On Sunday night, as results from the 2019 European Elections came trickling through, there was a clear message: Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party (which was created only six weeks ago) won 31.6% of the overall British vote, with Farage maintaining his role as MEP for the South East. Labour and Conservatives faced huge losses and the newly formed Change UK limped in last place, winning no seats.
The story looks to be the same across most of Europe. Though official results have yet to be fully confirmed, initial projections suggest that voters were divided between far-left and centre/far right parties.
In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (previously known as National Front) dominated with 24% of the vote, beating President Emmanuel Macron.
Italy’s nationalist party Lega also topped their results with 34%. Their leader, Matteo Salvini, has maintained a right-wing populist relationship with Le Pen, the Freedom Party of Austria, and Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. Notably, Wilders lost all of his seats in parliament.
Meanwhile, Green parties have swept up votes in Germany (taking 20% of the votes), Portugal and some Nordic countries.
Scotland, who overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU, awarded three of its six MEP seats to SNP candidates: Alyn Smith, Christian Allard and Aileen McLeod. Labour won no seats in Scotland.
Centrist parties in Denmark had a surprisingly good night – possibly as a result of the Danish system of constant coalition in their parliament.
So What Do These Results Tell Us?
It has become clear that people are generally no longer happy to support centrist parties and are seeking to shake up the establishment, in either direction. Support for Green parties clearly derive from environmental concerns and a need to do something about climate change, whilst centre right parties that have positioned themselves as anti-establishment have faired better than those who campaigned on a particularly nationalist or anti-immigration platform.
In the UK, Labour and Conservative have lost a combined total of 23 seats. The Tories are no doubt suffering as a result of delays to Brexit negotiations, mass resignations in May’s cabinet, and the upcoming leadership contest.
Why Labour Lost?
The explanation for Labour’s loss is slightly trickier. Corbyn was elected leader by a huge majority (59.5%) in 2015 and seemed to herald a new radical shift in leftist politics. Momentum, the grassroots campaign founded that same year, mobilised in tactical seats to increase Labour support in areas with small Tory majorities. But since the EU referendum, Labour’s position on Brexit has been less than clear. Whilst the departure of those like Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger to form Change UK won’t have moved Labour’s younger and more radical supporters, it does speak to a general dissatisfaction at the lack of clarity towards EU membership. Alastair Campbell was even today expelled from the Labour party after admitting to voting for the Liberal Democrats in this week’s European elections. In Scotland, the SNP have shown themselves to be the real opposition to the government and took both of Labour’s MEP seats this week.
We were not supposed to be voting in the European elections; it became necessary when we failed to agree to a deal before the original leave date. For a party to then not campaign for the very issue that put us in this position was incomprehensible.
The results from the European elections show that pro-Remain leftist parties such as the Liberal Democrats have hoovered up votes that Labour has lost. Young people have historically been pro-European membership and this may have won over even those burned by the hike in tuition fees back in 2012. Young people also tend to be more focused on environmental issues which could explain the increase in support for Green parties. The visibility of Extinction Rebellion and the school strikes for climate change have brought this issue to the forefront and may have contributed to more Green support.
But the success of anti-EU parties (including the Brexit Party) also shows a worrying trend towards isolationist and nationalist policies. Nigel Farage, a man who has cosied up to white supremacists like Steve Bannon and Viktor Orban, has positioned himself as a man of the people despite being a former banker. He attempted to distance himself from Tommy Robinson, despite them pushing the same rhetoric of a Britain in danger from immigration. Meanwhile, many high profile Conservatives have publicly announced their disappointment at Theresa May’s failure to achieve anything in regards to Brexit, leading many to join Farage’s new party.
This confirms that the question of EU membership divides deeper than traditional party lines. British politics no longer looks like Labour vs Conservative but pro and anti-EU. Whilst the Brexit Party may have won the majority of seats, a left wing coalition of pro-EU parties (comprising Lib Dem, Greens and SNP) would have pipped them to the post. Parties can no longer rely on the support of their members if they are failing to deliver a clear message on the immediate issue of EU membership. Brexit is clogging up our political system but it shows no sign of leaving any time soon. It’s imperative for parties to make a real effort to convey their stance to the public and explain exactly how they plan to resolve it.
Nigel Farage has fallen victim to milkshake attacks, following Carl Benjamin and Tommy Robinson. Farage is paying the price for milking populist Brexit sentiment.
With voters deserting the major parties, desserts now appear to be making a splash. A straw poll suggested Mr Farage could scoop a victory and cream off votes from the Conservatives. However today, Mr Farage was taken to the cleaners.
But the key take-away, is that Brexit does comes in a variety of flavours and consistencies: from soft to hard. With a plain vanilla Brexit now unpopular with voters, the debate will continue until the cows come home. Whatever the outcome, UK politics has been shaken up.
Enter ‘Milkgate’
Those on the left complain about Farage as a politician
whose rhetoric and vitriol assisted in leading to an MP Jo Cox being shot and
stabbed, while he complains about a milkshake being the wrong flavour. For some,
he is a far-right demagogue and aspiring dictator, desperate to turn the UK
into a carbon copy of the US, replete with privatised healthcare.
Incidentally, we were a reasonable and tolerant society. Note, past tense. We overlooked Liam Fox abusing public expenses to bring his friends on a free holiday while alleging to be on government business. We tolerated other MPs stealing money from the public purse by expense fiddling. Before that we tolerated the government closing factories and mines and leaving millions of people without rehabilitation, retraining or hope. And we tolerate a quarter of UK children living in poverty and 14 million in the country according to the UN Poverty Report for the UK which only 14 MPs debated.
Perhaps some have had enough?
Today Milkshakes, Tomorrow Bike Locks?
Maybe some individuals are not tolerant at all. They may
claim they are. But they are not. And this need not be exclusive to ‘far-right’
activists. It could be applied to those on the ‘far-left’ or religious groups
that brand you a ‘fascist’ or similar for not automatically agreeing with their
worldview or accommodating theirs. You are simply out to stir up discontent and
spread hatred.
If today is milkshakes, then tomorrow is drain cleaner; the
day after battery acid, and then before you know it is terrorism. It’s a
slippery slope, but it should not be taken lightly considering Britain is one
of the few nations on earth that enjoys such high tolerance.
Brits are generally a reasonable bunch. What is curious is that
even when people do lose the plot, the UK’s weapon of choice is egging, cream
pies and now the milkshake. Politicians know the risk they are running, that
from time to time they are likely to be peppered with some soft non-lethal
foodstuff.
Other countries elections involve guns, knives and bombs. Brazilian
President, Jair Bolsonaro’s election campaign saw him stabbed while in a parade
march.
Britain comes from a long history of heckling and clearing
out the kitchen pantry on politicians we disagreed with. Not so long ago, ink
was the projectile of choice. Such visceral discontent with a viewpoint drives
people to resort to such public displays of hostility. Jeremy Corbyn, Labour
leader of the opposition, was egged in a Mosque; through to Tommy Robinson and Conservative
campaigner Colm Lock at the Conservative Party Conference. It doesn’t matter
what the politics is – it is about demonstrating in a physical manner, their
dissent of the views expressed.
Should we be tolerant of this at all? Perhaps we would be
better off being an intolerant society. Intolerant of violence no matter how
seemingly trivial.
Generally, the perpetrators are caught by the various police
overseeing and then serve a short jail spell or community service to ensure
these events don’t go further.
The man who threw the milkshake over Farage in Newcastle,
Paul Crowther, has been charged with common assault and criminal damage for the
incident.
It seems an accord was reached in England after the Battle
of Cable Street in 1936 that violence would not be tolerated on British soil. Oswald
Mosley’s British Union of Fascists had one of their members blinded by being
struck with an iron bar by anti-fascist demonstrators.
The Lactose Intolerant Society – An Exercise in Moral Relativity?
We have already lost Jo Cox and UKIP’s Carl Benjamin has
been talking about raping MP Jess Philips.
Just this week Tory Councillor in Lanarkshire, Scotland, Graeme Campbell and wife Fiona had their BMW firebombed outside their home, destroying some of their house and damaging their neighbour’s home. Were a passer-by not banging on the front door alerting them to the danger, they may have all suffocated or been engulfed by flames. Mr Campbell commented, “Whoever did this is trying to bully me and get me to shut up and back off from a particular case.”
To say “it’s only milkshakes” is to use moral relativity and
self-proclaimed moral superiority to justify aggression by branding opposition
as evil and you as virtuous. Moral relativity believes there is no universal standard
of right and wrong, but judgements are based entirely on the context of time
and place: when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
When you do this, the standards as to how we should all
equally operate in political discourse disintegrates, and all bets are off. It started
with Pim Fortuyn having food thrown at him in 2002. He was later assassinated.
The reality stands that throwing a milkshake at someone is a violation of
personal space and therefore a violence act. The trouble with moral relativity,
is its potential to escalate. One day it is milkshakes, the next it is bike
locks. You give a mouse a cookie, it will want a glass of milk.
