type here...
Home Blog Page 82

James Comey: Speaking Out or Selling Out?

Alex Davenport
-
0
James Comey: Speaking Out or Selling Out?

The former director of the FBI James Comey has been making a number of public appearances ahead of the release of his new book A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership. Comey is arguably best known for the interactions he had with Donald Trump, who went on to fire him, in the context of the investigation into Russian involvement in Trump’s presidential campaign. As a result, part of the aim of Comey’s book and the media appearances surrounding it, is to attempt to lift the lid on the actions of the president.

Indeed, Comey’s descriptions of Trump have been strongly worded to say the least. In an interview with ABC he compared Trump to a “forest fire”, capable of causing serious and long-lasting damage, and suggested he would have the most negative effect on American politics since the Watergate scandal.

He also noted the apparent similarities between Trump’s leadership style and those of the high-ranking mobsters whom Comey dealt with during his career in law enforcement. In particular, he emphasised the importance of serving ‘the boss’ in the White House, explaining that those who worked with Trump were expected to express their loyalty to him and act in his best interests, regardless of whether it would benefit the country as a whole. Comey went on to claim that as allegations of collusion with Russia emerged, he himself was asked to pledge his loyalty to Trump at a private dinner between the two men. By Comey’s account, his refusal to commit such loyalty stood him in poor stead with Trump, and may have resulted in his firing a month later.

Comey shakes hands with Trump before being removed as head of the FBI (Source: Sky News)

Yet Comey’s revelations have been met with a decidedly mixed reaction. They have been welcomed in some quarters as an example of the kind of transparency needed to properly hold leaders like Trump to account, particularly in the context of claims as explosive as the ones facing the president. Releasing information to the public about Trump’s behaviour surrounding the Russia investigation can be seen as a way of letting the country as a whole, rather than merely groups of bureaucrats and lawyers working behind the scenes, judge the actions of the man who is supposed to represent them.

On a cruder basis as well, many are simply pleased to see further negative stories coming to light about a president they strongly dislike, in the hope that some of the bad press begins to stick. Surely, some will think, there are only so many treasonous tales that can be told about one man before the patriotic Right turns on him.

At the same time, though, others have expressed disappointment in Comey for compromising his position of having been privy to a great deal of important information. Many of his former employees have complained that disclosing such information around an ongoing investigation, particularly in such a sensationalist manner, may undermine the status of the FBI as a serious and vital institution. Ron Hosko, a former assistant director of the criminal division of the bureau, outlined concerns that “by talking like this Comey is not helping the FBI’s ability to fight back against the attacks on its reputation that have been coming from Trump”.

Many of Comey’s descriptions of Trump also appear to be playing to an audience desperate for any excuse to mock and deride the president. In some of Comey’s accounts of interactions between the two, he focuses on details such as the size of the president’s hands or the appearance of his hairstyle, themes which do not fit with what should be overall a sober discussion of the potential misconduct of a political leader. A cynic may argue that excerpts such as these, and perhaps the book as a whole, were put together with the aim of making money from a strongly anti-Trump readership rather than as a necessary exposé.

Comey’s revelations raise interesting questions in a divided America: should you compromise your integrity in order to attack those who you believe have compromised theirs? Can you go too far in attempting to hamper a leader you think dangerous, and should you profit from doing so? As interesting as all these questions are, they are perhaps not the ones Comey expected to provoke when speaking out about his president.

Europe’s Next Match Ups: Champions & Europa League

Jireh Antwi
-
0

Here’s a quick synopsis on this week’s European football fixtures.

Champions League

Image result for munich vs real madrid

Real Madrid vs Bayern Munich 

A clash of giants, this match-up has been witnessed before in recent years with Bayern Munich then under Pep Guardiola. That time, Pep’s side suffered a big defeat. It ended 6-3 on aggregate, as Madrid managed to score 4 goals in the second leg with Ronaldo adding two to his ludicrous goal tally. Can Bayern earn revenge with recently appointed Jupp Heynckes. Heynckes lead Munich to win a historic Treble in the 2012/2013 season; Including a Champions League trophy win over Borussia Dortmund. Real Madrid will be looking for another place in the final and make it a historic 3 times in a row and add another Champions League title to Ronaldo’s amazing resume.

 

Bayern Munich vs Real Madrid Semi Final Clash to take place on 25th April 2018.

 

Liverpool vs Roma 

This is a tie that Liverpool fans most certainly wished for and it looks like the odds are in their favour. They’re the only team in the semi-final to win both legs, and doing it convincingly against Manchester City where they won a 3-0 and then 2-1. This series of victories has pushed the side to be ranked amongst Europe’s best. However, Roma are no pushovers and if they get to the final, it will not be too much of a surprise. This is the team that put 3 goals past a defensively compact Chelsea side. Let us not forget their performance against Barcelona in the quarterfinals, where they went on to overcome a 3-goal deficit. It will be a nostalgic moment for Mo Salah as Roma is the team he came from before being sold to Liverpool for 34 million. A price tag which looks like small pickings in today’s market especially for a player with 40 goals in all competitions. If Liverpool wins the Champions League could Mo Salah be in serious contention to win the Ballon d’Or?

Europa League


Arsenal vs Atletico Madrid 

Wenger has never touched a European trophy in his career, coming close in the 2006 Champions League final against Barcelona. Atletico have won the Europa league previously in 2010 and 2012. Wenger’s side are one of the favourites to win the competition due to the sheer amount of talent in their team. Naturally, this is the first time Arsenal are meeting someone in the competition that is at their level or above them, so it will be a test. Atletico are currently second in La Liga and are most likely assured a place in the Champions League next season. However, Arsenal are sixth in the Premier League and will be in Europa again next year unless they win it all, making the stakes higher for them. Antoine Griezmann and Diego Costa players with world-class abilities could prove to be the deciding factor. Unfortunately, the latter’s appearance for this week’s game is in doubt, amidst injury woes. Despite this,  Atletico Madrid still have a strong team and are very defensively resilient under Diego Simeone.

 

Marseille vs Salzburg 

Salzburg only have one defeat in 21 matches in Europe and are currently first in their league with an 8-point lead. Marseille possesses plenty of flair and attacking prowess. In the front lies former West Ham player Dimitri Payet who is known for his wonder free-kicks when he used to play in the Premier League. Moreover, the top scorer in their team for this competition is the Argentinean Lucas Ocampos. Having never won the competition before it will be a first for Marseille and Salzburg. The winner of this game will most likely be the underdogs against Arsenal or Atletico, but in Europe anything is possible.

