#jeremy blaire nation RISE UP | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mojave-pete · 4 years ago

Text

EXC – UK Top Political Editor Warns Team Trump: ‘Be VERY WORRIED About Democrat-Led Voter Fraud… We Lived It.’

OCTOBER 10, 2020

DAVID MADDOX

IN 2008 I FLEW TO CHICAGO FOR THE FINAL WEEK OF THE US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND FOUND MYSELF INTERVIEWING THE DIRECTOR OF THE CHICAGO HISTORY MUSEUM.

In an aside, he told me he was trying to get funding to send divers into Lake Michigan to see if they could find the infamous ballot boxes allegedly thrown into the water on the orders of the late Mayor Richard J. Daly in 1960 to help JFK narrowly win. Perhaps not surprisingly the Democrat Chicago mayor in 2008, Richard M. Daley, son of the 1960 mayor, was not keen on the project.

Chicago was a reminder that corruption is never far from the machine politics of the left and, for me, it had echoes of the way the Labour Party operates in Britain.

FRAUD. FRAUD. FRAUD.

The electoral weapons of voter fraud are now much more sophisticated than in 1960. You can generate fake votes faster than some media outlets can churn out fake news.

As an outside observer I see patterns taking shape in America which I have seen play out in the UK and my warning to the Trump campaign is that they should be very worried.

The problem lies in what we Brits call “postal voting” and you Americans call “mail-in voting”.

In the UK it is now widely accepted that mail-in voting is wide open to fraud.

The Democrats and Labour regularly copy one another. Just ask Joe Biden, who literally copied a Labour Party politician’s speech in one of the most egregious examples of political plagiarism ever witnessed. And the Democrats are following Labour’s lead on voting fraud.

It’s no accident the Democrats moved hard to the Left while Jeremy Corbyn was leading Britain’s Labour Party. The members of both recently have been champions of identity politics, BLM, pulling down statues, taking a knee, and much more.

The massive use of mail-in voting has now opened the door for the Democrats to use a trick used by Labour now since 2000 known as “farming votes”.

THE BLAIR SWITCH PROJECT.

In 2000, then Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair switched up the law in a way that helped Labour by making it much easier to use postal votes and crucially did not include any safeguards to prevent fraud.

By the general election of 2005 it was alleged that Blair was encouraging the “farming of postal votes” and the problem only got worse after that.

Farming, or harvesting votes, is the practice of getting people to sign up for a postal vote, collecting their ballots and then parties or candidates filling in the votes for the individuals. Absurdly, this is not always illegal, but it has been proven on numerous occasions that the Labour Party has used the process fraudulently, but the reality is that the few cases prosecuted are just a tiny tip of a huge iceberg.

A recent example was a by-election for the Peterborough seat in 2019 which Labour won narrowly by 683 votes defeating Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party into second place. Of the 33,998 ballot papers counted, 9,898 were postal votes, an enormous proportion and suspicions arose that Labour was guilty of fraud.

This came from the fact that around 400 postal votes were rejected for irregularities including fake signatures.

For those who have trailed around covering by-elections where there appeared to be no support for Labour and then the candidate miraculously won, Peterborough was just another depressing chapter in a long story of possible political corruption.

NO CONSEQUENCES.

But while Peterborough and many other elections remain simply as allegations, others in Labour have been found guilty of voter fraud and then, amazingly, promoted afterwards.

The worst case was that of Marsha-Jane Thompson who in 2017 was given a job in the then-leader Jeremy Corbyn’s office as a campaign chief despite having a conviction for registering 100 fake votes.

In 2019 Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton, came under suspicion after one of his activists posted a picture of a postal ballot with a cross by it from his office. Baz Ahmed, black and ethnic minority officer for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Labour Party, claimed he had permission to post the photo on Twitter from the voter who sent it to him.

The signs are ominous in the US as the election draws closer that something similar is about to happen. Even CNN admit that state officials are seeking outside help to check on fraud.

MINORITIES TARGETED.

Disturbingly, in the UK, it has been officially recognized that it is among ethnic minority groups that the problem of voter fraud is at its worst.

In 2015 a report by the Electoral Commission, an official neutral election watchdog which exists to make sure the rules are followed, issued a damning report on voter fraud.

“Ethnic kinship networks perform many positive community support functions…however, these networks tend to be reciprocal, and are hierarchical and patriarchal, which may undermine the principle of voters’ individual and free choice through a range of social pressures such as respect for the decision of the elders at its mildest extreme, through to undue influence where in some instances access to individual ballots of women and adult children can be refused by the elders.”

