. However, the ‘Youthquake’ failed to emerge from social media echo chambers and adequately engage the intergenerational segregation. This failing was not the Labour Party’s alone, but from a wider lack of understanding from the young to the old:
“You were us. You have forgotten what it was like to be us.”
The intergenerational sharp contrast was brought to the fore with Thursday’s General Election, with the #OkBoomer trend at the forefront of shunning the older generations for dismissing the agency or challenges faced by young people today.
A Manifesto of Hope and Equality
The Labour manifesto pledged to address student debt, the housing crisis, low pay, lack of secure skilled work, childcare, mediocre yet expensive public transport, education budget cuts and the pressing climate emergency.
These are the perceived pressing issues for younger generations. They reveal a tale of disaffected youth, locked out of their country’s future.
Perhaps the fact that their ambitious idealism is wasted when the wealth they help create ends up in offshore accounts helps explain why Corbyn’s “equality” and “inclusivity” garner such support from a generation whose living standards have been systematically assaulted.
Labour’s Social Media Campaign
Jeremy Corbyn’s digital strategy centred around making persuasive viral content – bypassing the “Murdoch” media and breaking out of the bubble.
On Facebook, Jeremy Corbyn and Labour achieved 86.2 million views on campaign videos, compared with only 24.5 million views for Boris Johnson and the Conservatives.
If you spent enough time on the Twittersphere or various other social media outlets receiving both zealous support from students and the wall-to-wall Labour Party sponsored coverage, you may have found the overall election results rather a surprise.
‘Youthquake‘
The “youthquake” first coined in 2017 failed to materialise as tangible election gains for the Labour Party. This was a theory that mass engagement of young voters would swing the balance in the elections.
Left-wing academics and Labour strategists will be scratching their heads as 67% of the 3 million who applied to vote since the election were called were made by people under 34 years old. This age group tends to be more likely to back Labour over Tory.
Age Gap UK voting patterns // YouGov
56% of 18 to 24-year-olds voted Labour in last week’s election, but this dramatically falls to just 14% for voters aged over 70. The average age of conversion Labour to Tory now sits at 39, down from 47 years old in 2017’s General Election.
Men Vote Tory Over Women In all Age Categories to 65+ // YouGov
The most noticeable age gap was in the youngest category (18 to 24) where 65% of women voted Labour compared to 46% of men.
The surge to register to vote was driven by calls on social media from multiple celebrities, with rapper Stormzy and Game of Thrones actor Emilia Clarke were two such high profile figures appealing to their young fans. A total 660,000 last-minute applications were made.
660,000 people registered to vote last minute / gov.uk
Voter registration has also been driven by Labour activists’ face-to-face drive to sign up voters at colleges, universities, mosques, churches and job centres.
2017 vs 2019 Youth Engagement
Patrick Sturgis and Dr Will Jennings, University of Southampton, made a study of the 2017 election showing Labour did inspire more young people to vote than had previously been acknowledged. Of the 40,000 households surveyed, 2017 versus 2015 turnout among the youngest voters was substantially higher, and further still than 2010.
Lower visibility may account for the disbelief on social media as the Exit Polls were announced. This shock shows how echo chambers or filter bubbles feed cognitive dissonance. This is the psychological stress that emerges when contradictory beliefs clash, and the brain struggling to make heads or tails out of the situation to reduce the discomfort and restore balance. In this case, Labour supporters appeared significantly more vocal than “shy Tories” who are less likely to tell opinion pollsters who they were voting for. This bolstered their confidence by constant reassurance feedback from other members possessing similar viewpoints (namely other Labour supporters).
Demographic of a Conservative Voter
As Conservative voters tend to be older, they are less likely to be social media users in the first place, and those that use Facebook do not air their opinions, on balance, as younger idealistic users.
The big online story during the 2017 general election was the influence of a huge network of pro-Labour websites, accounts and groups.
But changes to Facebook’s algorithm – the code determining which posts get seen – have made it much harder for these sites to reach massive numbers of people.
And this time Jeremy Corbyn’s online cheerleaders had more competition from popular pro-Brexit groups. Throughout the campaign, and particularly after the Brexit Party announced they would be standing down in Conservative-held seats, the chatter in those groups swung steadily in favour of Boris Johnson.