There isn’t really a good justification for progressives to
radicalise others against these political bogeymen, all on the basis they have
subjectively deemed all who do not think like them as fascists. Such a strict
stance becomes problematic because it only makes sense if everyone to the right
of them is by default a fascist. Were they to admit none of their opponents are
fascists, or even all that fond of big government (Farage), never mind a
totalitarian one (Robinson), their whole ideology falls apart. Then they would
be faced with the reality that far from being the paragons of virtue they see
themselves as. Instead, they would have to come to terms with the reality of
being a rather unpleasant bunch of people.
Mainstream
Media Polarising Discourse
The irresponsibility of the mainstream media in failing to condemn
these milkshake acts is damaging to the fabric of political discourse and
encourages fundamentalism, polarising those across the political channels.
Tony Blair recognised the disservice it is doing to Remainers, showing they have lost the debate in resorting to such tactics. He commented on Farage’s milkshaking with: “We’ve got to get out of this situation where if you disagree with someone, you stop them speaking, you disrupt their meetings, you throw things over them, it’s ridiculous.”
Asked whether he admired Nigel Farage, Mr Blair responded:
“I think he’s an effective communicator, so I admire that bit of him, but
I disagree with him.”
Ricky Gervais, another Remainer, thinks that they have “run
out of good arguments”.
While mainstream media overlooks these attacks as innocuous,
they also give far too much airtime to individuals like Farage. This leads to a
sense of despair among those with alternative views who feel he is being given
too much media exposure and have little other option but to use milkshakes to
silence or suppress them. Exposure that is hate speech or in the case of Brexit
campaigning lies and misleading the gullible voters astray with false promises.
In so doing, dividing opinion further between Remain and Leave, while also
being accused of spreading xenophobia and nationalist sentiment without rebuke.
Whether or not our great-grandchildren are taught about the
milkshake wars in school in 100 years or not, who knows. What should be
acknowledged is the people that throw milkshakes and then appear shocked they
have been hit in the face several times are the type of people that display
awards for the parent finishing 6th in the parent’s egg and spoon
race on their child’s sports days.
Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance
There is tolerance, and then there is letting foul beliefs
propagate without being challenged adequately so the discourse balance falls
out of equilibrium.
Karl Popper expressed the seemingly paradoxical idea in ‘The
Open Society and its Enemies’ during WWII that, “In order to maintain a
tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.”
If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be
tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. This can be
animal right’s activists that would force everybody to be vegan, through to
antifa demonstrators committing violent acts to suppress alternative thought,
or nationalists presenting xenophobic speeches and marches. It is not an exclusive
necessary condition they must be right-wing and ‘radical’. Popper believed we
should reserve the right to suppress intolerant individuals if necessary, should
they not meet us with rational argument.
Where we are not adequately prepared to defend against such
an onslaught, for instance, by keeping intolerant individuals in check with
public opinion and rational argument; we will eventually cede in giving them
the freedom to remove tolerance themselves. Then they will dictate the terms of
play and who gets to participate or engage in public discourse. History is
littered with this descent into tyranny, with the fall of the Roman Republic
and the rise of Hitler being two notable examples.
While milkshakes are not very tolerant or respectful of
different viewpoints, many feel it is hard to fight Farage & Co’s
bombardment. This is largely because they are rather well-informed and eloquently
persuasive as Tony Blair points out. They appeal with simple, easily digestible
and memorable attacks that are difficult to counter with debate, especially for
many who struggle to put their thoughts and feelings into such silver-tongued defences.
The danger that arises with giving too much freedom to
intolerant people is radicalisation. Intolerant people spread propaganda,
pseudoscience or brainwash you with religious beliefs to win you over to their
cause. This can take the shape and size of anything from the echo chambers of small
social media threads to terrorist organisations like ISIS.
European Election Campaign Bloodbath
While Mr Farage came back the next day with his suit freshly
dry cleaned, his Brexit party has certainly swept the floor at the European
elections. Whether his party is simply a protest vote against the shameful
gridlock and in-faction bickering in the Tories is unknown. But if the 2016 Brexit
Referendum is anything to go by, there is underlying nationalist sentiment to
protect our small isle from hoards of African or Arabic invaders, including by
those immigrants whose families migrated here after 1945 to help Britain
rebuild.
How we deal
with intolerance?
What is unlikely to go away anytime soon is some protester
who’s prepared to spend some time in a cell for spoiling another politician’s
suit. How we deal with intolerance will continue to plague British society.
Whether it is banning social media access to individuals like Tommy Robinson,
removing their platforms to campaign and effectively put across their message;
through to tackling antifa or nationalist sects. We should take heed in Popper’s
message from his paradox of tolerance. To suppress freedom of speech too much
is a step toward authoritarian rule, and to allow its free rein to go unchecked
may lead to demagogues seizing the microphones and rallying in the streets.
Whatever vision you may have for society, it is an intractable
problem. Every way of thinking that now exists, ever has or ever will, is
lodged deep in the minds of the designers of that way of thinking. There is no
way out of the dilemma. Filter bubbles (echo chambers) from censorship,
selective reporting and as we move further online, algorithms with the sole
purpose of only reinforcing our belief systems; moral relativism is a fact of
human experience that will never be solved. Thereby, to subjectively claim
righteous superiority over another’s differing belief system takes us places we
really don’t want to repeat from history.
Given the level of interaction going on today in cosmopolitan Britain, the moral relativists are signing us all up for WWIII or a more discerning yet seditious politician to pursue their own righteous vision that only they can see for British society, leading to authoritarian rule. The question of how to settle disputes between these cultures remains unanswered bar suggestions of ‘integration’ and ‘inclusivity’. It’s like cranking up the Fahrenheit for the frog in a pan of water being brought to the boil, just tell me when to stop…
Thousands of young people left schools to protest for more action on climate change.
Many adolescences are calling on politicians and corporations to take immediate action. The protests took place all over the world. More than 1,400 cities and more than 110 countries planned to protest. It is said that the protest would top March’s demonstration at 1.4 million people early this year.
Frequent protest are taking place as there is a demand to see action instantly, as time is running out for people change the direction before it’s too late.
The UN’s leading scientists warned that there is just 12 years until climate catastrophe last year. Now in a new report it said the widespread downfall of ecosystems was putting humanity at risk. There are also reports that the Arctic ice is melting quicker that previously feared.
Climate Change Strikes take place across the world
School strikes were inspired by Greta Thunburg, who is a student. She is recognized globally since protesting outside Sweden’s parliament demanding change. She told TIME magazine that “Young people who are in developing countries are sacrificing their education in order to protest against the destruction of their future and world.”
Her action sparked a chain of movements in different counties across Europe, the US, Canada and Australia, branded as Fridays for Future or School Strike for Climate.
Recently Australia has had its hottest summer yet and climate change is seen as the cause, not just there but all over world causing droughts, heatwaves, floods and melted glaciers.
Last month Greta met with Westminster party leaders to highlight the problems we’re facing if we don’t act now.
Noga Levy-Rapoprt, UK Student Climate Network said “In order to properly address the crisis, we need our educational institutions to be hubs of sustainability that provide a space for learning and teaching to prepare today’s students to not only be those that lead a just transition, but to prepare for a changing world.”
As climate change is high on the agenda of politicians as a pressing matter, the Labour party says it would make climate change part of the curriculum from primary school onwards if it gained power following the announcement of school students walking out of schools to protest.
We’re all in this one together. Palestinian and Israeli teens strike together for the #climate.
The curriculum would involve equipping young people with the skills and knowledge needed to deal with the changing environment, in particular renewable energy.
Angela Rayner, shadow education secretary said “We need to equip people with the knowledge to understand the enormous changes we face, and skills to work with the new green technologies that we must develop to deal with them.
“That must be part of a broad education and that prepares pupils for adult life. Climate change should be a core part of the school curriculum, and under a Labour government it will be.”
Joe Brindle, a youth strike movement campaigner, said: “Putting climate change at the forefront of our education system has been one of the core demands of the student climate strikes in the UK, so the announcement from Labour is an important step forward for the climate justice movement.”
Some students have vowed to continue protesting on Fridays until their countries agree/adhere to the 2015 Paris Climate agreement. The agreement aims to prevent global temperatures from rising above pre-industrial levels.
Dolline is a traveller, journalist and blogger who has palate to try new things. She is a very spontaneous person; you might find her skydiving over the Kenyan coast to kayaking in the Lake District. She can be an over thinker who thinks of every outcome but if she doesn’t she welcomes the change that wasn’t planned. However, she is a very simple person who is up for a good laugh or a book and enjoys living the moment. Dolline also writes for her small personal blog called ‘Swatches of Beauty’ and is currently a production journalist trainee at ITV Border.