Another report by the government’s anti-corruption tsar Sir Eric Pickles, was blunter. He identified the problems as being particularly strong in Muslim areas but not challenged because of a culture of “political correctness”.

It is worth noting that the most high profile person to lose a position because of fraud was the independent Mayor of Tower Hamlets, a borough in London, Lutfur Rahman, a Muslim and former Labour leader of the council for that area, who was kicked out by the courts in April 2015.

The 18 areas identified for new voter checks by the Electoral Commission in 2016 also all had high Muslim populations. But recent attempts to bring in voter identification measures to tackle fraud have been fiercely opposed by Labour.

They use the same mantra we are now hearing from the Democrats about the right trying to deny people the vote while concerns grow that they are preparing to harvest votes.

But the issue of fraud being high in ethnic minority groups underlines the convergence of another movement aimed at helping the Democrats, just as they help Labour in Britain. The rise of Black Lives Matter during this campaign will inevitably make it harder to raise suspicions.

In Britain, if we question what is happening in ethnic minority or Muslim communities we are called racists or Islamophobic. Separately, this same problem has been blamed for the authorities failing to prevent widescale sexual abuse of teenage girls in some areas. But the same defense by the left is already becoming a national mantra in the wake of the BLM protests.

This means any challenge of voter fraud is going to end up being buried by the left in a mire of identity politics with the Democrats saying this confirms Trump and his supporters are racists.

TRUMP WINS, BUT NOT WITH FRAUD.

Recently the President tweeted out the latest monthly poll my newspaper the Sunday Express in the UK has been publishing with the Democracy Institute in Washington. It has consistently had the President ahead of or level with Biden unlike most of the national polls whose samples are more heavily weighted to the Democrats.

Despite the discrepancy, Patrick Basham, the Director of the Democracy Institute, has stood by his findings. After all he was one of the few to get it right in 2016 with Trump and Brexit back in the UK. Unlike other polls, he actually only includes people who are likely to vote as opposed to merely registered to vote.

In a recent interview he said this was because of historically low turnouts in US elections which means counting all registered voters has little value.

But he added: “If everyone is sent a mail-in ballot to return or not return across the country, he [Trump] probably loses. The wider the pool of voters the more likely you find extra Democrats.”

Basham told it straight but the message is clear. Biden wins if the Democrats can get out mail-in votes to people who do not necessarily even know they are voting and can harvest them in the key states like Minnesota and Arizona.

It does not take a Brit to tell you Americans that the stakes are high in this election but if it is decided by mail-in postal votes, the result will be scrutinized for eternity.

13 notes · View notes

pictureamoebae · 5 years ago

Note

idk how i'm supposed to reconcile my desire to not see the tories in office with my continually reinforced belief that labour leadership in general and jeremy corbyn in particular actively despise jewish people and wish me and my kind harm. there's been too many incidents, each one fouler than the last, over the past months. i want johnson out but i have no faith in the alternative's desire to keep me safe either and idk what to do

Politics.

A simple answer to a complex problem. And now a complex post to a simple question.

This will be very long, but I’m not going to put it behind a cut because it’s too important.

Nothing I say here will cut through to make you feel any more or less safe. What I want to do first is to say I do not doubt for one moment you have fears. Whatever I say next comes from as much a place of wanting you to be and feel safe as anything else. Please keep that in mind if you at any point think I’m attacking your deeply-held fears. I am not. If I’m attacking anything, it’s those who seek to weaponise your fears for their own gain.

While I continue, I’d ask you to keep asking these questions: who is saying things against Corbyn, what are their politics, what kind of world do they want to see, who do they want me to vote for, what are their interests (not as in, do they like music, but as in where do their political interests lie, how do they benefit from society under different governments)? These are good questions to ask when you hear any kind of political claim being made, whether it’s a manifesto pledge, a jibe at a political opponent, or an otherwise seemingly ‘neutral’ article in a newspaper. Everything is stated from a political position, no matter how hard someone works to hide that. And some people work very hard to hide it. Why?

First, I’ll talk about Jeremy Corbyn and his beliefs. You’ll have seen, no doubt, the picture of him being arrested for protesting against apartheid in South Africa? I’ll use this as a jumping off point because it’s in the news today. It’s emblematic of Corbyn’s lifelong approach.

One of the things that Corbyn’s supporters love about him in particular is that he’s a peacemaker. It’s also one of the things that frustrates us the most.