Overall the match ups are sure to provide a lot of entertainment and hopefully goals. It’s a great chance for all players to step up and once again show what they’re made of.

 

 

 


 

Kendrick Lamar wins Pulitzer Prize

Emmabelle Nwadikwa
-
0
Kendrick Lamar wins Pulitzer Prize

 

In what may be hip hop’s biggest ever plot twist, Kendrick Lamar was awarded a Pultizer prize for his album “DAMN.”

The album lost out on the Grammy award for album of the year in January, an award that instead went to Bruno Mars and was indeed well deserved. However, on Monday Kendrick Lamar became the first rapper to win the Pulitzer Prize for music. He’s also the first winner outside of the categories of classical or jazz music since the award began in 1943.

The administer of prizes, Dana Canedy, said: “This is a big moment for hip hop and a big moment for the Pulitzers.”

She said that the decision was unanimous with the board calling the album “a virtuosic song collection unified by its vernacular, authenticity and rhythmic dynamism that offers affected vignettes capturing the complexity of modern African-American life.”

Critic for The Nation, David Hajdu, who was one of the music jurors, said that there was “quite a lot of enthusiasm for it” and that when it was listened to there was zero dissent: “A lively and constructive conversation, but no dissent”.

Other finalists and past winners have taken to social media to congratulate Mr Lamar, though some people have been less than pleased with the result. Most people, however, recognise Mr Lamar’s contribution to music and find themselves, like Mr. Hajdu and the rest of the team assembled to deliberate, saying: “Listen to this – this is brilliant”.

Theresa May extends apology over Windrush deportation scandal

Emmabelle Nwadikwa
-
0
Theresa May extends apology over Windrush deportation scandal

 

Theresa May has issued an apology to both Caribbean leaders and the Windrush generation following an impassioned plea from Tottenham MP, David Lammy after it was revealed that some British people may have been deported by mistake.

An emergency meeting was called and the Labour MP expressed his fury at what he declared was a ‘national day of shame’.

The speech from David Lammy came after Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, was unable to say how many Caribbean immigrants had possibly been deporting in error, saying that she would have to check with the high commissioners, a statement that prompted Lammy to remind her that the deportations had taken place within a department that she was responsible for.

Theresa May has said that she is “genuinely sorry” and acknowledged that the current issues that are being faced are resulting from rules that were introduced by her as home secretary to limit NHS access to those with a right to be in the UK. She has stated that the majority of the Windrush generation do have the documents that they need and that the government are working hard to help those who do not.

May said she wants to “dispel any impression that my government is in some sense clamping down on Commonwealth citizens, particularly those from the Caribbean who have built a life here.”

She added: “Those who arrived from the Caribbean before 1973 and lived here permanently without significant periods of time away in the last 30 years have the right to remain in the UK. As do the vast majority of long-term residents who arrived later.”

She emphasised that she doesn’t “want anyone to be in doubt about their right to remain here in the United Kingdom”.

Prime Minister of St Kitts and Nevis, Timothy Harris, has said that though they see this as the start of the dialogue, he is hoping that the British government would make good any injustice suffered, including offer of compensation.

Prime Minister of Jamaica Andrew Holness has accepted May’s apology, stating that he believes that the right thing is being done at this time and that as Caribbean leaders they have to accept in “good faith” that Theresa May was honest about this being an unintended consequence of the policy change. He also said that whilst he couldn’t say just how many people had been affected, he knew it was at least in the hundreds.

Theresa May has said that people currently trying to establish their status should not be left out of pocket and therefore they will not be charged for their documentation.

David Lammy’s speech can be watched here:

An Increase in Loneliness Among Young Adults

Common Sense Contributors
-
2

By Dolline Mukui.

A study from the Office of National statistics show that young people are more likely to suffer from loneliness.

Earlier this year, Theresa May had set out plans to tackle loneliness and she warned that millions of others were suffering from it too.

The survey done with over 10,000 adults exhibited that 10% of 16-24 year olds said they felt lonely. This figure is three times higher than people aged 65 and above.

There has been focus on isolation in the elderly community but feelings of loneliness tend to decrease with age. This may be due to the fact that they become more resilient to life events and transitional periods, according to the study.

Experts have said that loneliness is linked to a sense of belonging or a lack of stability. This could mean within their social groups or community.

Social media may have a role to play in loneliness. We befriend hundreds of people on our social media accounts but they rarely become true friends that we can offload our concerns and issues to.

Cal Strode of the Mental Health Foundation said that “Teens can have thousands of friends online and yet feel unsupported and isolated. Technology, including social media, could be exacerbating social isolation.”

Women are more likely than men to report feelings of loneliness. Social gender constructs of masculinity in men require them to be strong, bold and handle anything that comes their way and societal pressures have reinforced these notions on men. This results in men not wanting to come forward and talk about about their personal issues.

Izzi Seccombe, chairwoman of the Local Government Association’s committee on well-being voiced that “The harm loneliness can cause, both physically and mentally, can be devastating to people of all ages – it is a serious public health concern which studies suggest can be as harmful as smoking 15 cigarettes a day.”

Those least likely to be affected are middle-aged people, homeowners involved in their community, in good health and in a relationship.

For more information on this issue, visit https://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org/loneliness-research/ 

 

Dolline recently graduated with an MA in Broadcast Journalism. She is an ITV Breaking into News finalist whereby she reported on the Manchester Arena attack. Currently, she is a voluntary co-host/contributor on a show called a ‘Chat with Elle Celeste’. She also has a blog where she talks about her life and travels.

Twitter: @ceraz_x

Decolonising and Redesigning the Primary School Curriculum

Common Sense Contributors
-
2

By Mike Banks.

The British primary school curriculum is in desperate need of a revamp. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks are names most primary school children will be familiar with, but both of these figures are famous for their roles in the African American civil rights movement. Black history is typically taught in primary schools from an African American perspective, and while this is important, it is also important that primary school children are made aware of black British history.

Britain is becoming more and more diverse, and the primary school curriculum should reflect this increased diversity. Children should not only read books that feature white protagonists, as they can internalise this as the norm and view anything else as a deviation from the norm. Nigerian author, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie noted that she used to write books with white protagonists when she was younger as at the time she perceived this as the norm.