What better way to enrich one’s knowledge with sophisticated ideas, increase socialisation and learn to take on the role of being an adult than attending university straight out of higher education.
Since the beginning of the new millennium, the number of students that attend university has skyrocketed from 15.3 million in 2000 to 19.9 million in 2018, according to the National Centre for Education statistics. It is evident that university has certainly become a popular choice amongst millennials and Generation Z.
Despite this, many people have also decided against attending a university for a plethora of reasons; wanting to escape the stressful conditions of schooling, accessing opportunities elsewhere through apprenticeships or internships, the list goes on. However, one of the biggest reasons for opting out is to avoid the impending debt a university degree can bring.
In the United States, university fees have been increasing since the 1980s, the average degree per year costing around $19,000 (public university) to almost $40,000 (at a private institution). This rounds up to around $80,000 to $160,000 of debt (before interest) by the end of university education. This is only for a undergraduate degree, we haven’t even added up the figures for further education to higher study such as law school or studying for a masters. The UK has been following a similar trend but has always been slightly under the cost of US fees (depending on whether one is a home or an international student)
Animation of the weight of student debt (SOURCE kickstarter.com)
Some work tirelessly and continuously throughout their
degree whilst juggling classes and coursework, others are given money by
parents who have worked tirelessly to save up enough and a growing number also take
more unorthodox routes, all in the pursuit to dispose of their debts.
But wouldn’t it be great if these debts could just be paid
off by an anonymous benefactor?
Billionaire Robert F. Smith pledges to eradicate the student debts of the Class of 2019
Robert F Smith, the billionaire who pledged to pay off the debts of the Morehouse class of 2019
Not so anonymous Robert F. Smith has done just that. On 19th of May the billionaire and recipient of an honorary doctorate on the campus of the HBCU Morehouse College announced that he would be giving a gift $1.5 million to the university.
The investor surprised an audience of 400 graduating seniors
and staff when he announced that he would eliminate the debt of the 2019 Class
Smith described his investment as “fuel” in the bus which
the graduates will be boarding into the future. A metaphor which alludes to his
belief in the graduating class, that they could go far, but faster and a little
easier with some financial aid. Unlike a loan which might have slowed down
their inevitable success, Smith’s money will eradicate the stress of paying
back interest loaded loans.
Billionaire Robert F. Smith giving a speech at Morehouse College to the graduating class fo 2019 (SOURCE indiaglitz.com)
Actress and Activist Angela Bassett who also received an honorary degree on Sunday, referenced the graduate as Rev. Martin Luther King and suggested that the class of 2019 “emulate him, but take their own path” but also warned them to be wary of the future, ready for its obstacles, as well as thrive in their potential.
There is no say what new benefactors could be attracted to the graduating class of perhaps 2020, if that is even possible or whether this was a once in a lifetime miracle. What is definite is that most people will probably not have to fortune of this kind of generosity.
The UK rarely sees big opportunities like this, bar the extremely generous all-expense paid for university contributions by the rapper Stormzy in 2018 for black students aiming to get into Cambridge.
Long term debt is of course in the minds of all students who
attend university, or at least the ones who have to take out loans in order to
attend university, being the large majority of them.
Is it worth it?
However are degrees really worth what they cost? Today, almost anyone can obtain one and a question of whether we actually develop the skills to be able to succeed as outstanding citizens and prosperously throughout life in university is constantly in question. Due to the staggering number of students attending university, the competition for the best jobs is no longer one between the 1st and 2:1 obtained degrees, university prestige and whether one even has a degree but practical skills.
Animation of the job hiring selection process (SOURCE execunet.com)
This is clear as today thousands of graduates are still finding it extremely difficult to acquire a job especially in the industry or career they have the set skills for from their university subjects.
What is also as important is the things people take part in outside of their degree. Personal projects, extra-curricular activities, internships, volunteering work the list goes on. The job market has become a competition of who has had the most experience in a variety of different environments and has developed transferable skills from them. Statistics show that even most people don’t even directly use their degree in their eventual line of work.
Moreover, it is of course a blessing to have debt eradicated
especially during the stressful time of transitioning from semi adult to full
adult life and the working world. However, to what extent does university education
direct us into a positive further.
The Brexit Party, founded by Nigel Farage January 2019, is the political party that is campaigning for Britain to exit the EU. The Electoral Commission has announced their intention to review the Brexit Party’s financial funding.
This comes following Gordon Brown’s comments at a Labour rally
in Glasgow, where he told the crowd that the commission had the authority to
carry out live investigations into political parties during elections and issue
interim statements where there are concerns regarding a parties funding.
Brown bases this on the current method of donation the Brexit
Party have open for their supporters. The party currently accepts donations via
PayPal, which allows for foreign, untraceable and anonymous donations.
Political gifts under £500.01 do not have to be declared, which opens the door
for illicit or illegal payments to be paid to the party.
Brown proclaimed at the rally that Farage “is not going to be remembered, as he wants, as the man of the people. He’s going to be remembered as the man of the Paypal, because that is where the money is coming from…”
Farage appears to have form for questionable funding
decisions, as two days ago it was revealed that he is being investigated by the
EU parliament for failing to declare that he was receiving benefits from Aron Banks
in the form of travel and accommodation expenses between 2016 and 2017. Such
benefits are estimated to be worth up to £450,000 and were left undeclared on Farage’s
register of interests. If found to have broken EU Parliament rules, he will be
fined up to €10,000.
Brown also called for European Parliament to investigate the
finances of the Brexit Party.
Farage responded, saying that Brown committed an “absolutely
disgusting smear” against his party.
Richard Tice, co-founder and chairman of the Brexit Party, has also defended all payments as legitimate. He tweeted: “The Brexit Party only receives money in [british pound] sterling. The offer stands to send a BBC journalist to come and look at our PayPal account.”
The Brexit Party only receives money in sterling. The offer stands to send a BBC journalist to come and look at our PayPal account. https://t.co/PR8A8nlPVx
It seems that once again, Brexit campaigners are under fire for unlawful practices. Last year the Electoral Commission announced that the Vote Leave Campaign had broken electoral law.
So, it’s happened. After a tenure as Prime Minister categorised by her seemingly unshakeable resistance to resigning, Theresa May has officially declared that she is stepping down on 7th June.
While this move is an undeniably crucial and historic one, it’s been a long time coming, and Tory MPs have been revving their engines for a Tory leadership race for some time now.
Now we don’t know for sure who’s going to win, internal leadership races are characteristically unpredictable. But what we do know is that the next few weeks are going to be pretty bonkers. So while we all brace ourselves for the next onslaught of political dramz, here is your definitive Top Trumps list of who’s in the running so far..
Boris Johnson
Now this one comes as no surprise, he is the bookies’ favourite to be the next PM. Keep in mind, however, that he was the bookies’ favourite in 2016’s leadership elections as well, before he was famously snaked https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36679738by his buddy Michael Gove. You can be sure that Johnson will be making some serious moves over the next few weeks though, he’s been eyeing up Number 10 for years.
Charisma: 9/10 Depending on who you ask. Johnson is arguably one of the most divisive figures in British politics right now, but one thing I think we all can agree on is he makes for a damn good meme.
Experience: 10/10 Not only is this not his first leadership rodeo, but he has held some seriously top level positions over the last few years, including Foreign Secretary and Mayor of London.
Level of ‘Leave-iness’: 7/10 Now this one is debatable. While he was the face of the Leave campaign in 2016, and has been vocal in his support of Brexit since, many suspected that his main cause for taking up this position was to eventually become PM. We’re yet to see if this plan will work.
Penchant for Public Gaffes: 6 bajillion/10 Boris really has covered all bases in terms of public gaffes, and made himself a household name in the process. Whether it’s a little chuckle at him hanging from a zipwire, or actually being pretty racist in his Telegraph column, Boris has done everything from amuse to offend.
Likelihood of actually winning: 7.5/10 Boris divides MPs and people alike. While some believe he has the charisma and bullishness to get Brexit done, others shudder at the thought of someone considered to be a bit of a bumbling fool determining the fate of the country.
Michael Gove
From Boris to ‘betrayer’, Michael Gove famously stabbed Boris in the back by unexpectedly announcing a leadership bid in 2016. This is arguably the raciest thing he’s ever done, however. He’s a bit of a cookie cutter Tory by all counts, i.e. the implementation of Tory austerity being priority number one priority in any cabinet role he is assigned to.
Charisma: 1/10 Now I’m not just being harsh here, he literally said himself: ‘whatever charisma is, I don’t have it’
Experience: 10/10 Like Boris, Gove has stood for leader of the Tory party before, as well as holding high-level roles such as Education and Environment Secretary.
Level of ‘Leave-iness’: 10/10 Since 2016, Gove has been a hardcore Brexiteer, once criticising the ‘invincible arrogance of Europe’s elites’. Now that’s some sass right there.