Love: because his approach to foreign policy has always been one of recognising the necessity of dialogue. It proves an easy stick to beat him with because it’s seen him working to bring all sides together in Northern Ireland (something the Conservative government at the time was also doing in their own way, along with others in Labour), or trying to diffuse tensions and encourage constructive talks in the Middle East, for example. It’s why he was so outspoken in his opposition to illegally invading Iraq (we hit upon one reason here why Tony Blair might have a personal interest in discrediting Corbyn: his involvement in Iraq would be under more scrutiny with a Corbyn-led Labour Party in charge). The list is endless, and he has been proven time and time again to be on the right side of history when it comes to his desire to make peace, not war.

Frustrates: because his natural desire to make peace sees him be far too conciliatory when it comes to both internal Labour Party matters and his approach to media hostility. Backing down on open selection (also known as mandatory reselection) will be seen as one of the biggest mistakes of his leadership in years to come. Time and time again he’s held out the olive branch because his opponents demand it, only to see them set fire to the branch, crush the ashes beneath their heels, and then turn around and say “pass us an olive branch”. One criticism we hear a lot is “Corbyn isn’t a leader”, and the only time I will ever agree that his leadership has been lacking is on this matter. He should have been more forthright and stood his ground. But such is the contradiction at the heart of what makes him the good person he is: that’s not his style. He’s a peacemaker.

Back to his arrest for protesting against South African apartheid. Corbyn served on the national executive of the Anti-Apartheid Movement that was “a British organisation that was at the centre of the international movement opposing the South African apartheid system and supporting South Africa’s non-White population who were persecuted by the policies of apartheid.” At the time, the Tories were pro-apartheid, and could even sometimes be found wearing “hang Nelson Mandela�� stickers at their conferences and party events. Standing up so proudly against apartheid wasn’t a popular position to hold at the time. And yet he did it, because it was right.

In 1985 Corbyn was appointed national secretary of Anti-Fascist Action. I don’t know how old you are or your familiarity with British political history, but anti-fascist action in the UK has always centred around defending Jewish people from fascist groups and attack. In the 1970s he organised a demonstration against a National Front march through Wood Green. The National Front were on the rise in the 70s, and it’s seen as something of a golden era by today’s fascists in groups like the EDL who would take us back to that, and go beyond it, if they could. This is just one example of Corbyn directly putting his body on the line to defend Jewish people and others against fascists, following in the footsteps of his mother, who was at the Battle of Cable Street. In his role as parliamentarian, he signed numerous Early Day Motions condemning antisemitism, stretching back decades before he became leader, something that has been recognised in the Times of Israel. In 1987 Corbyn joined Jewish campaigners to stop the demolition of a Jewish cemetery by Islington Council (the demolition was, I note, supported by Margaret Hodge). More recently, in 2010, he petitioned parliament to help resettle Yemeni Jews fleeing from conflict.

There are countless other examples of his work to support Jewish people, as well as him being a friend to pretty much every other minority people you can think of. It’s not just empty words and platitudes, it’s real action, for decades.

Let me give you an extract from an ‘expose’ meant to discredit Corbyn, and tell me what you think of him after this:

“Dressed in a dirty jacket and creased trousers, Jeremy Corbyn arrived in Westminster as a new MP in the summer of 1983.

He immediately told friends that Parliament was ‘a waste of time’ with no relevance to his Islington constituents, especially the immigrant communities.

To meet them, he set up offices in the Red Rose Centre in Holloway where his door was always open to a tide of human misery: Cypriots, Jamaicans, Indians, Pakistanis, South Africans, South Americans, Somalis, West Saharans and Kurds all sought his help.

The procession of petitioners reinforced his conviction that Britain should allow unrestricted immigration – and offer the world’s destitute an open invitation to share our wealth.

In his opinion, all immigrant communities were victims of white imperialists, and the British state owed them a financial obligation. Anyone who disagreed was racist.”

This was intended as a ‘gotcha’ to prove to right wing readers what a dangerous man Corbyn is. They’re right, he is dangerous. Dangerous to fascists. Dangerous to racists. Dangerous to anyone who wants to take away your liberty, to anyone who wants to harm the vulnerable in society.

So how do we align all of this with what we’ve heard in the press over the past five years? Hopefully the extract above, which was printed in the Daily Mail, starts to make it clear what’s going on. Corbyn has always, throughout his career and before he was elected to parliament, fought tirelessly for peace, for reconciliation, for minority populations here and around the world, including Jewish people. Even before he became leader (outshining even Blair’s popularity at his height among party members), there were people of all political stripes who wanted to discredit him, not even necessarily because they disliked him, but because they despised what he stood for and continues to stand for.