Black authors are also frequently absent from primary school reading lists. So, not only do black children fail to engage with novels that feature characters that look like them, they also fail to engage with novels written by people that look like them.

The role that black people have played in shaping Britain today has generally been overlooked and this is reflected in the primary school curriculum. For example, primary school children are taught about the First World War with no mention of the West Indian and African soldiers who fought on behalf of Britain.

Olaudah Equiano fought against the slave trade

Black British history in schools has often been limited to Mary Seacole and her role in the Crimean War, but there have been others that have played an important role in Britain. Olaudah Equiano fought for the British abolition of the slave trade following his experience as a slave. Una Marson, Stuart Hall and Bernie Grant also left their mark on British society.

Primary school children are also taught a sugar-coated, blemish-free version of British history, which does not include Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade, or colonialism. Winston Churchill, for example, is presented to young children as a war hero, but there is no mention of the fact that he believed in racial hierarchy and viewed the white race as the superior race.

Racism is still a huge problem that continues to plague British society; completely ignoring Britain’s racist past contributes to this problem because the first way to deal with a problem is to acknowledge that it exists.

Many will point to Black History Month and the role it can play in enlightening primary school children about Black British History, but confining the teaching of Black British history to one month makes the experiences of black people feel inconsequential.

Not only does the school curriculum need to be de-colonised, but new subjects also need to be introduced. Politics and Sociology remain overlooked until GCSE/A-level. Both subjects can and should be incorporated into the primary school curriculum, much like History and Geography have been. Now, I understand the complexities of teaching politics, let alone teaching it at primary school. We want children to be presented with an impartial teaching of politics, especially at such a young age. This is why I only advocate for Key Stage Two children (7-11 year olds) being taught about the key institutions in British Politics including their history and purpose, and the key players both past and present in British Politics. Topics like Brexit should be left off the curriculum as not only are they extremely complicated, they are also emotive topics that can lead to a lack of impartiality from those teaching.

Teaching primary school children Politics could increase youth turnout rates (Source: Stutterstock)

While there has been an improvement in the youth turnout (18-24 year-olds) at General Elections in recent years, it still remains lower than that of other age groups. Familiarising young people with the broad workings of the British political system could help create a more informed and engaged future electorate, and thus foster more political engagement.

Sociology, on the other hand, would be useful as it allows young people to be more critical in their thinking, and provides them with a clearer understanding of the society they live in, how it operates, the problems faced in society and the relationship between an individual and any given society.

A revitalised primary school curriculum is needed to provide young children with a well-rounded education that does not favour the history of some over others and confronts important issues such as colonialism and the slave trade as they still impact our lives today.

 

Mike is a Politics PhD student and takes a keen interest in social issues, all things British politics and Liverpool FC.

The Gun Debate: Why America Shouldn’t Repeal the Second Amendment

Common Sense Contributors
-
6

By Shafiq Kyazze.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In the wake of the recent tragic mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, USA many have called for the abolition of the Second Amendment and a total ban on guns in the USA. But such reactionary measures won’t immediately solve the problem of killings by guns as they fail to tackle the underlying root cause.

Sociological study of mass shootings in the US has found that there are various characteristics perpetrators of such heinous acts share with each other. For example, statistically, the majority of mass shooters have come from fatherless or ‘broken homes’. Of course, this is not to claim there is a direct cause and effect relationship between home structure and likelihood to engage in a killing rampage, but simply that guns in and of themselves can’t inherently be the problem.

Studies of children raised in single parent households have also shown a strong correlation with those likely to self-harm, suffer from depression and harm others, suggesting that the significance of both parents in the development of one’s happiness and health is second to none. However, if we are acknowledging family patterns as a contributor to any rise in mass shootings, this isn’t a new epidemic. In the US the increase in fatherless homes started in the 1960s under Democrat President Lyndon. B. Johnson and has been growing ever since. So instead of banning guns should policies not first attempt to address root causes of the issue?

I think it’s clear that even if guns magically disappeared tomorrow, there are still going to be individuals who are depressed, suffering from mental health and who are disengaged with positive society, inadvertently making them more susceptible to self-harm and harming others in different ways. In view of this, the US needs a tougher stance on background checks before issuing out gun licenses and needs to put a stronger emphasis on addressing and tackling mental health issues as well as boosting school security.

A scene at the signing of the constitution by the founding fathers. The second amendment in the USA is supported by the constitution (painting by Howard Chandler Christy)

Furthermore, in China where guns are banned, in 2012 a 36-year-old man was able to stab 23 children and a teacher. Evidently, in countries where guns have been banned, this hasn’t ended mass murders. To put it differently, to blame guns or knives for mass murders is like blaming cars for road accidents caused by intoxicated drivers.

While it seems sensible that fewer guns will lead to fewer shootings, the issue is intricate. In places where citizens are allowed to carry guns, the law abiding population can use guns for self defence against criminals. Criminals find it riskier to commit crimes due to fear of getting shot or even killed which is why 96% of mass shootings happen in “gun free zones” according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. As a matter of fact, gun ownership in the US increased by 56% while gun violence fell by 50% between 1993 and 2013.

On a further note, residential burglaries dropped by 89% after Kennesaw a town in Georgia, USA passed an ordinance requiring every head of a household to own a gun. Although gun-control advocates point out that criminals will give up their guns after a firearm ban, they forget the basic definition of a criminal – someone who doesn’t follow the rules and laws of a country. So why would a ‘criminal’ give up their firearm simply because it’s been outlawed by the government?

A ban on guns will push their primary supply directly through black markets and criminals will use these firearms against law abiding citizens whose only defence would subsequently be the police. Police who take minutes to arrive at a crime scene and in some instances eventually find themselves outnumbered. This was notably seen during the 1992 L.A riots. While police were busy dealing with riots, Korean shop owners had to rely on their firearms for self-defence and to stop rioters from looting, burning and destroying their shops. A further illustration was seen from the recent Florida school shooting, the local police received 45 calls about the parkland shooter and the FBI received a tip about the assailant’s “desire to kill people” but still failed to stop the shooting. The police can’t provide perfect protection which calls for a need for the population to have their own form of self-defence.

Korean shop owners during the L.A riots. While many people were fleeing for their lives, Korean shop owners defended their shops and lives using their guns.