That may have been the case. Most of the top viral videos were pro-Labour. But that doesn’t seem to have translated into more votes.
Social media users are not necessarily representative of the UK. Research by Pew suggests that users of Twitter, and to a lesser extent Facebook, skew young, left, and pro-EU, while older voters – who are more likely to vote Conservative – are less likely to be active on social media.
There will be more analysis in the coming days, but it’s clear that we have yet another reason to look below the surface when it comes to politics online.
Infinite pledges made voters distrustful Corbyn’s sincerity or integrity
The Labour manifesto seemed like it was saying everything and anything to convince people to vote labour rather than actually setting out a clear and comprehensible strategy for government.
One campaign pledge to the next // Alamy Live News
From the free government WiFi to free tuition fees that seem to cater more towards bribing the youth vote than actually running the country, it isn’t hard to see why this was met with a healthy dose of aged scepticism. In fact, Labour almost exclusively courted the youth vote and neglected anyone over 30 living outside London
Older generations have paid tax all their lives. When they approach retirement, the direction of that cash flow can reverse. They don’t want to see the entitled youth of today take all their hard-earned money and fritter it away on fancies exclusively targeted at the young.
The older generations saw right through the bombardment of flaky promises by Labour every time they looked like they were slipping in the polls. They have lived through countless expedient political careers to know better. And this catering to a certain audience by Labour marks a clear social discord between young and old in Britain today.
Everyone suffers from the segregation of the old and young
Older people bring a sense of the big picture, stories and experiences to those younger than themselves. Young people keep their elders in touch with new ideas and a changing world. Both give each other a broader understanding of life and the things we all have in common.
In Europe, the number of people over 65 already exceeds those under 15. As Britain ages, the young are more than ever not privy to the wisdom of their elders; and the older generations aren’t shown the brave new world.
By reconsidering the nature of the intergenerational contract as a means for growth and learning, rather than one of obligation, we can create a whole new world of opportunities for everyone.
#OKBoomer Age Bashing
Youth bashing isn’t the exclusive province of older people. Young people get into it too, especially those inclined to sentimentality.
Millennials are sick of baby boomers telling them what life is like. They get terrible advice like “just go out and get a job”. Young people have entered the job market during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression into considerably a more competitive working world, demanding higher qualifications and experience dilemmas – you need it to get it. They had to fight to establish themselves.
Education the dividing line in British politics, not age? // Sky News
Ok Boomer is not so much tied to age as it is to people embodying a certain form of cultural logic that tends to speak down or place blame on Gen-Z. It seems to relate to the inability to see past one’s own experiences to engage with those of others who are different. A Peter-Pan-esque mentality toward cultural norms and changing societies. What is sorely lacking from the discussion, if it is had in the first place, is compassion and understanding.
This old chestnut is quite provocative, to say the least. Outright denying the agency and concerns of the young as willful ignorance or naivety.
As if the politics and ideologies on how people should be treated are to be dismissed as poppycock and gobbledegook simply because they haven’t reached the sheer wisdom of one’s fifties. Perhaps if they haven’t altered their view from Labour to Tory by then, the goalposts will shift once more.
Are we a damaged generation?
Gregg Easterbrook wrote in Washington Monthly, condemning the collective youth in a piece titled “Fear of Success.” He accused the era’s twentysomethings of longing for boring and unchallenging jobs, self-sabotaging their romantic relationships, and even refusing to vote for fear of believing in change. This damaged generation, he wrote, “believe[s] it foolish to gamble for accomplishments when accomplishments will cause more to be expected of [them].”
“They have become too distracted by their screens or are slaves to frivolity. Young people don’t speak of their own experience, but rather, they’re speaking in contrast to someone else’s.”
Gregg Easterbrook’s “Fear of Success”
Filth Down From London, Exclusion by Derogatory Acronym
It is this constant comparison and unrealistic expectations of living standards that have given rise to the phenomenon of the “DFLS” – “down from London” or “Filth” – “Failed in London, tried Hastings”. The high cost of living in London has pushed young people out to marginal seats where they have been targeted by Labour’s election campaigning to “turn them red”.
Young people have been raised to expect their life would always get better. They are frustrated by stagnating living standards and prospects that better reflect their reality than those they feel entitled to.