We’re not just talking about people who want to be able to say and do racist things, but people who have an interest in our political and economic system continuing as it has so they can maintain their economic, social, cultural, and political power. It’s impossible to overstate how important and crucial this point is. It cuts to the heart of everything.

Look at this, from the Labour manifesto that was launched today:

Introduce a War Powers Act to ensure that no prime minister can bypass Parliament to commit to conventional military action. Unlike the Conservatives, we will implement every single recommendation of the Chilcot Inquiry.

Conduct an audit of the impact of Britain’s colonial legacy to understand our contribution to the dynamics of violence and insecurity across regions previously under British colonial rule.

Invest an additional £400 million in our diplomatic capacity to secure Britain’s role as a country that promotes peace, delivers ambitious global climate agreements and works through international organisations to secure political settlements to critical issues.

Establish a judge-led inquiry into our country’s alleged complicity in rendition and torture, and the operation of secret courts.

Issue a formal apology for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and hold a public review into Britain’s role in the Amritsar massacre.

Allow the people of the Chagos Islands and their descendants the right to return to the lands from which they should never have been removed.

Uphold the human rights of the people of West Papua and recognise the rights of the people of Western Sahara.

Immediately suspend the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen and to Israel for arms used in violation of the human rights of Palestinian civilians, and conduct a root-and-branch reform of our arms exports regime so ministers can never again turn a blind eye to British-made weapons being used to target innocent civilians.

Reform the international rules-based order to secure justice and accountability for breaches of human rights and international law, such as the bombing of hospitals in Syria, the illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip, the use of rape as a weapon of war against the Rohingya community in Myanmar and the indiscriminate bombardment of civilians in Yemen.

We will work through the UN and the Commonwealth to insist on the protection of human rights for Sri Lanka’s minority Tamil and Muslim populations.

Appoint human-rights advisers to work across the Foreign Office and government to prioritise a co-ordinated approach to human rights.

Advocate for human rights at every bilateral diplomatic meeting.

There are an awful lot of consequences to carrying out these policies. For example, Tony Blair and David Miliband are implicated in rendition, and it stands to reason they will do everything in their power to ensure they aren’t brought to justice for it, or even exposed to scrutiny over it. On the matter of arms sales, not only does it have ramifications for one of the most profitable industries, it also cuts straight to the heart of how and why we choose the international allies we do, and the power relationships inherent in that. This isn’t just a disagreement of opinion, this is threatening to change how we’ve done international politics for a generation or more. It doesn’t get more serious than this. As far as anyone who has an interest in things staying as they are, he must be stopped, by any means necessary.

Let’s talk about antisemitism. Labour is a broad party that reflects a wide range of people and a wide range of opinions from all walks of life and from all corners of the country. It stands to reason that every opinion, thought, and position you can imagine exists in wider society will be found somewhere among Labour members, by virtue of it being a mass membership party. There are terfs in the Labour Party, there are racists in the Labour Party, there are homophobes in the Labour Party, there are sexists in the Labour Party, there are antisemites in the Labour Party – because there are all those kinds of people in our country. There are all those kinds of people in the SNP. There are all those kinds of people in the Tory Party. There are all those kinds of people in the Green Party. There are all those kinds of people in the Lib Dems. What it speaks to, primarily, is the work we have to do, as a country, to educate and counter those bigotries across society. Where they rear their head within the party they must be stamped out immediately. It must be made clear that a socialist party is no place for bigotry and hatred. I think I’ve made it clear above that Corbyn is not an antisemite, and in fact has spent his entire life fighting against antisemitism, including putting his body on the line.

It has become increasingly striking that, over the past five years, Labour has been held to a far greater standard than any other party when it comes to antisemitism or any other kind of bigotry. Boris Johnson’s comments about watermelon smiles and letterboxes get passing comment, Sayeeda Warsi saying that Islamophobia is rampant in the Tory Party and she doesn’t feel safe there is quickly swept under the carpet. Compare the endless months of hand-wringing over Labour’s discussions over adopting the IHRA working definition of antisemitism to the Conservative’s refusal to adopt similar recommendations by the Muslim Council of Britain over anti-Muslim bigotry.