Contrary to the conventional view of ‘more guns equals more crime’, a study by 2 criminologists, Professors Gary Mauser and Don Kates repudiates the views of gun- control activists. The researchers wrote in the report:

“If the mantra `more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death’ were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per ca pita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed, many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)”

The report also found that in Russia where it’s illegal to own a gun, the murder rate is 4 times higher than that of the USA and 20 times higher than Norway where citizens of both countries have a higher gun ownership rate than Russia.

While many gun control proponents point to Australia as an example due to its 1996 firearm ban, the number of guns in Australia has increased over the last 10 years and is almost similar to what it was in 1996 (1.6% less). Yet, despite a rise in gun the ownership rate, the number of homicides has been steadily declining .

 

It’s safe to say that if statistics are anything to go by, banning gun ownership will not immediately reverse the rate of gun related deaths. What government needs to prioritise is identifying and tackling the underlying factors which require more time and more thought; those which can’t simply be implemented with the signing of a piece of paper.

 

Shafiq has a strong background in philosophy and history having been exposed to such issues at a very tender age. He has a voracious interest in economics, history, politics, philosophy and social issues. He is a Chemical engineering student at The University of Manchester. Shafiq is also an avid Barcelona fan and is currently a writer for TCS.

Paul Ryan To Bow Out With A Debatable Legacy

Alex Davenport
-
0
Paul Ryan To Bow Out With A Debatable Legacy

The Republican Party has been rocked by the news that one of its leading members, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, is to step down next January following the results of November’s midterm elections. Ryan, who has served as Speaker since he replaced John Boehner in 2015, will stand down from Congress altogether, leaving others to contest his Wisconsin seat at the midterms.

Ryan has stated that the main reason for his resignation is his desire to spend more time with his family. While this has become an almost clichéd reason for politicians to step down, covering up for a range of ulterior factors, the length at which Ryan has discussed his motivation suggests it is largely genuine. He has pointed to the fact that his children are beginning to reach their teenage years, and so he doesn’t want to miss his chance to be remembered as more than a “weekend dad” to them.

However, much speculation has already been made of Ryan’s relationship with Donald Trump, and the extent to which it has put a further strain on the already difficult job of speaker. Indeed, having to work closely with a president whom Ryan is rumoured to have described as being impulsive and having little policy knowledge may have proved too much for a speaker who would otherwise have had to put up with Trump until at least the 2020 presidential election. For his part, Trump reacted to Ryan’s resignation with a glowing tweet about his personal qualities.

But whatever his president says, there will long continue to be question marks over Ryan’s legacy. Indeed, it is in the context of Trump’s presidency that Ryan’s spell as Speaker will be judged.

When Trump first emerged onto the political scene as a candidate in the Republican primaries, Ryan denounced him for making “racist” comments and suggested his ideology did not fit with the Republican party. Yet as soon as Trump won the presidential election, Ryan backtracked on much of his criticism, and instead began to co-operate with, and even praise Trump, noting his “exquisite presidential leadership” after a key piece of tax reform legislation was passed.

With the help of Trump’s former chief of staff Reince Priebus, it appears Ryan was able to convince Trump that the Republican establishment that Ryan epitomises was not completely out to get him, and that there was common ground upon which the two could build. Together, the two embarked on an often fruitful relationship, enabling Ryan to pass legislation about which he has been passionate, including a major tax reform and increased military spending.

On this basis two contrasting interpretations of Ryan’s role under Trump can be drawn; either he is the toadying sell-out, suddenly cosying up to a figure he once despised in exchange for a few pieces of legislation, or he is the sensible pragmatist, not trying to fight the inevitable tide of US politics and instead working it to his advantage.

Paul Ryan shares a joke with Donald Trump (Source: AP)

Whichever way you see it, though, it seems Ryan acts as a kind of metaphor for the traditional Republican party as a whole. Once completely repulsed by the idea of Donald Trump getting anywhere near power, they have been forced to moderate themselves as their fears became reality. Over time, their horror shifted to mere discomfort, and eventually resignation (in Ryan’s case literally). Many Republicans, particularly those from more conventional ideological backgrounds, will see Ryan’s complete backtrack on Trump and feel they have no choice but to do the same.

Saudi Arabia works toward a Wakandan future

Uwais Ilyas
-
0
Saudi Arabia works toward a Wakandan future

35-year cinema ban to end with Black Panther screening

Saudi Arabia is set to open its cinema doors for the first time since a ban was imposed by the ultra-conservative government in the 1980s. Black Panther has been selected as the first film to screen on the 18th of April at a new AMC cinema built in the country’s capital, Riyadh. The ban had been instigated to limit the free mixing of men and women in public and to avoid endorsement of taboo behaviour in public. However, this did not stop citizens from viewing western films in the comfort of their own homes. The grand mufti of Saudi Arabia (the country’s highest religious authority) has denounced the move and described commercial films as a source of “depravity”. Of course, this is only the beginning for the country, AMC entertainment has plans to open a further 40 cinemas in Saudi Arabia in the next five years, and to increase this to 100 by 2030: creating some 30,000 new jobs.

Technically the first publicly screened films in the country since the ban was lifted in January were the critically slated, Emoji Movie and the marginally better received, Captain underpants: The First Epic Movie, which were shown in temporary local theatres in Jeddah. The choice of Black Panther as the first film for adult audiences in a permanent theatre is rather unsurprising: the popularity of the film worldwide has clearly not escaped the notice of AMC, who hope to attract record numbers of Saudis out to see the film.

Michael B Jordan as Erik Killmonger

Wakanda and Saudi Arabia: more than a few similarities

The fictional country Wakanda, which features heavily in the film Black Panther, bears more than a passing resemblance to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia itself: a monarchy with vast wealth amassed from a single, widely coveted natural resource. Both countries have what are known as “command and control” economies – economies where the central government dictates production goals of raw materials: in Wakanda’s case, the indestructible metal Vibranium, and in the case of Saudi Arabia, crude oil. Wakanda also represents the Saudi dream: a strong economy with a futuristic mega-city, deeply in touch with its cultural roots.