Penchant for Public Gaffes: 4/10 He came under fire a lot more when he was Education Secretary, but he’s been pretty okay as Environment Secretary so far, other than that his outburst of ambition in 2016 is the most notable political move this guy’s made.
Likelihood of actually winning: 5/10 Gove’s a tricky one, he’s been pally with May for years so could get her backing. His lack of charisma is likely to be his downfall, although some may perceive him to be the largely non-controversial, stable leader that the country needs.
Andrea Leadsom
Following from her dramatic resignation on 22ndMay, just one daybefore the EU Elections, Leadsom has declared that she is ‘seriously considering’ running for PM.
Charisma: 8/10 Unlike most other candidates, Leadsom has gained the respect of MPs across the house. Having spearheaded proxy voting for MPs and improved the House of Commons complaints process, Leadsom has gained the respect, if not always the agreement, from many of her colleagues.
Experience: 10/10 As well as holding previous posts such as Minister of State for Energy and Secretary of State for the Environment, Leadsom has spent the last two years as leader of the House of Commons. Which is basically like being the Beyonce of the Commons.
Level of ‘Leave-iness’: 10/10 She once described our continuing membership of the EU as ‘disgusting’. Ouch.
Penchant for Public Gaffes: 3/10 Leadsom inflicted some minor damage to her reputation of a sensible, straight-up politician in 2016 when she claimed to be a better candidate for PM than May because she had children when May didn’t, costing her a shot at Number 10.
Likelihood of actually winning: 6.5/10 She’s done a good job over the last couple of years and managed not to alienate too many people, she’s in for a decent shot.
Jeremy Hunt
Jeremy Hunt has done an expert job of laying pretty low the couple of weeks. Rumour is he’s been rallying his troops…
Charisma: 6/10 I mean, he’s not not charismatic. I was on the same Easy Jet economy flight with him once, it was nice to see the then Health Secretary flying in economy. It’s a shame he was working towards the partial privatisation of the NHS at the time…
Experience: 9/10 Unlike some of his potential competitors, Hunt has never run for the top spot. However, he is currently the Foreign Secretary, a job that he picked up after Boris quit, and is doing remarkably better at it too.
Level of ‘Leave-iness’: 4/10 Hunt opted to Remain in the EU in 2016, and has been relatively measured in his language towards Brexit since. This could be a difficult obstacle to overcome if he goes for the top job – we all know what it’s like to have a once-Remainer at the helm of Brexit negotiations.
Penchant for Public Gaffes: 6/10 Hunt is a sneaky one. On the face of it he doesn’t look all that harmful, but lest we forget the mass medical student protests under his reign as Health Secretary. Oh and also that time that he compared the EU to the Soviet Union…
Likelihood of actually winning: 3/10 Hunt is doing a pretty good job in the Foreign Office right now, and he’s certainly not as inflammatory than some other candidates, but if I were a betting woman I’d say that his Remain-y past will be a skeleton that no closet (or cabinet) is big enough to hide.
Dominic Raab
Raab was the latest resignation in the string of Brexit Secretaries that Theresa May’s government has managed to truck through. Having enjoyed cross-party support for bills such as Prisoner’s rights, the last few years have seen some more polarising language.
Charisma: 7/10 He’s enjoyed some cross-party success before, and he certainly looks the part, although he’s nowhere near the ‘celeb’ status of, say, Boris or Rees-Mogg.
Experience: 7/10 Having only been elected to parliament in 2010, Raab is something of a newbie, although there’s no denying he’s made his mark during his time in Westminster.
Level of ‘Leave-iness’: 9/10 Raab is pretty vocal about his support for leaving the EU, one of his main reasoning for this being the issues that he believed immigration bring into the country, he once claimed immigrants had ‘put house prices up by 20%’, later partially reneging on the claim.
Penchant for Public Gaffes: 4/10 Raab was doing alright you know. That was until he said at a tech conference that he ‘hadn’t quite understood’ the importance of the Dover-Calais trade route…while he was serving as the literalBrexit Secretary. As MP Nicky Morgan tweeted at the time – ‘gulp’.
Likelihood of actually winning: 8/10 Combining Raab’s previous cross-party successes with recent vociferous support for Brexit, it looks like Raab could be in with a very good chance.
Sajid Javid
As a holder of one of the top jobs as Home Secretary, he may well just be gearing up for a leadership bid! His uncompromising leadership during the Shamima Begum scandal certainly suggests so.
Charisma: 5/10 Javid made a distinctive effort to prove that he is ‘one of the people’ recently, stating that he was from ‘one of the most dangerous streets in Britain’ and ‘could have turned out to have a life of crime myself’ when responding to the knife crime crisis. Unfortunately, all of the residents currently living on that street got rather peeved that he was purporting such a negative image of the community they’ve worked hard to improve.
Experience: 7/10 Like Raab, Javid’s only be around Westminster since 2010, but as the first person from an Asian background to hold one of the Great Offices of State, he’s clearly used his time well.
Level of ‘Leave-iness’: 8/10 Javid’s been against EU membership for years, however he shocked everyone when he supported the Remain campaign in 2016. He’s since put this down to concern for the turmoil the country would inevitably go through if we voted leave (well, he wasn’t wrong), and pressure from David Cameron. He’s gone back to his true leave-y self since though.
Penchant for Public Gaffes: 7/10 Since Javid’s time at the Home Office, they have been responsible for losing millions of EU funds meant to be donated to the UK’s most needy because they didn’t fill out an application form on time, and potentially wrongfully deporting international students by claiming they’d cheated on their English exam.
Likelihood of actually winning: 7/10 I mean, as Home Secretary, he’d be loathe not to run really, that very title presents him with a real shot.
Esther McVey
As an ex-TV presenter, many have tried to mock McVey for entering the political sphere but, as can be seen from her staunch voting against LGBT equality and Human Rights in general, this woman is no joke.
Charisma: 9/10 Probably one of the more charismatic Tories going, never mind the fact that she used to co-present GMTV with Eamonn Holmes.
Experience: 6/10 McVey’s not been in the political game all that long, entering the house in the 2010 general election, and taking a couple of years out in between to be Chair of the British Transport Police when she lost her seat.
Level of ‘Leave-iness’: 9/10 McVey proved her dedication to a hard Brexit when she quit as Work and Pensions secretary in November 2018.
Penchant for Gaffes: 6/10 Her time as Work and Pensions secretary was perhaps defined by when she misinformed the house of a judgement by the National Audit Office. She claimed they had argued for speeding up the rollout of Universal Credit, when in fact they had decided it needed to be paused.
Likelihood of actually winning: 6.5/10 In her limited time in Westminster, she’s proved herself a wily politician. And there’s no denying she’s popular with hardcore Brexiteers.
Rory Stewart
Born in Hong Kong, been a tutor to Prince William and Harry, and walking from Turkey to Bangladesh, this man has lived a life. And he has found time to become one of the biggest names in the Tory party over the last year or so.
Charisma: 8/10 Despite his Etonian education, Stewarts done a good job of presenting himself as a more accessible politician who understands the ‘real world’. He’s also argued that Brexit is something we should be ‘energetic and optimistic’ about, which is a welcome change of tune from the usual doomsday rhetoric.
Experience: 10/10 Stewarts had an impressive political career, both in Westminster and further afield. One such position being as an advisor to the Obama administration.
Level of ‘Leave-iness’: 7/10 Stewart was a Remainer in 2016, which could work against his favour, but he’s been admirably committed to the argument of respecting the will of the people ever since.
Penchant for Gaffes: 2/10 Not all that much to report here, Stewart’s done an alright job of flying under the radar whilst still ensuring his voice is heard.
Likelihood of actually winning: 6/10 The deadline of the end of July to reinstate a Tory PM puts time pressure on the race that lends an advantage to those who are big names already. Stewart is less of a big name but he may just be the dark horse in this competition.
Now, it must be remembered that these are eight names from a list that some have estimated to be fifteen/sixteen long. Other big names include ex-Deputy Chair of the European Research Group, Steve Baker, the Tories’ answer to a being insta-famous, Liz Truss, and Priti Patel.
Ultimately, we are on the precipice of the Hunger Games of Tory politics, and to predict what could happen is a futile exercise. I, for one, am pretty excited to watch it all unfold.
Ellie is a recent graduate in History and Politics from the University of Manchester. Originally from Bristol, Ellie moved to Manchester in 2015 but is leaving in September to pursue a journalism career in London.. She spent the final year of her degree as Editor of the university’s only historical publication, The Manchester Historian, and continues to present/produce weekly news videos for Manchester start up, Student Inspire Network. She has dreams of becoming a journalist and hopes to embed her passion for politics and popular culture in all of her work.
In a speech earlier today Theresa May announced her resignation as British Prime Minister as of 7th June.
She ended her speech with: “with no ill will but with enormous and enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love.”
Her words echoed an emotional cry of a woman broken, destroyed and downtrodden in her job. Carrying the weight of Brexit on her fragile shoulders.