Yesterday a prominent political journalist tweeted that a Tory candidate had been expelled for antisemitism, and in the same tweet she said that a chair of a local CLP (constituency Labour Party – CLPs are the local organising groups for each constituency in the country) had resigned. In the tweet she linked to a BBC article about the CLP chair resignation. Let’s look at what’s going on here. Firstly, she gave both of these news items the same weight by putting them together in the same tweet. Second, she only linked to the story about the CLP chair, suggesting that was the more important of the two. The CLP chair resigned not over antisemitism or anything like that, but because they were disgruntled at how the selection for their local parliamentary candidate went. If you’ve ever been to a CLP meeting you’ll know that everyone is disgruntled about something. It’s hardly national news. But of course, it is. Because it was decided at some point over the past five years that everything that happens in the Labour Party must be forensically dissected and assessed as a real blow to Corbyn, or proof that Corbyn is terrible. Whereas the real story, that a Tory candidate was expelled for antisemitism, is barely a footnote. Why? Keep asking why.

I don’t know what your opinions are about politics in the United States, or whether you follow it at all, but when asking ‘why?’ it might be useful to think about what’s happening over there and how it compares and contrasts to what’s happening over here. Think about the reaction to Ilhan Omar, the inherent anti-Muslim sentiment and racism in opposition to her, and the way her critics have tried to suggest she is antisemitic. Think about those progressives in the UK who support her and see it as ridiculous scaremongering with a political motive, and how some of those are the same people who throw as much invective at Corbyn as they can. Think about the differences in how progressive politics in the US and progressive politics in the UK are presented. Think about how the same accusations of antisemitism are made against Bernie Sanders, a Jewish man who is open about his support for Israel. Think about those things and ask whether, perhaps, the wider politics of those involved might be behind some of what’s going on.

I’ll end by telling you about me and where I live. I live in Stoke-on-Trent. We have three MPs across the city: Gareth Snell here in Stoke Central, Ruth Smeeth in Stoke North, and a Tory in Stoke South, who in 2017 very narrowly beat Rob Flello, who had been the Labour MP there for quite a while. Rob is a Catholic, and has centred his Catholicism in a lot of his politics. Ruth is Jewish, and has been one of the high profile voices to speak against Corbyn. Despite going to university with Gareth and my husband working with him for years in our previous MP’s office and being his close friend, I don’t know his religious affiliation, if he even has one. I disagree with all three of them on the basis of their politics.

I’m very glad Rob is no longer in the party, he was an embarrassment, and should have gone years ago. Rob used his Catholicism as an excuse to pursue some awful political positions (against abortion, for example), all the while being an enormous hypocrite (I won’t spill the tea about his personal life, it would be unbecoming). I think you’d agree that it’s possible for me to disagree with his politics, and to even discuss how they intersected with his version of Catholicism, without being bigoted towards Catholics or wishing them harm or wanting Catholicism to be wiped out. My mother is Catholic. (I’m forever grateful her and my dad decided not to assign me a religion, instead leaving it up to me. Their one moment of progressive thinking!)

I disagree with Gareth’s politics, despite as I explained my and my husband’s history of friendship with him, and will be eternally angry with myself for signing his nomination papers in 2017 when he was selected as our candidate to stand against Paul Nuttall of UKIP in the infamous Stoke Central by-election. What’s important here, in our relationship and out of it, is the politics. My anger isn’t at his life, his family, or whatever faith he does or does not hold, but rather at his deceit towards us in the CLP, and his awful, awful approach in parliament towards Brexit.

I disagree with Ruth’s politics, as does my husband, despite him campaigning very hard and being instrumental locally for getting her selected as the candidate for Stoke North back in the day. I disagree with her handling of Brexit, which follows the same line as Gareth’s. They’re both at risk of losing their seats at the election, and have calculated that by doing all they can to seem as though they are Brexit MPs they’ll claw back the support Labour has already lost to the Tories and Brexit Party, not realising that support left long ago and won’t come back just because they personally keep voting against the Labour whip. In the meantime they’re making it increasingly difficult for us to oppose no deal or Johnson’s hard Brexit. I also disagree with Ruth because she’s helped weaponise instances of antisemitism as a way to discredit the left. Just as I disagree with any MP who has done that, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. Because, as I have said before, it’s the politics that matter. Just as I can disagree with Rob, even on matters that centre his Catholicism, without it being an attack on Catholics, so too can I disagree with Ruth, even on matters that centre her being Jewish, without it being an attack on Jewish people. And this is where we get into the nuts and bolts of the thing.