Crown-prince Mohammad bin Salman (son of King Abdulaziz), sees himself as a reformer, much like the movie’s fictional King T’challa of Wakanda; keen to build bridges with the west. Mohammad bin Salman (MbS as he is known in the west), also hopes to vastly reform the backward gender laws in his country. Thus far, he has granted women the right to drive and relaxed laws on free mixing between men and women – setting the Kingdom on the path to becoming a more moderate theocracy. He has made special efforts to maintain good ties with western leaders- meeting president Trump very soon after his election and vocally sharing his tough stance against global terrorism- a theme that is also strongly echoed in the film. In fact, parallels have been drawn between Killmonger, the exiled terrorist son of Wakanda and Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda and ex-member of the Saudi ruling elite. The fact that the film presents the CIA as a helpful American aid in the form of the character of Everett Ross (played by the ever-affable Martin Freeman) interestingly ties in strongly with Saudi’s historically open cooperation and strong links with the intelligence agency.

Chadwick Boseman as T’Challa in Black Panther

More than a few differences

Despite all of the reforms proposed by the new crown-prince of Saudi Arabia, it seems that any comparison with the fictional Wakanda are hopeful at best. The Kingdom still has a very high unemployment rate at 12.7% and it is increasing (thanks in part to volatile oil prices). Saudi society still trails far behind the rest of the world (and Wakanda) in tackling issues such as gender equality and widespread poverty amongst the lower socioeconomic classes. It is also not quite the isolationist utopia the government would like it to be compared to. The Saudi government’s involvement in the war in Yemen and continued interference in countries such as Lebanon and Qatar show that it still has a long way to go if it is to achieve the moral commendation of Wakanda.

Saudi Arabia is in a state of revolution in all senses of the word. Its lifting of the ban on movie theatres is just one step on its way; diversification of the economy away from oil will no doubt also help, but MbS’ vision for the Kingdom is far more wide-reaching. Wakanda may be a Hollywood utopia, but it is a state that Saudi Arabia is moving towards.

The Centrist Party: A ‘New’ Alternative?

The Common Sense Network
-
0
The Centrist Party: A ‘New’ Alternative?

This article was written by Ruby Hinchliffe and Alex Davenport

 

New Centrist Party Emerges

by Ruby Hinchliffe

It has been revealed by The Observer that a new centrist party is emerging. Its year-long existence has been kept under wraps, until now, as we hear that the party has received £50 million in funding. Most of this backing has come from the multi-millionaire Simon Franks, the founder of LoveFilm and former Labour benefactor, who is ‘leading’ the party in its embryonic stages. The party is yet to have any official political backers, and has not yet received an official name.

Their tagline announces that they will “break the Westminster mould”, offering the most striking challenge so far to the current tribal nature of politics, which limits voters to just two mainstream parties: the Conservatives and Labour.

Founder of the as yet unnamed centrist party, Simon Franks (Source: Asia House)

The once-upon-a-time ‘centrist’ Liberal Democrats have practically disappeared now, winning just 12 seats in the last election. This lack of a third party option, paired with the polarisation of Britain following the Brexit referendum vote, has led us to a vast divide on the political spectrum. Indeed, former Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has said the formation of a centrist party is “highly likely”.

In Westminster, we have seen moderate Labour MPs become disassociated with their party since the return of the hard left under Jeremy Corbyn. We have also seen the alienation of more modern, pro-European Tories, by the Conservatives’ ‘Hard Brexit’ stance, and the recent rise of traditional Tory MPs such as Jacob Rees-Mogg.

An appetite for party alternatives is becoming apparent, and it stretches further than just parliament. The National Centre for Social Research found that, on average, more than 56% of the British public do not feel as though any mainstream political party represents the views of people like them.

 

So, what does a centrist party look like, and what stance has this particular centrist party decided to take?

The idea of a centrist position is that it draws from both right and left politics. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, made a successful ‘centrist snatch’ last year, and is now 11 months into his presidency. His policies aim to establish France as more business-friendly and self-sufficient, but they also aim to deconstruct the “French social model” that leads young people and ethnic minorities into historically high unemployment. His ideology prioritises both economic and social issues.

French President Emmanuel Macron (Source: NDTV)

In the UK, the Conservatives are far more orientated towards the economy, just as Labour are far more oriented towards social justice. There is little room for compromise.

This new centrist party has been defined by the following stances in The Observer:

  • Higher taxes on the rich
  • Tighter controls on immigration
  • More funding to the NHS
  • Improved social mobility
  • A focus on wealth creation and entrepreneurship
  • All potential candidates to sign strict term limits, preventing MPs from remaining safe in their seats for decades
  • It has also been said by one source that Brexit supporters are involved with the party

Their stances suggest that they are playing to a more centre-left audience. There seems to be a consensus that future candidates for the party will run in the 2022 election, and that the party will be formerly established later this year.

 

Those hoping for a new centrist party in Britain shouldn’t hold their breath

by Alex Davenport

On the surface, it seems like there is potential for this as yet nameless centrist party to make inroads into British politics. Indeed, some polling may suggest there is a demand among voters for a new party in the centre ground. A ComRes poll on the eve of last year’s general election found that 45% of respondents were in favour of the idea of a new centre party being formed. Meanwhile surveys consistently show both Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May languishing in the negatives with regard to approval ratings. It seems intuitive that with Labour and the Conservatives moving ideologically further apart, each with an unpopular leader at the helm, would be the best time for a party to spring up in between them and win voters from both.

The party could also take confidence from the success of Emmanuel Macron and his République En Marche (REM) party in France. The newly-formed liberal party led by Macron, a former cabinet minister for the Socialist Party, won both the presidency and a substantial majority in the French legislature. Much of their success was founded upon the electoral coalition they built, uniting young, liberal-minded voters and more affluent members of the middle class with their mix of socially progressive and economically pro-free market policies. This is the kind of broad appeal the British centrist party will hope to have when it starts putting candidates forward.

Yet there are several serious hurdles for this new party to overcome if it is to have success comparable in any way to Macron and REM. For one, the British electoral system makes it particularly hard for new parties to succeed. Our ‘first-past-the-post’ system is arranged so that whichever party wins the most votes in a particular seat automatically wins the seat, regardless of how much they win by or by how popular the party is outside the seat in question. This means that a party needs to build up a strong concentration of voters in specific regions to stand a chance of winning seats. A party that receives, say, 20% of the vote across the country may in theory not win a single seat if its support is distributed so equally across the country that it does not translate into success is any one constituency.

It seems unlikely that Franks’ centrist party would be able to – out of nowhere – win such strongly localised support bases that they genuinely challenge Labour and the Tories in specific seats, and would instead be likely to suffer at best a series of unhelpful second- and third-placed finishes with precious few actual victories to their name. Critics of Franks’ project point to the Social Democratic Party of the 1980s as an example of this: when four senior Labour politicians broke away from the party to form a liberal alliance, they took only 23 seats despite netting millions of votes in 1983’s general election.