I’m not fooled @theresa_may, you’ve lined your pockets, looked after your own and shafted those who aren’t part of your elite club. Go cry somewhere else. https://t.co/XDhxxEOBM5
The internet seems to have been split and whilst many see May as someone who only cries when it benefits her, rather than for the lives of many who were hurt by her decisions.
“Theresa May didn’t cry over Windrush, over the victims of Grenfell Tower, over the victims of Universal Credit. I wish the news would give more space to them than to a PM crying because she can no longer hold the most powerful job in the country” Spot on from @OwenJones84pic.twitter.com/FUV334oEu8
— Dr. Jennie Bujold??️? (@JennieBujold) May 24, 2019
May has been known as being an emotionless woman devoid of humanity. Her reaction to the Grenfell tower incident cemented her place in history as the Cruella Deville of British Politics.
Owen Jones a left wing, Labour supporting journalist highlighted the policies of Theresa May that destroyed homes, led more than 1 million to food banks, and drove austerity.
Other users of Twitter saw her humanity, and the tears of the former PM as of 7th June as a “sign of strength”.
Teresa May’s cry at the end of it all was not weakness. It was Strength. The strength of true ❤️ for one’s country can at some point make a Leader’s voice to break and their eyes to sweat…..
The next question is who will take over the spot of Prime Minister?
Far left Johnson, second Jeremy Hun next Sajid Javid, Jacob Mogg & Michael Gove
May’s legacy will be tarnished with being one of the worst British Prime Ministers, and it may be something she will never be allowed to forget by the British public. From the hostile environment leading to Windrush atrocities, food banks, Grenfell and more. This is the only time we saw her human side, and it seems to have come far little, and far too late.
Whilst I feel sorry for Theresa May, she was undoubtedly handed a poison chalice, a flaming baton by David Cameron who has also got away. The Conservative government and the lack of an agreement, coupled with May’s patriotic cry for “country I love” has broken her. At the end of the day she is a human, a human we may despise, a human we may believe to be abhorrent and out of touch. She tried to do the job to the best of her ability. Politics is inevitably like a see-saw, which is good for the goose is not good for the gander. It’s indeed a May day in June for the former Prime Minister, Theresa May.
Today, on Friday 24th May, the Prime Minister, Theresa May, announced her resignation. This comes at a time of great uncertainty – not just for Brexit, but in the wider context of British politics.
There have been rumblings of a leadership bid for months now and in the face of some big name resignations – Andrea Leadsom (Leader of the House of Commons), Esther McVey (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions), Boris Johnson (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) and even her own Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, Dominic Raab – it seemed unlikely that May would last much longer.
The crisis of the nation reflects that of the Conservative Party. Since David Cameron’s EU membership referendum the political landscape of the United Kingdom has been dominated by petty squabbles and power grabs. What started as a self-assured attempt to consolidate his position ended up revealing deep divides across all political alliances.
Theresa May’s voice breaks as she announces her resignation (source: Reuters: Toby Melville)
Theresa May continued this legacy by calling a snap general election back in 2017. She hoped to squash Tory concerns and ended up handing seats to Labour by the bucketload. If predicted, she will lose even more seats in the EU elections, which took place earlier this week, on Thursday 23rd May.
Now, with confirmation of her resignation, we face another leadership bid that takes power away from the people and keeps it firmly in the hands of the Conservatives – who only won the last election by lashing themselves to the hardline DUP.
Where are we with Brexit now?
May’s deal has been defeated an astonishing four times and the leave date has been pushed back again and again – this time past May’s resignation date of 7th June. Meanwhile, multiple MP resignations have prevented any meaningful challenge to issues like encroaching NHS privitisation, education, welfare cuts, deportation of UK citizens, human rights abuses and our continuing support of oppressive administrations such as Trump and Saudi Arabia.
Brexit is clogging up our political system. After two years and two Prime Ministers we are no closer to agreeing on a deal and the concern will now be that May is replaced with a more hardline Brexiteer who will have the power to force a No Deal Brexit.
The next Tory leader will have approximately three months between accepting the position and our date to leave the EU. Given the petty infighting and inaction of the previous two Prime Ministers, we can only expect this uncertainty to continue.
Theresa May’s resignation speech
was teary-eyed and emotional. She showed the country and the world she really
loved this country and swept aside media attempts to paint her as this
apathetic robot. The trouble is, it’s a case of too little too late.
From her tenure as Home Secretary to her time as Prime Minister, she’s proven time and time again she is ideologically thin. She has never truly taken charge of a situation as a conviction politician like Margaret Thatcher would have done. Great leaders need to be able to hold two diametrically opposed ideas in their head. Even with Brexit she couldn’t handle the process. Imagine an NHS scandal on top of the negotiations and leadership challenges, she would have faltered sooner. May is and will always be a rule taker, capable of doing a simple, clear job; rather than a leader offering critical insight into political affairs. She artfully managed expectations and in doing so survived long enough to make it to the top.
Theresa May served as Home Secretary from 2010 until 2016 before becoming UK’s Prime Minister
The passion that showed at the end contradicted
much of her career. She had followed instruction of advisers like Nick Timothy
and Fiona Hill that led her to near political suicide decisions in triggering
A50 immediately without an adequate roadmap and then the snap-election that
cost her the Conservative majority in government. Had she interpreted Thatcher’s
Iron Lady more accurately, she would have found that it meant sticking by your
convictions and seeing them through. It’s simply too hard to keep ploughing on
with something you don’t believe in; you’re bound to burn out at some stage or
other. And here we are, without her having any support rallied and not having
garnered any real sympathy either.
May’s problem was being handed an
impossible task that no one wants. She bet on the assumption that, while she
would be criticised, no one had a suitable alternative vision and so risk
taking the impossible task off her hands.
Had she been able to carry the UK
through this Brexit quagmire without destroying the fabric of a modern
multicultural Britain, she would have been a hero for generations.
Sadly, she has achieved little to
date. Brexit sideliners in her party are resilient as ever, while her three
proposals have been rejected repeatedly without coming close to consensus. Ultimately
because of the Irish backstop.
In order to hang onto power in the wake
of the “snap election”, she had to make bedfellows with the right-wing DUP in
Northern Ireland.
Her leadership has been mired by
decision constipation from a dithering control freak. Besides the botched general
election, May triggered the two-year time frame (Article 50) before she and her
cabinet had settled on their roadmap and negotiation demands in the split from
the EU. After all, her political spin-doctors told her “Brexit means Brexit”.
What a cracker that was.
Despite the Cabinet agreeing the
Chequers Agreement, it unravelled in days. Were Corbyn a more suitable Leader
of the Opposition or had there been a more suitable replacement in her Cabinet
who wouldn’t do a worse hash of the process; either would have succeeded her by
now. Having said this, one can have no doubt, she has been resilient until the
bitter end.
Brexit is, and remains, a shambles of poor planning,
terrible appointments and crass negotiations. David Cameron wins the booby
prize for ineptitude hands down, but Theresa May has compounded the issue and
made matters worse.
May as Home Secretary
Her poor judgment was exemplified by her calling a
leaving date too soon. This shouldn’t have been too surprising coming from her
poor track record as Home Secretary. Misjudgements which the UK still
languishes from.
Beside the incompetency in creating a culture where
British citizens were deported from here “by mistake” that should have resulted
in an inquiry finding prosecutions for officials, her obstinacy led her to
trigger A50 without any plan on what to do.
She has continued to promote and reward failure.
Brexit has been framed in the most detrimental way possible without any
rational reason, besides preserving the Conservative Party against the Corbyn
alternative. This means to say she has put party before country. There is no
doubt that she loves this country, but ever since following the terrible guidance
from her advisers Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, on top of stickability issues in
her tenure as Home Secretary; it became patently clear she was not singing to
her own tune.
In the meantime, Local Authorities continued to run
precipitously low on funding because of continued cutbacks. The Criminal
Justice system is a train wreck with one system for those who can pay and
another for the rest. Probation Services have been hacked to pieces and
privatised in a bidding war that did not account for minimum standards for
rehabilitation. Prison services are failing due to underfunding. Police forces
are stretched thin and unable to follow up on all but the most severe offences,
and worse still, the gangs and serial offenders know this. The education system
foists catchment area dilemmas on parents, with the poorest getting the worst
deal out of the state education system. May’s solution was selective state
funded Grammar Schools for those who wanted selective entrance without paying
private school fees. This came at the expense of families unable to afford
homes within these catchments, leaving their children in amongst the other
lower-achieving all-access schools, perpetuating academic inequality. We
have a housing crisis where millennials can’t get onto the property ladder
without significant help from the older generations, courtesy of strict
planning laws and lack of affordable, quality housing stock. The “free at the point of consumption” health services are
paraded around, but more health services are cherry-picked by private enterprises,
leaving the government and taxpayer picking up the tab for the less profitable
and thereby more costly condition treatments. Rail companies are owned by
private companies and operating on a Victorian state-owned rail network. The
nuclear power stations approved are expensive for a country with such renewable
potential and fully owned by French and Chinese state companies.