I met Chris Williamson a while back, bumping into him at Derby train station. My husband knows him (he knows everyone in the Labour Party, social butterfly that he is), and so we went to say hi. It was the first time I’d met him. I was very clear that, despite my anxiety and hate of confrontation, were he to say anything diminishing antisemitism I was going to speak out. And I did, because he did. The weird thing about Chris is that he was long known as a wonderful anti-racism campaigner and a true friend of the vulnerable and minorities. Something twisted him. Over the past few years it’s like he decided to court controversy, to push as many buttons as he could, to see how far he could go, digging his heels in no matter the cost. I think he should have been kicked out a long time ago, once he made it clear he didn’t care about the damage he caused, either to the Party or to Jewish people, because he was on his own political crusade. I don’t believe he is personally antisemitic, but there comes a point where his actions speak louder than his words, and the effects of his behaviour might as well have an antisemitic root for the harm they cause. I’m glad he was finally kicked out, and I’m furious he’s standing as an independent, risking turning Derby North Tory at a time when the very people he says he cares about, the poor, the vulnerable, migrants, disabled people, need a Labour government more than anything else and cannot survive another five years of Tory rule.

The very real fears Jewish people hold have been weaponised by the right, who always try to seed fear over hope because it gets them votes, and likewise the whole resulting situation has been further exacerbated by people like Chris. I’m infuriated by it all, not least because I don’t doubt that a high proportion of British Jewish people genuinely are scared. But because of political interests and political positioning, their fears are being exploited and redirected away from where they should be to precisely where they shouldn’t. It should be clear to you from what I’ve posted above that you’d be hard pressed to find a non-Jewish MP who has worked more tirelessly than Jeremy Corbyn to protect and defend Jewish people against fascists, just as he has worked tirelessly to defend all minorities. At a time when the far right is on the march, burning synagogues, shooting gay people and Sikhs and Muslims, to have our attention diverted away to focus on the best hope we’ve had in generations to stop it is madness. It’s motivated by political interest, whether that’s on behalf of the Conservative party and general right wing politics (let’s not forget some important points here, like Stephen Pollard being a staunchly right wing Conservative supporter, or like Maureen Lipman announcing her ditching Labour not once, but twice – the first time being under Ed Miliband’s leadership (himself Jewish), because of his support for Palestinian rights). Politics is at the heart of it all.

Politics is at the heart of it all.

Politics is at the heart of it all, and just as working class people are used as pawns, pitted against migrants and having their fears about precarity and poverty and security weaponised to divert attention away from the real causes of their immiseration, so too are Jewish people being used as pawns, having their real fears exploited to discredit the only chance we’ll have in our lifetimes of defeating the right.

As I said at the start, I don’t expect what I’ve written here will make you feel any more safe. I hope it doesn’t make you feel any less safe. I just ask that you think about the politics of it all, and remember those questions I asked at the beginning: who is saying things against Corbyn, what are their politics, what kind of world do they want to see, who do they want me to vote for, what are their interests, how do they benefit from society under different governments? I ask you to remember that everything is stated from a political position, no matter how hard someone works to hide that. And that some people work very hard to hide it. Why?

Lastly, I want you to know that the very core of my politics is justice. Justice, empathy, fairness. I couldn’t be a socialist without those tenets at the centre of it all. Our world is burning. Our people are dying. This is all only going to get worse. Official figures are that 130,000 people have died unnecessarily as a direct result of Tory austerity. Those figures were released some time ago, so it is surely more now. Millions have already been displaced around the world as a result of the climate catastrophe. Millions more will be displaced, in ever more horrific events, over the next few years. As people have to move around the globe we will see increasing international tensions, bloody clashes, inhumane national policies aimed at keeping those people away, more bodies in trucks, more children washed up dead on beaches, more people killed in sectarian wars. If we continue to turn a blind eye to the rise of the right, we’re condemning millions to untold suffering. If we re-elect a Tory government we’re condemning millions to untold suffering. If we turn to centrism, a system responsible for that rise of the right, a system that has no answers and wants to simply manage things around the edges, we are condemning millions to untold suffering.

What kind of world do you want to see? What kind of world do those who disparage Corbyn despite his well-documented history want to see?

Politics. The simple answer to the complex problem.

31 notes · View notes

berniesrevolution · 6 years ago

Photo

JACOBIN MAGAZINE

Review of Economics for the Many (Verso, 2018).