Also, the evidence that there really is demand for a centre party is somewhat dubious. While polls may suggest that voters think it is a good idea to have a centre party, sometimes it is better to go on what people do than what they say. At the 2017 election, the proportion of voters supporting one of the two main parties was at its highest in a generation, with Labour and the Conservatives’ combined share of the vote reaching 82%. The main centrist alternative, the Liberal Democrats, won only 7.4% in comparison. Seen in this way, the British public do not seem desperate for alternatives to the two main parties, including those in the centre ground.

The ‘Lib Dem fightback’ failed to materialise for Tim Farron’s party in 2017 (Source: BBC)

This is not to say that Franks’ party is doomed to fail. If politics has taught us anything over the past few years, it is that we should never be too bold in our predictions. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a new party could change the status quo in one way or another. Even if this new party struggles to win any seats, it may succeed in setting the agenda and dominating the discussion on certain issues, as UKIP did so effectively on immigration and the European Union. Yet posing a genuine challenge to the big beasts of British politics is easier said than done.

Virgil Abloh at Louis Vuitton: Why he’s not the answer to racism and diversity in the fashion industry

Common Sense Contributors
-
5

By Tanya Mwamuka.

If you are as enthusiastic as I am about fashion there is no doubt you would have heard Louis Vuitton’s newest appointment; Ghanaian- American Designer, Virgil Abloh. Abloh has been was announced as the French luxury house’s newest artistic director for their menswear. Abloh’s first show is set to take place this June at Paris Fashion week.

So who is Abloh and what are his credentials? Abloh has been known for his unusual take on high fashion, marrying it well with street wear and urban culture. The 37 year old started on a very different pathway, receiving an undergraduate in Civil Engineering and a masters in Architecture. Alongside friend and rapper Kanye West, he began his career in fashion, interning at Italian fashion house Fendi. In 2011 Abloh held the role of art director for Jay-Z and Kanye West’s album Watch the Throne which he was subsequently nominated a grammy for. Shortly after in 2013, he launched Pyrex Vision, which brought him into the spotlight. Pyrex blended in the mass of streetwear brands, only distinguishing itself due to it being worn by celebrities such as Kanye West, Jay Z and Asap Rocky.

Pyrex Vision shorts Image courtesy of Highsnobiety Shoots

Pyrex Vision was quickly discontinued after one year despite its success, and his high end Milan based brand Off White was then born. Off White, being a hybrid brand, provided streetwear attire for both men and women with luxury price tags. At first it seemed to be a regurgitation of Pyrex with a different name, but with refinement year after year it gained respect amongst the luxury community, establishing Abloh as a serious designer.

Image: Off White AW17/18 collection

But has Abloh’s appointment changed inclusivity and diversity within the fashion industry? The fashion industry has much to say about this appointment, Edward Enninful amongst them noting “His appointment is a step in the right direction for diversity, as well exciting creative movement for the industry”. Much like the use of more inclusive models, there also seems to be a domino affect of people of colour gaining artistic control. This was recently ignited by the appointment of Enninful as Editor and Chief of British Vogue last August.

Edward Enninful

It’s easy to think that Abloh’s new position has solved the epidemic of racism within the industry but that simply isn’t true. The issue with labelling appointments like Abloh’s or Enninful as ”progressive” or “revolutionising” is that they hardly make a dent in actually solving these issues. The infrastructure of fashion is set-up to promote exclusivity and with the little bit of black influence whitewashed to fit what the industry sees as suitable. So instead of the industry delving deeper into the structure which fuels this, creatives like Abloh are used as front men. The industry appears progressive when really nothing is. In some ways this is almost comparable to Barack Obama’s win of the presidential elections. Many spoke of America entering a “post- racial” era, which is laughable when you consider the events which unfolded, showing it is in fact a polar opposite.

The real impact of Abloh’s new role: 

Yes, putting black creatives in artistic control is definitely a positive, but it’s p only scratching the surface in solving the racial issues and lack of diversity that persist. Fashion houses, influencers and creatives in power need to do better and be made accountable if we are to see real change. Abloh’s appointment as a way of resolving this has been very much exaggerated and if anything, Virgil’s streetwear background is the real reason, for me at least, which makes his appointment revolutionising.

His unique hybrid approach to design has opened the doors of luxury to a generation who have always felt alienated by its impenetrability. To think, Abloh has no formal fashion training, yet the king of collaborations has superseded anyone’s expectations. It’s no doubt that his quick rise to fame and influence in the industry is deserving for his new post. Congratulations Virgil, you truly have done something incredible.

 

Tanya is currently studying Biomedical Sciences at the University of Manchester and hopes to get into science journalism and media after completing her degree. She loves fashion and travelling and enjoys learning languages in her spare time; she’s currently learning French.

Champions League Round-Up

Common Sense Contributors
-
0

By James Miller

The fight to be amongst Europe’s finest four began on Tuesday night. After two days of quarter-final first leg games, Spain is in prime position to have at least two Champions League semi-final participants. This coming after some good performances by the Primera Division’s remaining teams.

Prior to the quarter-finals, three major Premier League sides suffered defeat, leaving only two to battle on. After Liverpool drew Manchester City, Spain’s remaining sides all avoided any possible meeting. The initiative was left for the Spaniards to firmly stamp their authority on European football’s finest competition.

On Tuesday night, the current holders Real Madrid haunted last season’s beaten finalists Juventus once more. Current Serie A leaders Juventus were set up against it after conceding early to that man, Cristiano Ronaldo. The Italians attempted to get back in the game but the class of ‘Ronnie’ prevailed. Ronaldo’s second goal was nothing short of world-class. It was purely delightful. So much so that Juventus’ fans stood and applauded.

 

At this point, Real Madrid were in firm control. However,  Juventus’ luck began to dissipate further, when Argentinian Paulo Dybala was sent for an early shower. The forward picked up his second bookable offence, leaving his teammates in all sorts of trouble. So soon after seeing his team concede their second, a moment of loose thoughts and the tie was almost out of distance. Even more so when Marcelo give Madrid a third away goal. Dybala, a hero of the last European Showdown against Spurs, quickly turned zero. All in all, this fixture proved to be another splendid Champions League performance from Ronaldo. Did you expect anything else?