Years of Brexit negotiations and idling has left the
country in a completely different state to the highly successful 2014-15 under
Cameron and Osborne.
While as PM, Theresa May, has allowed David Davis
and Boris Johnson opportunities to prove they could viably solve the crisis.
They both failed abysmally and forced a general acceptance that a “hard” Brexit
is unacceptable. Only a sensible, measured compromise can work.
As things stand, the deal will not be in the UK’s
favour. It likely never would have been. However, it may well be better than
the Boris & Co’s overly optimistic outlooks. It doesn’t now appear history
will look favourably upon May.
She was never a long-term solution, as we should not
forget. It was only a matter of time before she did go, it’s just a shame on
her part she could not see through any working consensus to carry forwards for
her successors. Her credibility may have carried her through had it not been
tarnished by the Irish backstop, and the progressive resignations leading to an
impending back-bench cabinet revolt over unsatisfactory compromise and delays. But
that was the fault of her Conservative party supporters that voted her to the
leadership. Had they had more of an appreciation for her track record, rather
than get distracted by the bitter squabbling of the Brexiteers; they would have
known she wasn’t cut out for the job.
Theresa May announced she will resign
as leader of the Conservative Party on 7TH June. She will still welcome
Donald Trump 3RD June as Prime Minister after finally accepting the
invitation to the UK.
Her resignation speech was teary-eyed and emotive, showing the country and the world she was not the apathetic robot many in the media had media lambasted her for. Her passion, whilst endearing was also too little too late and didn’t really garner any real sympathy or support.
Theresa May teary eyed as she announces her resignation. (source: REUTERS/Toby Melville)
Her political clout was tarnished irreparably by the unnecessary
election and DUP marriage; her lack of negotiating prowess and the lack of magnetism
or emotion in bringing three feeble deals to Parliament. And yet, she continued
to delay all those predictions of her political demise, as she marched relatively
unscathed from one lukewarm compromise to the next.
She managed to steer her party away from destructive delusions of
grandeur on the high seas, bringing them around to a settlement more in line
with 21st century European neighbours. The Brexit “dream is dying” was
a reality check reasserting itself that without our own Donald Trump bulldozering
his way out of the European Union, or a charismatic leader who could rally
support from across the benches – we are ultimately left with a Theresa May and
her impossible brief. It remains immaterial whether she was pro or contra the
EU, but that she offered a benign readjustment to our relations instead of all
the uncertainty that would have come to a chasmic break of ties with no viable
leadership or roadmap from Gove, Farage or Johnson.
While the EU is a cumbersome beast, bogged down with glacial bureaucracy
and a quaking structure of fiscal union drifting further afield from ever
closer political and monetary union; there is a good case to turn our attentions
elsewhere. Domestic regulation, immigration and most crucially trade policy
could expand outside of the restrictive tariffs, quotas and thousands of
sub-clauses embedded into EU trade policy for non-single market countries.
Johnson did suggest we would preserve all the benefits of frictionless
commerce that Britain derives as part of the EU single market. This proved to
be rather naïve. Daniel Hannan also reassured us that “absolutely nobody is talking
about threatening our place in the single market.” Naturally, the EU would have
none of this. Brussels expects countries who benefit from single-market trade
in goods and services, should also abide by European rules, not devise their
own. It would damage the foundations of what it means to be a European Union “member
state”.
The EU’s “four freedoms” mandate of free movement of goods, services,
capital and people are all deemed indivisible. This should be taken with a
pinch of salt as a political call by the EU and not a logical necessity. Yet,
May understood earlier than most that the EU simply would not budge on that
point. Something the hard-line Brexiteers seemingly failed to grasp. We could
not bully our way to receive special treatment when it meant the EU would have
to risk tearing itself to pieces in return.
The reality stands, those hard-liners offer no viable alternative
besides crashing out. Acknowledging this, they continued to profit politically
from jibing from the side-lines rather than rallying behind her or going for
the jugular.
In terms of the negotiations, May successfully persuaded backbenchers to
accept the UK’s EU budgetary commitments, the “implementation” period, EU nationals’
rights guaranteed and European Court of Justice’s weight in legal decisions
impacting EU nationals.
As for the Irish question, the “full alignment” of Northern Ireland with
the single market and customs union rules to avoid a hard border, or otherwise
one through the Irish Sea, would mean applying the rules across Britain too –
rendering any post-Brexit arrangement little more than lip-service beyond the
current status quo.
“prudent, cautious and incremental”
So long as the Brexiteer architects can blame lacklustre outcomes on “Remoaner”
sabotage or Brussels intransigence; they may yet acquiesce to the current Irish
arrangement .
May could not last the test of time for the bubbling discontent to tire
and a settlement be accepted, albeit with protestations. She has not quite
managed to achieve Michael Oakeshott, the British political philosopher’s ideal
conservatism: “prudent, cautious and incremental”.
She made a good hash of fighting back the tide of zero-sum zealous conservatism
and is a tireless reminder of the art of democratic politics is the ability to
compromise effectively – such that no one is particularly happy, but most can
live with. We could have done a lot worse than aspired for that, failing more
forthright leadership which we are lacking in the modern political class in
2019.
History shall judge May according to its whims. I suspect she will be seen as pragmatic and principled; two words Boris Johnson and his crew can say but cannot demonstrate. Those less steely would have fallen before now. She survived the backlash for not meeting Grenfell survivors. She wasn’t forced to resign by the petulant sniping and unrealistic criticism from opportunists, fantasists, proven losers and third-rate minds; survived the vote of no-confidence and numerous leadership challenges. She’s certainly taken some people down with her, and by and large they richly deserved it.
It may be little more than mere speculation and
conjecture from this point forwards, with little more clarity than back in June
2016.
Boris Johnson, Dominic Rabb and Jeremy Hunt are effectively ruined by the fiasco. Michael Gove is untrustworthy in the eyes of the British people.
Bookies front runner for Tory leadership race: Boris Johnson
And yet, it remains likely a Brexiteer will come to the fore as newly elected Conservative leader. A vote of no-confidence may then be called when the consensus fails yet again. It will likely pass, leading to a general election in which no party wins an overall majority. A hung parliament will mean squabbling over the wreckage to form a minority, bungling government. The EU then proceeds to grant another delay, allowing them to present leaving the single market as yet more costly than imagined for other member states and hopefully for them less desirable among the UK populace. The limbo continues, despite polling showing the UK population no longer has the stomach for a divorce anymore.
Without a charismatic, dogmatic politician to take
us out; there is only one scenario: Labour win the next general election since
a new PM from the current stock cannot solve these intractable issues, largely
because of in-faction bickering of the Tories and their weak negotiating hands.
Labour’s plan has been described as promising and negotiable by Tusk and Barnier. The Labour leader will call for a People’s Vote to either remain or the alternative: the negotiated Brexit deal.
Labour Party Leader: Jeremy Corbyn could be the next PM if a general election is called
Failing this, Brexit will remain a poisoned chalice
for many years to come. A Tory leadership contest will lead to no possibility
of an EU deal before November. The winner will be granted an extension to A50.
The Tory party will try to fulfil the Brexit promise one way or another. This could
lead to them squeezing out Corbyn in the next general election with a minority
government that leads to instability, uncertainty and lost potential for the UK
economy and societal pains as living standards suffer for years to come.
Milkshake has become the new tool of political dissent as protestors from the far left are baptising prominent right-leaning political figures with milkshakes.
Infamous Tommy Robinson also has been victim to a milkshake attack
My mistake…. There's no link at all between throwing #milkshake on fascists and fascists being violent in response. I mean… it took a full 2 seconds for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson) to start punching.pic.twitter.com/TOKX5wDcg3
The liberal left strike again as the political theatre continues. Tommy Robinson whilst on his campaign tour was baptised in a milkshake. Nigel Farage anointed with a whole carton of milkshake. UKIP candidate Carl Benjamin was the third to be hit with a milkshake.
All three men were victims of assault, and yet the perpetrators have since been laundered “heroes” as it was a strike, against, fascism, racism, and Islamophobia. But when did assault of the food variety become politically acceptable?
UKIP election candidate Carl Benjamin
When bananas are thrown at black players, football is outraged, the racism screams from the corner and all across the media platforms, rightly so. How can the racial undertones of football has the alarms sounded? A disgusting act.
Arguing the principle of an item being thrown and its symbolic meaning showing a lack of common respect a negotiated space and a lack of humanity by those who have thrown such items.
Once upon a time ago, rotten tomatoes were thrown at comedians when the audience did not enjoy their performance. It seems politics has reached a comedic turn and it has added to a growing intolerant, polarised political atmosphere. That intolerance has turned to lactose intolerant. or a lactose intolerant generation of millennials.