“. . . A New Britain where the extraordinary talent of the British people is liberated from the forces of conservatism that so long have held them back, to create a model 21st century nation, based not on privilege, class or background, but on the equal worth of all. And New Labour, confident at having modernized itself, now the new progressive force in British politics which can modernize the nation, sweep away those forces of conservatism to set the people free.”

– Tony Blair, 1999

“Economics are the method: the object is to change the soul.”

– Margaret Thatcher, 1981

Though they didn’t know it at the time, those who observed Britain’s 1979 general election and the Labour Party’s defeat were witnessing far more than a simple change of government. The Thatcherite ascendency that followed would not only reconfigure the institutions of the British state but establish — through a combination of luck, guile, and brute force — an entirely new political consensus that would consciously reshape British society in the process. By the time Labour returned to power nearly two decades later, a wholesale ideological counterrevolution was underway and its own leaders were among its most zealous partisans.

Perhaps no other European country in the postwar era (with the possible exception of Russia) has experienced a comparably drastic ideological shift, and certainly no working class has suffered such bitter repression and defeat in such a short time. After 1990, much of the global left faced a period of retrenchment but Britain’s political sclerosis, and the widespread sense of defeat it engendered, was particularly acute.

What the late Mark Fisher called “capitalist realism” — the pervasive sense that “capitalism is not only the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it” — reigned supreme, simultaneously afflicting the Left and animating partisans of the new order. Henceforth, “progress” was to imply only an ever-more dizzying advance into a global capitalist modernity from which no escape was conceivable and “conservatism” was anything that even momentarily stood in the way.

As a consequence, parliamentary socialists — those who survived — were forced to assume an increasingly defensive posture in a (sometimes futile) effort to preserve welfarist institutions or at very least mitigate damage. Within the Labour Party itself, the initially promising leadership of Ed Miliband ended in disappointment and defeat. Outside the electoral sphere (with a few exceptions) the Left grew more abstract in its analysis of power and less programmatic in its prescriptions for confronting or reconfiguring it. While individual causes and struggles like the anti–Iraq War movement and the 2010 student protests inspired heroic activism, its overall position was nothing short of dire and the malaise ran deep.

As many socialists immediately understood, therefore, Jeremy Corbyn’s surprise 2015 election as leader of the Labour Party opened up horizons of political possibility previously unimaginable. Gone would be the former leadership’s triangulating positions on austerity, immigration, and welfare policy and back on the table were familiar social-democratic objectives around taxation, redistribution, and public ownership.

But as the party’s left celebrated a stunning turn of events amidst historically weak fortunes, critics of Corbynism overwhelmingly saw something primitive and atavistic at work. “A return to the 1970s” quickly became a favorite theme of Britain’s right-leaning press, which cast Labour’s new leadership as both a pre-Blairite and pre-Thatcherite throwback: the desiccated corpse of the “Old Labour” anachronism born anew. Even after the party’s success in the 2017 general election, versions of the narrative have persisted, as has likeminded opposition from the “modernizers” on its now diminished right flank.

Much in this genre of analysis can undoubtedly be put down to poor historical memory, political opportunism, or simple bad faith. But its ubiquitousness, particularly in commentary on the center and center-left, is evidence of how just deeply the dogmas of the 1990s — and the conservative modes of thinking they reflect — ultimately run.

Economics for the Many

“To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”

– Clause IV, Labour Party Constitution, 1918

If the Labour Party’s 2017 election manifesto emphasized somewhat familiar (though nevertheless bold) themes like nationalization and redistribution, its next one promises to be considerably more expansive — encompassing, among other things, different forms of public ownership and industrial democracy.

Radical thinking of this kind has only grown more urgent. By virtually any imaginable standard — even those its adherents have set themselves — Britain’s ruling economic consensus has been a failure. Austerity has not, as successive Tory chancellors have insisted with such fanatical certitude, delivered the promised economic recovery. The legacy of the Conservative government’s deflationary fiscal policies can instead be seen in human costs that can only be called catastrophic: stagnant wages, dire and rising levels of poverty among both children and adults, crumbling public services, and a corroded social fabric alongside an ever more gilded existence for Britain’s economic and cultural elite.

The underlying problems, of course, predate both austerity and the 2008 crash. A bloated financial sector with its talons deep in the Treasury has produced lopsided and regionalized growth heavily favoring metropolitan London and largely servicing unsustainable consumption at home and environmentally destructive extraction abroad. Precarity and high levels of household debt for ordinary families, meanwhile, have followed an overall shift from the older manufacturing economy to one structured heavily around services and global finance.