More Sevilla misfortune

On Tuesday night, another Spanish side took to the quarter-final stage of the Champions League. For the first time in the club’s history, had Sevilla reached the last eight. They welcomed German champions, Bayern Munich. Pablo Sarabia (the eventual Man of the match) initially gave the hosts the lead. The Spaniard missed a glorious chance prior to his actual goal but made no mistake after when he beat Juan Bernat to a cross by Escudero. A goal up, with things going well. Just five minutes later though, Jesus Navas deflected a Franck Ribéry cross past his own keeper meaning it was level at halftime. Sevilla may well have taken the lead again but for some great last-minute defending by Javi Martinez, just after halftime.

Bayern let their quality show, they took the lead in the second half with 68 minutes on the clock. It was Thiago Alcantara with the goal. The midfield man was in the right place at the right time. He got on the end of Ribéry’s cross managing to nod it down to make it 2-1. Another deflection, in off the keeper’s legs. Not that it will matter for Munich, who now have two vital away goals. Sevilla had chances to get something. Notably when Everton loanee, Sandro Ramírez called Sven Ulreich into action late on, but the side placed 7th in Spain’s top league fell short. When you consider mind that they are up against the runaway Bundesliga leaders, it is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.

https://twitter.com/iamnzonzi15/status/981290348491235328

Barcelona at Roma: Usual Business

Barcelona beat Italian side Roma 4-1 Wednesday evening. In truth, Barcelona weren’t as good as the scoreline suggests. There was a lack of rhythm that may well in the future, cost them. Luck favoured them on this occasion though. Especially, after early Roma penalty appeals were waved away. Then, without a goal scorer on the scoresheet, they found themselves 2-0 to the good. Two own goals, one just before and not long after halftime. Not what Roma will have been hoping for and Pique soon made matter worse tucking home from close range just before the hour mark. A commanding lead at this stage for Barcelona. In-form striker Edin Dzeko attempted to shed some light on Roma’s situation. The Bosnian striker pulled back an away goal, in the 80th minute. It wasn’t Roma’s only chance though, it was a game of chances to be honest Diego Perrotti missing a good headed opportunity early in the second half springs to mind but Barcelona had the more clinical edge. World class players. A man who had yet to score for Barcelona in the Champions League this season, Luis Suarez. He notched his first in the competition to round it off for a 4-1. The Uruguayan had previously seen an effort ruled out for offside seven minutes in.

Clenched fists & Jubilation amongst the Barcelona crowd as Suarez secures their fourth goal. (Image: Reuters)

An unlikely British saviour?

After finishing 4th last season, Jurgen Klopp’s side initially had to qualify at the expense of Portuguese side, Porto. Since then, the Reds’ ruthlessly dispatched fellow Premier League side, Man City. In what was a battle between the last of the British sides. Liverpool’s energy and sharp pressing, followed by counter-attacking play, caused Pep Guardiola’s soon to be English Champions all sorts of problems. Top scorers on Europe’s main stage this season so far, Liverpool went into the game with a total of 28 goals. At halftime, it was 31. The three goals came from the magnificent Mohamed Salah, Sadio Mane and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain. The latter’s goal was a screamer that two keepers couldn’t have saved. An outstanding first-half display put Klopp’s men in cruise control. It was then more of a professional performance during the second half. They successfully shut down Man City. A team who has obliterated many defences this season were left without a shot on target for the first time since 2016. Liverpool’s keeper Lloris will have been in the spotlight pre-match, but he was a mere bystander.

 

Coming of age?

In what was a magnificent display in front of a packed out Anfield, creating an unbelievable buzz. It was one of their own who really caught the eye. Young English right back Trent Alexander-Arnold, was sublime. Nothing short of outstanding. A player that had come under criticism just days ago after struggling to cope with Wilfried Zaha. He left that in the past, not allowing Leroy Sane a chance at goal. Brought through the Academy and given the trust of the manager, he certainly repaid it with a mature performance. Outstanding. Often defenders don’t receive the credit, especially when there is a 38-goal winger on the side, but the way Alexander-Arnold shrugged of a torrid first half Saturday, could simply not go under the radar.

 

Quarterfinal round-up in full:

Tuesday 03/04/2018
Juventus 0-3 Real Madrid
Sevilla 1-2 Bayern Munich

Wednesday 04/04/2018
Barcelona 4-1 Roma
Liverpool 3-0 Manchester City

The first leg of the Champions League quarter-final stage is complete. The second leg will be decided over the course of April 10th and 11th next week. Who do you think will advance?

Saudi Anti-corruption Purge Reaps Rewards For The Kingdom

Uwais Ilyas
-
2
Saudi Anti-corruption Purge Reaps Rewards For The Kingdom

Crown prince Mohammad bin Salman, (or MbS as he is commonly referred in the west), began an anti- corruption crackdown in November 2017 that imprisoned many of the Royal Family and others of the Kingdom’s (Saudi’s) elite within the gilded confines of the Ritz-Carlton near Riyadh. Since then, billions of dollars of reportedly “dirty” money and assets have been seized by the Kingdom.

 

Questionble motives

It was a bold move that propelled MbS further into the spotlight of the western media, leading many to  question his motives. So far there have been three widely posited reasons behind the arrests: there are those who see it as a legitimate move to increase transparency in the notoriously opaque financial dealings of the Kingdom’s elite. Others see it as an attempt by the crown prince to drum up desperately needed funding to further his revolutionary “Vision 2030”. Further, there are those who highlight that the move led to the combination of the kingdom’s security forces under the crown prince’s sole control, effectively making him the most powerful man in Saudi Arabia since his grandfather, the first King ibn Saud- a perfect motive.

 

The Crackdown: 381 arrests, 400 billion Saudi Riyals seized

Sheikh Saud al-Mojeb, Saudi attorney general and member of the newly formed supreme anti-corruption committee

Around 381 arrests starting in November 2017 included princes, businessmen and politicians and led to the freezing of over 2000 domestic accounts under allegations of bribery, money laundering and extortion. Member of the newly formed “Supreme Anti-corruption Committee”, Saudi Arabia’s attorney general: Sheikh Saud Al-Mojeb, speaking in January, announced that the three month long investigation was over. He went on to confirm that 400 billion Saudi Riyals had been “forfeited” by 325 individuals held at the Ritz-Carlton after examination of their assets by forensic accountants. The assets seized included real estate, cash, shares, securities and businesses. Many of those released were also asked to sign secret agreements with the royal family to secure their release.