Banana thrown at Arsenal Footballer Aubameyang
Assault is assault and should be named as such. The weight of the law needs to come down hard, heavy and honourable. with impartial application irrespective of political leanings.
A milkshake being thrown at someone on the left side of the spectrum, in particularly a minority group such as a black man, or a muslim woman would come at dire costs.
Milkshake otherwise known as angry shake
Twitter Use Nick Parker wrote:
“They bring hate. We bring milkshake. They bring lies. We bring milkshake. They bring dark, money, gaslighting, fake news, violence. More milkshake. They are fear, blame and division. We are chocolate, vanilla and strawberry. We are #milkshake. Thank u for coming to my TED talk.”
They bring hate. We bring milkshake. They bring lies. We bring milkshake. They bring dark money, gaslighting, fake news, violence. More milkshake. They are fear, blame and division. We are chocolate, vanilla and strawberry. We are #milkshake. Thank u 4 coming to my TED talk.
The milkshake has now become a political tool of dissent, disparagement and disgust. Approved by many, the scenes are reminiscent of a small food fight in an American movie. Simply because we do not agree with someone on the right or the left of the political spectrum, does not ethically, morally or physically justify a milkshake being thrown at them.
Manchester City have finally done it: they’ve completed the domestic silverware sweep, and in quite some style beating Watford 6-0 at Wembley to clinch the FA Cup. As the curtain comes down on this year’s title battle, all eyes turn to next season and what the future holds for these Premier League heavyweights.
It is an enjoyable, yet ultimately futile conversation to debate the ‘greatest’ Premier League season, or team of all time. Arsenal’s ‘invincibles’ are always in the mix for the greatest team, along with Man Utd’s treble winners and Jose Mourinho’s first Chelsea side. For best ever seasons, it’s difficult to look further than 2011-12’s ‘Agueerroooo’ moment or Leicester winning the league, but Liverpool’s 2013-14 and Newcastle’s 1995-96 title collapses comes close. Then there is this season.
Football is an emotive sport and should not be reduced to facts, but on stats alone this season has produced two of the greatest teams and the highest scoring title race. For Liverpool to end on 97 points – a tally that would have secured the title in every other season bar 2017-18 is cruel – but just underlines the quality of this year’s competition. The points tally of both sides speaks volumes, but the fact they achieved it all without sacrificing their attractive style of play is so impressive. In the end, their combined skill sets of pace, power and possession brought them 14 more points than their closest challengers as the Premier League’s best ever top two.
City and Liverpool were untouchable this season. Source: BBC Sport
There is therefore something about the achievement of City’s victory that is even more impressive. Perhaps it didn’t have the drama of their 2012 triumph, the romance of Leicester or the sheer statement of Arsenal’s undefeated season, but it had an almost algorithmic certainty about it. City knew there was no room for error and in the second half of their season, there wasn’t. 14 straight victories, second only to their own record of 18 meant Liverpool simply had no answer. For two years now City have kept up this insatiable desire for winning and are, on paper at least, the greatest team the Premier League has ever seen.
Decisive summer lies ahead for City
City also managed the rare feat of back-to-back titles, the first team to do so since Manchester United a decade ago. Besides being the most competitive of Europe’s top leagues, there are two key reasons why the title is so difficult to retain. The first is a supposed lack of hunger or desire the second time round, but with the demanding Pep Guardiola at the helm this clearly isn’t an issue, for this season at least. The second however, is merely a case of teams eventually being found out. Other sides work out how to beat their system and the club is forced to begin the cycle of forming a new style of play to overcome this. Leicester shocked everyone as a brilliant counter attacking side, but the following season, once that reputation was established, teams nullified the threat and Leicester were left toothless up front and exposed at the back.
City’s key to remaining at the top? Source: AFP/Getty Images
Manchester City have so far been able to repel any of these same threats to their dominance in the Premier League. Guardiola has, however, been accused of overthinking certain Champions League games. So have Spurs this season and Liverpool last underlined the blueprint to end their dominance? After these results and Liverpool coming so close, there is just a feeling that Pep may have to freshen up his system for next season. Fernandinho is crucial to City’s play, and at 34, the transfer talk is that a replacement is top of this summer’s shopping list. The ever-present Brazilian was outstanding this season and may have another year in him, but any wrong transfer moves this summer could damage City long-term.
Will the real Liverpool please stand up?
Liverpool’s form and performances this season were simply irresistible. They still kept their ‘heavy metal football’ identity of last season, but without the defensive masochism. Yet, at the end of day and all that expended energy, they still came up short. Much like City, this next year should prove fascinating to see how they develop (or regress).
Robertson has been outstanding since joining Liverpool Source: Press Association
Left back Andrew Robertson has already been talking up Liverpool’s future ambitions, after they came so close on the final day of the season.
“Man City know, hopefully, we are here to stay.”
Robertson’s comments (source: BBC Sport)
Neutrals will hope he is right, as this could be the start of the next thrilling rivalry of a generation. In truth, there has been no Premier League rivalry with any high stakes permutations for some time now. In Sir Alex Ferguson’s twilight years there were title battles between the Manchester clubs, with a short lived rivalry developing between Manchester United and Chelsea before that. Really you have to go back to the Arsenal and Man United teams of the 90s and early 00s for the last great, consistent title rivalry. Both sides never left anything out on the pitch, but there was always an underlying level of respect between the two.
Liverpool and Man City have been hugely complementary about one another these last two years and their match-ups equally as entertaining. With none of the other big six seemingly anywhere near close to being title challengers, they really are a pair that could dominate for years. There must just be that lingering doubt in Liverpool fans’ minds that what if this was it? What if they do a Leicester next season? What if this was the chance to win the title and they still couldn’t defeat the Man City machine. This simply cannot be allowed to happen; for Liverpool’s sake and for English football’s sake.
A war on wealth has begun. In the UK, its the Labour Party’s dogwhistling. Our American cousins face the rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Ilhan Omar, Elizabeth Warren’s proposals for a wealth tax in the U.S., and Bernie Sanders’ Modern Monetary Theory and New Green Deal.
The Labour Party’s latest broadcast (below) shows how a billionaire would spend (or not) a tax cut of £20,000 versus how their government would reallocate that money to student grants, pension and wage increases which is then in the hands of individuals to spend in the economy to generate economic growth. It poses the question in its denouement: “Who’s better for the economy. Ordinary people or billionaires?”
Whatever your political viewpoint, it’s not hard to see why someone may be anti-rich. Global inequality, according to a report by Credit Suisse, has increased since 2008’s Great Recession, with the top 1 per cent of global wealth holding 42.6 per cent of all household wealth in 2008. This shot up to 47.2 per cent mid last year.
While this may seem problematic, the rich aren’t to blame for the recession, but central bank policies, in particular the ECB. Witch-hunts find it easy to scapegoat the wealthy throughout history that aren’t easy to comprehend. It doesn’t help when Labour politicians feed these narratives of the wealth gaps, rather than address poverty as the evil, not wealth.
Imagine the scenario: you have built a successful business, played by the rules and made lots of money. The public then decides you have more than you need so decide to rob you of your labours. Because of this threat, many wealth are curbing their ostentation, and keeping a low profile. The rich today try not to look rich, let alone talk about it.
Labour’s Virtue Signalling
The problem with the video besides its tenuous links to economic reality is the tendency to incite resentment toward wealthy, singling them out from the rest of us. All the while, blaming them for the economic issues and claiming they don’t value money: “Oh, that money, I completely forgot all about it!”
A Labour government will re-nationalise economic sectors they think they can manage better, increasing employment and improving pay, reinvesting profits in Britain with no need for these flitting billionaires.
But what would make Labour better placed than the private sector to offer quality services? People are quick to forget the absolute state of them before privatisation. And because we had been protectionist, nationalised for so long they simply couldn’t compete with international competition.
Billionaires employ tens of thousands of people. But why would it be a good idea to keep them situated here in the UK?
Rawls and Picketty to the Rescue
Rawls and Picketty insist on redistributive programmes being implemented in a closed society. Otherwise they would be unsustainable, for instance, exodus of the more internationally-mobile rich. In other words, they have to outlaw tax competition and stipulate ‘Socialism in One Country.’
This doesn’t lift up
the poor. It brings down the rich.
For Piketty, wealth
seems to be the social evil, not poverty. Poverty has been
greatly reduced in recent decades and new money has replaced old amongst the
rich.
These narratives of
runaway accumulation of inherited capital simply aren’t plausible. That’s the beauty of
modern market economics. The maligned rich perform useful functions without
necessarily intending to do so.
This idea of wealth
statuses being something unearned through rape pillage and plunder in Europe
isn’t widely held in the States. And look at the result, we are all in the bottom 3 US states.
Little wonder Labour
broadcasts are virtue signaling. Vilifying wealth because of their wealth, with
no consideration for causality. No attention to system
design under Lemon socialism – privatised gains, collectivised losses.