Parents falling out with their kids over voting patterns shows the disdain young have for the older cultural ideologies they feel don’t deserve unchallenged acceptance at face value. The new generations do not play by the rules of “respect your elders” on an automatic basis. They shun blind acceptance of ideals and critiques solely based on your age, an approach no better than the identity politics Boomers constantly whine about. You are not who you are to everyone, and blanket respect is considered meaningless. Trust needs to be earned in 2019, it isn’t given unconditionally.
Full Circle
Labour’s overdependence on winning over the 18-35 voters may have contributed to the Tory landslide for both the failure of the young and their campaign teams to appreciate the British electoral fold.
Their strategies misjudged the turnout of old versus young because of the exceedingly different cultural ideologies at play as society drifts further and further apart with each generation.
The Electoral Commission says only 71% of 18-34-year-olds are correctly registered. While Corbyn seems authentic and genuine to this age demographic, the Brexit issue and other manifesto contradictions made him appear instead of acting on principle, he was just doing anything to get elected. Desperation is easy to sense, and regardless of your walk of life – dating to sales – is rarely appealing.
Common Sense Perspective
The reasons for the abysmal performance may be attributable to many different factors in British society that a youth turnout couldn’t overcome. From the dissipated enthusiasm since 2017 where Theresa May’s U-Turn on Social Care was easy to attack as a “dementia tax” and people rallied around their new Tribune Jeremy Corbyn’s Momentum movement for real change. Or the consistency in turnout between young voters as the British
Election Study supposing 40-50% 2017 was consistent with 2019 and 2015, showing the engagement was more media fluff. Or maybe it was Boris Johnson gave little meat on the bone to pick for Labour, eschewing TV debates and the interview with Andrew O’Neill.
Others have pointed toward Labour abandoning its traditional voting base of the working class or discontented populations up and down Britain in favour of Extinction Rebellion young idealists, creating a contradiction they cannot surmount. Maybe the best explanation is this wasn’t really a general election at all. Maybe it was a confirmatory referendum in disguise. Britain, a people fed up with dillydallying around, making them a laughing stock of the global community, voted on their feet to demand a resolution with the only viable candidate they saw.
On the 22nd of November 2019, the crime drama movie Blue Story was released to cinemas in the UK. The film has been the centre of immense controversy revolving around the glamorisation of gang culture in cinema and society. The film’s mixed reviews has prompted discussion regarding whether or not the ban is justified, the best ways to combat gang violence and how previous strategies proved to be ineffective.
The movie is a feature adaption of British music producer, rapper and director, Andrew Onwubolu’s, (also known as Rapman) YouTube series about two London youths who have become embroiled in a street war. Set in Peckham, South London, the film depicts the effects of ‘postcode rivalry’ on youngsters growing up in areas where gang violence is rife. However, after a Birmingham screening of the movie in Star City took a violent turn, the film has been banned from various other cinemas across the country. Rapman released a statement saying, “kids in gangs aren’t spawns of Satan…I am not trying to justify, I just want to show you what these boys are fighting for.” Questions have arisen over whether the feature film aims to promote and glamorise the lifestyle it depicts. Others have countered this by calling the ban on the movie unjustified and racially motivated.
Blue Story official trailer.
Blue Story Origins
The screenplay of Blue Story was inspired by the concept of Rapman’s online series ‘Shiro’s Story’ that focused on similar subjects. With the lead actor from the Netflix series Top boy, Michael Ward, starring in the film, it continues to incorporate common underlying themes of deprivation, alienation and acceptance that is prevalent in estates where gang violence is commonplace.
The film is said to be a cautionary tale that aims to highlight the banality and futility of gang violence and its impact on the lives of young people. More than that, however, it aims to provide a narrative on how this prolonged issue of local violence leads to corrupted innocence and entrenches a sense of fatalism in the young people who are caught up in postcode feuds.
How the cast and director of Blue Story have defended the accusation of the movie glamorising gang violence.