 

Relationships Strained But Intact

Newly released billionaire and philanthropist Al-Waleed bin Talal

As of January 2018, 56 remain detained; being held and investigated  on graft charges. Of those released, perhaps the most well-known figure in the west is billionaire philanthropist Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. Amongst other interests, he is CEO and 95% share holder of Kingdom holding Company, a Forbes Global 2000 company, with investments in many large international companies covering a multitude of sectors. Al-Waleed has made a number of public statements emphatically denying all charges of corruption, he states that he is aligned with the government’s position against corruption and that there is no “bad-blood” between him and the crown-prince, his cousin. Many of those arrested were also related to the crown-prince, and echo al-Waleed’s sentiments regarding their relationship with the government. Prince Al-Waleed, released in January 2018, is widely regarded a moderate within the royal family and a strong proponent for many of the proposed reforms under Vision 2030. He has given interviews where he has stated that he was ordered to sign a secret agreement with the government to secure his release, but that there was no admission of guilt on his part regarding the allegations of corruption. He also denied paying billions to secure his release as others arrested at the same time as him were ordered to do.

 

The Economic And Social Repercussions

Vision 2030, the far-reaching and complex new direction for Saudi Arabia, revolutionary to the point of being dubbed the Saudi Arab Spring – image courtesy of Al Arabiya English

“Vision 2030” is a bold venture that would see the Kingdom dragged into the 21st century and has been announced as a cure to the Kingdom’s ‘addiction’ to oil. Non-oil revenues under Vision 2030 are targeted to hit around 600bn riyals (£120bn) by 2020 and 1trn riyals by 2030. However, in the month before the arrests, Saudi Arabia’s economy had been struggling, with unemployment rates rising and oil revenue forecasts looking worrying. The anti-corruption drive led by MbS has not only helped the coffers of the Kingdom, but the social fabric of the country seems to be strengthened by the apparent lack of tolerance toward corruption.

Many critics in the west have drawn parallels between MbS’ latest power move with those of Putin and his actions against russian oligarchs during his rise to power. However, many cite the fact that the money raised has bolstered MbS’ ability to deliver Vision 2030 (a highly progresssive agenda) as reason enough to allow tolerance for his boisterous use of state machinery. With the full consequences yet to play out, it’s not certain whether this gamble will pay off for MbS, though it certainly has done some good for the Kingdom as a whole both socially and economically.

Time For America to Drop Out of the Electoral College?

Alex Davenport
-
2
Time For America to Drop Out of the Electoral College?

What do Andrew Jackson, Samuel J. Tilden, Grover Cleveland, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton all have in common?  If you guessed that they all share the unfortunate fate of losing presidential elections despite winning the popular vote, you’d be absolutely right. There’s a fun piece of trivia to go and share with your friends, they’ll absolutely love it.

The five losing winners in clockwise order starting top left: Jackson, Tilden, Cleveland, Gore, Clinton (Source: NBC)

Under the country’s voting system, known as the Electoral College, voters do not directly vote for a president. Instead, each state is given a certain number of Electoral College ‘votes’, from 3 in sparsely-populated states such as Wyoming and Montana up to a mammoth 55 in California, with a total of 538 votes to be won.

Yet in all but two states (Maine and Nebraska, if anyone’s interested) these votes are won on a winner-takes-all basis, meaning that if you win fewer votes than your main rival in a specific state, no matter how close it is, you end up leaving that state with a big fat zero to your name. What this can mean, as Donald Trump showed in 2016, is that if your wins in key states come at fine margins, while in the states you lose, you lose heavily, you can win millions of votes less than your opponent and still take the presidency.

The Electoral College is certainly a divisive system, particularly in the context of the results of recent elections. One man can’t even make up his own mind about whether it is a “disaster for a democracy” or “genius”.

To a lot of Americans, and even more non-Americans, the idea of winning more votes than anyone else but still not winning the election seems patently ridiculous, since the whole point of an election is to let voters choose who wins. How can the winner not win? The unusual logic of the USA’s Electoral College system can rarely be seen in other walks of life: if England score more goals in a World Cup match than the team they are playing against, they are the winners of that match (unless the Russian government decides to tinker with the result – maybe it’s not so different from American elections after all…).

Now this objection to the Electoral College has taken on a legal basis, with a coalition taking four states (Massachusetts, California, South Carolina and Texas) to court over their winner-takes-all systems. The justification for these challenges is that the voting system denies Americans their constitutional rights of being equally represented, with some votes counting for more than others. For example, voters in a swing state with lots of electoral college votes have a much greater chance of influencing who gets to be president than voters in a tiny state which always votes for the same party.

For many, the main defence of the system is the argument that the country should not tamper with something designed by the Founding Fathers. The most obvious retort to this is that if everyone had stayed completely faithful to the Founding Fathers slavery would still be permitted, women would not have the vote, and near anyone would be allowed to carry guns around as they pleased (okay, bad example).

The Founding Fathers, designers of the USA’s unusual voting system (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Perhaps that is a bit unfair. The Founding Fathers’ original motivation for their voting system is understandable. In trying to build a stable political system, they needed to ensure the rights and independence of individual states were not trampled under a ‘tyranny of the majority’, instead allowing states to choose their leaders together. The problem is that their intentions have long been made redundant anyway. Under the original Electoral College, voters did not even vote on the president at all. Instead, they chose wise people representing their state to choose the president for them. But then pesky democracy came along and made sure these wise electors voted for the president they had been expressly instructed to by their voters. The electors now seem like a slightly pointless middleman, while even if states’ rights as a whole are protected they are at the expense of individuals who don’t back the winner in those states.

There is also the potential for things to go very wrong with the system depending on certain outcomes. For example, what if a genuinely popular and influential third-party candidate (not you, Gary Johnson) came along? Such a candidate winning even a handful of states in a close race could result in deadlock, with nobody getting the 270 College votes needed to win. In such a case, the Senate would decide who wins without any recourse to the will of the people – surely not a satisfying outcome for democracy.

It would be surprising if the legal challenges turn out to be successful. Either way, though, maybe it is time for the USA to abandon its historical anomaly of a voting system.

1...818283...91Page 82 of 91

Editor Picks

Must Read

Hot Topics

About Us

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

Contact us: hello@tcsnetwork.co.uk

Follow Us

© Copyright - Newspaper theme by tagDiv