Ideologically perverse
motivations to capitalise on Brexit shambles by the Labour Party. The circulating of
funds through the economy with lower taxes for small businesses, struggling
entrepreneurs who can then work and employ people will make the
difference.
On the other hand,
those billionaires who have justly earned their money not by government
exclusive contracts to allow for monopolised profit extraction, should be
thanked.
Most nations with a
developed financial system allow for capable functioning despite debt. Many of
the most materially wealthy individuals are incredibly indebted as they fuel
their investments (especially in a low interest world) through taking on
debt.
Musk’s Space X stole market share from the Russian Roscosmos State Corporation & Co with relaunch-able rockets – Introducing a little private enterprise to Space // Economist
These billionaires are like the rail barons of old- burning through their great wealth to pioneer new, exciting industries – driving the human face forwards and creating real wealth through the value they provide by virtue of the fact people are willing and prepared to pay handsomely to reward them.
Take JK Rowling’s Hary Potter (a favourite anecdote of Yaron Brook). People have made her a billionaire because they valued her stories and magical world more than they valued a few pounds here and there. Or the iPhone XS, are people really being coerced by advertising / marketing alone to part with 1200$ or do they believe it will give them more value than their 1200$ in their pocket?
Or the Sam Walton’s
with their Walmart’s saving consumers money by driving down prices. Then they
have more disposable income to spend elsewhere, or save – I know, a novel
concept for Keynesian drones.
The reality is, this
mentality makes everybody poorer. And we would end up with a basket case
economy where to get ahead of other people power is sought in politics and then
they grant themselves exclusive rights to an industry (Brazil) or appropriation
of businesses (Serbia).
Much of the western
world, with free markets, entrepreneurialism and hard work + significant risk –
be it time, capital or taking on loans – are how people get rich and create
wealth for others by innovating to solve problems in society that other people
are prepared to pay money for.
Wealth is endogenously
created and not restricted, despite central bank efforts. My having it doesn’t
not decrease the size of the pie available to you as there is no fixed pie.
Wealth is not at the expense of others. It can be destroyed though, take
Bastiat’s broken window fallacy illustrating why destruction and the money
spent to recover destruction is not actually a net benefit to society.
Wealth is created in
exchange for creating value. Labour going into products or services only has
value if something is willing and able to pay for it. Otherwise, what would you
tell the entrepreneur who put in 10,000 hours and didn’t see a single penny?
Should we bail them out according to his ability, to each according to his
needs?
Trillions of dollars
aren’t stuffed in mattresses as the video suggests the billionaire with his tax
cut just pockets the money and forgets about it. It’s invested, either via
ownership of capital assets or via financial institutions. New businesses are
funded creating jobs and products for consumers, or it is used to finance
household debt for mortgages and other consumer purchases.
The wealthy often have businesses and ventures themselves. They take in lots of debt to finance projects they believe will generate growth of capital or provide a solution they can sell and make profit.
It could be new
infrastructure, technologies or arbitrage opportunities that assist in clearing
market inefficiencies more swiftly.
Wealth may nominally
be in the possession of billionaires. But its use is restricted to normal
economic functioning which demands everyone consume and interact with their
wealth. If they did not provide value, why are we parting with our hard-earned
cash to help them ?
This presentation of ownership as necessarily exclusionary is largely inaccurate for England.
Lord Sugar’s cheque to the taxman 2017. Source: Daily Mail
Baseless Agendas Leading Voters up the garden path
The video has lots of straw-man arguments that are somewhat befitting of their agenda. If reality doesn’t line up with your beliefs, just make baseless assertions. It’s rather telling when tax cuts are presented as government giving people money, instead of the reality of them taking less. Unless you remember the taxman working those 40 hours last month with you?
Labour Government: Chief Judge, Jury and Executioner – A Tale of Inefficiency
This notion a government ministry can adequately allocate and redistribute some hand-outs -instead of doing this hypothetical tax cut (corporation tax perhaps) – and this will solve a slowing economy by itself doesn’t hold much water. Money changing hands increasing the flow in the micro-economy is beneficial for providing more liquidity which helps consumer confidence, but it isn’t better for the economy than entrepreneurs and pioneers who create real wealth by solving problems we face through brainstorming ideas and then implementing them. Innovation, then, through taking on risk, debt and working incredibly hard trumps this stagnating, sustain the status quo drivel we are fed by political virtue signalling.
The trouble with this simplistic “tax the rich!” jargon so routine workers can then enjoy a better life is it would encourage stagnation.
If you’re happy sitting where you are that includes being happy with what you’re paid. If you’re willing to be an employee at that wage then great as companies need steady, complacent workers. If you’re not, however, and want more to improve yourself, work hard and promote upwards, then great also.
This idea that some who have bettered themselves, risen through businesses or created their own and are making money can then be taxed sufficiently to have ANY noticeable effect on the average workers quality of life is a mathematical improbability.
There are simply not enough rich people and there are far too many idle people with hands extended to rob them of their earned money, put it in the governments hands where inefficiencies piss away 80% into white elephants and hand out the remaining funds to millions of people. Often providing the funds to attend courses and degrees that don’t teach them the needed skill sets to make them useful for working in businesses. The miss-allocation of resources that allows for people to undertake degrees they wouldn’t risk doing if they had their own £30,000 of capital on the line, instead without any real risk of having to pay those loans back to taxpayers – clean slate after 30 years – is nonsensical.
The reality is, a Corbyn government would want to keep large swathes of the population in their place so they’ll vote for those generous overlords to keep the handouts coming. It’s far more expedient than working for it after all. And the government can keep printing money or plucking it off the magic money tree without damaging the UK’s credit rating. It’s bound to all end in tears and conveniently we can just blame those remaining rich people who stuck it out and continued working hard developing businesses while the rest fled overseas.
The Maths Doesn’t Add Up
Take the top 10 US billionaires. We can assume net income at 5% of their net worth. For instance, Bill Gates takes in ~$4 Billion. Applying this factor across the 10 richest, we have 26 Billion dollars a year.
Now let’s add a new
tax to that money. 10% off the top to Government will be 1.3 BN
Now take 321,400,000
American citizens. Assume 60% qualify for your wealth distribution programme
with the 40% above rich enough arbitrarily. Some of them may have tried to get
rich but failed, tough luck, not enough for everybody.
160,700,000 people
have a slice of $1.3 Bn .
Congratulations , you
have a life changing cheque for $8.14 courtesy of the generosity of your 10
Richest people that inequality campaigners lark on about.
Oops, sorry. This is
before government inefficient handling of the redistribution takes its chunk.
80% is the general rule of thumb for revenues that is consumed by the machine.
So 20% left for social programmes. Even if Trump whopper government into shape
and we saw 40%. This is a measly $3.25.
We have only taken
from the top 10, how about the others? Well, wealth drops off going down Forbes
400 from $80~ Billion down to 1.7 Bn. With far more single digit billionaires
than double, median net worth stands at 3.6 Bn.
Doing the same math as
above, you would receive $353.25 from the entire Forbes 400.
Now, I don’t know how
much more money you think you deserve, but you can see that you would have to
work pretty far down the “Rich” lists before you’re going to get to you making
another $10,000 a year more. And the case in question in the U.K. with our
considerably fewer superich is significantly raiding the upper middle class of
the family silver and while you’re at it make sure you get the crockery
too.
The simple
mathematical answer is, like with all socialist policies there are simply not
enough rich people to pay for all the non-rich people’s fantasies. Especially
not after glacial bureaucracy and ballooning government inefficiency margins.
Besides, then, creating a system of dependency, it encourages people to be idle and comfortable in their relative poverty. Rather than actively impelling oneself to take personal responsibility and find solutions to problems we all face or get the skills necessary to be useful in the modern economy.
The moralistic answer is why should people expect to be allowed to sit where they are and paid more money that comes from other people who have earned it? Let alone the incredible leaps and bounds for humanity’s benefit those dreamers and high achievers can accomplish without coercive intervention, whether intentional or their part or otherwise.
For Labour’s concept of a magic money tree or this “Modern Monetary Theory” to work, the number of Brits to be taxed would be huge in relation to the number of people receiving the money. Just ask any breadwinner of a household supporting their family, they’ll tell you how hard that is to do. It’s simply not right.
There isn’t generally
a good reason why most people can’t make the sacrifices to secure their
financial positions.
There’s too much
entitlement, impatience and envy in this country and Europe for that matter
with an obsession for tales of Robin Hood than the glorious risk – taking of
our Atlantic cousin’s Robber Barrons.
The sooner we wake up and smell the coffee, we can move away from this socialism quagmire that has stagnated swathes of the globe for decades, and move away from the true evil ‘poverty’ which has plagued mankind as the naturalised state of nature forever. Innovating our way out of the challenges in the 21st century. But this isn’t how you do that.