However, many would argue otherwise as a brawl between 5 young teenagers, including a 13-year-old girl, broke out in Star City Birmingham, swayed the opinions of the public. When weapons were found at the scene of the disorderly behaviour, including machetes and tasers, it lead officials to come to the consensus that those involved in the fight were prompted by the narrative shown in Blue Story – a theory that can be neither consolidated nor refuted. This eventually lead to Blue Story being pulled from Vue’s 91 outlets in the UK. The situation was described by the director Rapman as ‘extremely unfortunate.’ By banning the movie, the problem of gang violence stays firmly entrenched within society as fewer people are exposed to the difficulties faced by young people that are ensnared, due to the nature of their circumstances, in gang culture. This results in a limited understanding of how to tackle the problem from the onset, opening up further discussion around how to effectively combat gang violence and whether films that relay the intricacies of these situations are entirely useless, provoking or genuinely effective.
Evidently, the scope of the problem is huge. Measures need to be put in place to curb the severity of criminal activity in such areas and to protect the lives of young vulnerable people who are geographically linked to the problem. The schemes that have been put in place, however, to countervail the issue of knife crime and gang violence have not always been met with public support – the banning of Blue Story being amongst the measures that have received backlash.
Earlier this year, over 300,000 customised chicken boxes were issued with the words #knifefree on the packaging – part of the Home Office’s strategy to reduce knife-related crime in the area. The scheme was met with extreme disapproval from the public. Many saw the scheme as at best condescending and at worst a form of racial profiling – ultimately an unsuccessful endeavour. The below tweets reflects this notion.
British Broadcaster, Jasmine Dotiwala highlighting how the campaign is almost comical and missing the point.
“I can see the racist connotation. I’m not sure if I’d say racist or stereotype but it’s in that bracket.”
Elijah Quashie, also known as the Chicken Connoisseur on Youtube in BBC’s Wake up to Money in regards to the #knifefree campaign.
Labour MP, David Lammy Criticising the insensitivity of the campaign.
The same sentiments can be applied to banning Blue Story as a result of a potentially unrelated violent incident in Star City. It can be argued that this is a projection of an inherent racial bias that the majority hold when looking at gang violence and knife crime. The victim of this bias being young black boys – as illustrated in the #freeknife crime chicken shop campaign.
By removing something that aims to clarify the motivations of gang-related violence and uproots the very origins of the issue, this strategy is counterproductive. It essentially sends a message to the affected communities and prevents the use of an effective tool to take action against violent conduct. Unlike chicken boxes, a more effective local approach to London based gang violence includes the creation of the Young Londoners Fund. With a total investment of £45 million pounds into the initiative, 222 recreational projects have been developed benefitting over 73,700 Londoners. When contrasted with schemes such as this that aim to help support young people and make them proactive in alternate fields, the banning of similar creative projects such as Bue Story contradicts the positive impact of successful community initiatives that are statistically proven to be make a tangible difference.
However, it can be argued that although the message portrayed in the movie is one that aims to deconstruct the intentions of those involved in local gang crime and provides a more nuanced understanding of how young people are sucked into such situations – it still may not contribute to solving the issue. The reason for this is the innate nature of filmmaking and the natural inclination to glamourise certain aspects of the movie to make it more ‘aesthetically pleasing’ or perhaps to streamline the narrative. This ‘Hollywood gloss’ could potentially detract from the rawness of the story and the crude reality of the situations presented in the movie – perhaps inadvertently glamorising or reducing the impact of the harrowing circumstances and state of affairs that are being portrayed. A similar situation was seen earlier in 2017 when the Netflix series 13 Reasons Why was released. The series was seen to also deal with sensitive issues involving mental illness, bullying and acceptance but received immense backlash for romanticising the notion of depression and undermining the crux of the message.
In summary, whether Blue Story glamorises gang violence or not is fundamentally a subjective question. If such large scale multimedia projects are not effective at dealing with the issue at hand, then other tactical methods that will hone public understanding around gang violence need to be implemented in order to stop gang violence once and for all.
December 12th 2019 there will be a general election to vote on who will run the country. The election is one that will shape the country for the better or worse.
At present, the country is run by a conservative government and Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
With the upcoming elections happening at a time where politics has become increasingly divisive, lets look at the three major parties manifestos and their possible effects on the black community.
Source: labourlist.org
Labour Government Scrapping University Fees
Right , protests with signs saying “Free education tax the rich #GrantsNotDebt” to the right Leader of the Labour party Jeremy Corbyn who plans to scrap tuition fees. Source: workersliberty.org
Tuition fees were introduced across the entire United Kingdom in September 1998. Under the Labour government, to fund university tuition to undergraduate and postgraduate certificates, students were required to pay up to £1,000 a year for tuition.
With tuition fees currently at £9,250 a year, scrapping them could come as a welcome package to many from the black community. Tuition fees make university harder to afford and so may disproportionately affect the black community, preventing equal numbers of black students attending.
The scrapping of the fees however does not deal with other institutional issues.
Another study in 2018 found that whilst black candidates make up 9% of UCAS application over a five-year period, 52% of their applications were investigated for potentially fraudulent activity (Weale & Duncan 2018).
Black students were therefore 21 times more likely to be investigated than their white peers, causing many commentators to call out a biased and prejudiced screening process, rendering black students at an unfair disadvantage. If Britain is to be a fair and inclusive society, education as an integral form of socialization must reinforce and reflect this. To scrap the fees are not enough but the accessibility of the entire process must be addressed.
Liberal Democrats
Right is cannabis, left is the leader of the Liberal Democrats Jo Swinson who vows to decriminalise cannabis and raise £1.5bn in Tax Source: metro.co.uk
Young men from a black and ethnic minority (BAME) background make up about 51 per cent of the UK’s youth prison population, despite constituting just 13 per cent of the population at large. The impact has been disproportionate on black people in particular through stop and search. Many sitting in jail for cannabis-related crimes are black, but cannabis legalisation and the profits that come from it will be primarily in the hands of white men.
Estimates suggest the global legal cannabis industry will grow to $66.3bn by 2023. Many black people will not own the means of production and it will mean big profits to those who want to make money from what has long been a moral, criminal and ethical issue, without attending to the problems inherent in the justice system.
Mental health has become a more widely discussed topic in recent years. However in the black community, mental health is still somewhat of a taboo subject, causing a vicious cycle in which people still feel unable to engage fully with mental health services.
The risk of psychosis in Black Caribbean groups is estimated to be nearly seven times higher than in the white population. Detention rates under the Mental Health Act during 2017/18 were four times higher for people in the ‘Black’ or ‘Black British’ group than those in the White group.
Mental health must not be purely tokenistic and used for political gain, especially the youth vote. Better policies and increased funding would certainly empower the BAME community, but parties must understand their specific racial/cultural impacts and include the voices of BAME people in their creation. BAME young people are twice as likely as their white British peers to access mental health through courts and custodial sentences, rather than voluntarily through their GP. They are also more likely to refer themselves through informal routes such as youth workers. Understanding these specific barriers and unique differences with accessibility and stigma could help to tackle higher detention and institutionalisation rates, rather than a one-fits-all approach.
Between 2010 and 2019, nearly nine out of ten (87 per cent) of councils reduced spending on youth services by 50%, due to budget squeezes, reducing spending per young person by over 75 per cent by half of the councils.
According to “London’s Lost Youth Services report found that in five councils alone, “12,700 places had been lost due to cuts – extrapolated across all 32 boroughs, this equates to 81,280 places for young people are no longer available.”
Accessible and inclusive youth services provide a non-stigmatising support system and a barrier before young black boys especially meet the criminal justice system.
Current Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party Boris Johnson Source: yougov.uk
20,000 Extra Police Officers
20,000 extra police have been a much-repeated Conservative party promise from this election campaign. Regardless of the fact this only puts numbers back to pre-austerity levels and also doesn’t account for 3.5 million more UK citizens since 2010, there are other fundamental issues for the black community this also overlooks.
With police forces having less spending and increasing numbers without addressing the integral issues the community faces, alongside the evident distrust caused within the black community, more police officers will not solve this but may actually make this worse. With PCSO and other community police officers down by 40% and overall numbers at their lowest since 2009, creating a force that serves all communities will take much more than mere bobbies on the beat.
Voting in this time is a monumental task as a vote for one party could help the black community or continue to disadvantage them. Brexit discussions are crowding the headlines, but representation of issues important to our communities are vital. When choosing to vote it is imperative you do your research individually and decide what is best for you, to vote for a party you genuinely believe in. There is no time to be politically apathetic. Let’s be politically engaged and help empower the black community under the right leadership.