Economics for the Many — a new collection of essays edited by Labour’s shadow chancellor John McDonnell — is simultaneously an intervention into these realities and a programmatic sketch of radical left thinking for the twenty-first century. As its title suggests, the book is also an effort to reclaim economics for the Left, an easily stated though admittedly daunting task amid neoliberalism’s persistence as the economic lingua franca.

Simultaneously localist and internationalist in scope — and encompassing everything from trade, the environment, and alternative models of firm ownership to fiscal policy and the challenges posed by platform monopolies and the data economy — the essays are accessible and minimally abstract, both in their concern with the practicalities of policy and their awareness of the difficulties of implementation in the face of political constraints.

This, however, makes them no less innovative. In chapters on democratic alternatives to private enterprise, for example, Rob Calvert Jump, Joe Guinan, and Thomas M. Hanna explore cooperatives, community-based systems of ownership, social entrepreneurship, and workplace democracy, their analyses including case studies from across Europe, North America, and within the UK. Building on Labour’s 2017 manifesto, which promised to make workers the first potential buyer should a company go on sale, Guinan and Hanna propose active investment by local authorities in the cooperative sector.

(Conitnue Reading)

#politics #the left #jacobin #jacobin magazine #uk politics #jeremy corbyn #john mcdonnell #labour party #democratic socialism #socialism

24 notes · View notes

pardontheglueman · 7 years ago

Text

Yanis Varoufakis: Adults in the Room

Jeremy Corbyn’s radical transformation of a neo-liberal Labour Party, which had hit rock bottom when endorsing the Cameron government’s 2015 Welfare Reform Bill into a progressive, re-energised anti-austerity movement, has allowed Labour to speak about the mass slaughter of council tenants in the Grenfell Tower fire, a tragedy brought about by a savage Conservative cost-cutting agenda, with something approaching moral clarity. David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham who lost a close friend in the fire, spoke for many when he declared ‘If burning in your own home isn’t political, I don’t know what is. It’s a scandal and a crime. Behind all of this, is money and profit. When you go down to West London and look at that building, it’s like looking at a vision of hell. It’s a vision of a burnt out shell and that burnt out shell is where we have got to in terms of austerity in this country’.

It will come as no surprise to the Tory architects of austerity that poor people end up dying as a direct result of their flagship policy. A report into the Department of Work and Pensions’ policy of sanctioning claimants in Salford carried out by The Salford Partnership concluded that ‘strict benefit conditionality, the threat and use of benefit sanctions, causes damage to the wellbeing of vulnerable claimants and can lead to hunger, debt, destitution, self-harm, and suicide’. The DWP response, aided by a compliant media, was to suppress 49 secret reports into claimant deaths for as long as possible (it took more than two years to obtain the reports under the Freedom of Information Act). Furthermore, the DWP’s notorious, target-driven fitness for work tests, administered by private contractors ATOS have regularly declared terminally ill people fit and able to work. A report, in July 2012, entitled Incapacity Benefits: Deaths of Recipients revealed that between 2010 and 2011 a shocking 10,600 people had died while undergoing the DWP assessment process.

The mass panic sweeping over a Tory party which, until now, has been decidedly relaxed about just how many poor people their economic and social policies are killing, is simply because the massacre of men, women, and children at Grenfell Tower has happened right in front of the T.V cameras. This time there are witnesses and plenty of them! We’ve all seen the horror with our own eyes. The Tories won’t be able to commission a report into Grenfell and then steadfastly refuse to release it; no longer will Boris Johnson be able to tell a Labour opponent who dared to question his plans for fire service cuts in London to “get stuffed”; no longer will the Daily Mail be able to wheel out dismal lackeys like Toby Young to pour scorn all over anyone demanding an end to grotesque levels of inequality in Britain. His puerile, poisonous piece attacking Ken Loach's I, Daniel Blake was a new low for our rabid tabloid press.

The great Tory austerity swindle is over; Grenfell Tower is a tipping point, the neo-liberal free-for-all that began under Margaret Thatcher and continued unabated through the Tony Blair / Gordon Brown years, incredibly gaining momentum after the de-regulated banks crashed the world economy in an orgy of greed and criminality is surely over now. Nearly forty years on from the rise to power of Thatcher, a reborn labour movement stands on the verge of power, armed with a moral and political mandate to rebuild the welfare state, redistribute wealth in favour of working people and to smash the phony policy of austerity once and for all!

Set against this turbulent background, Yanis Varoufakis’ Adults in the Room, (a fascinating fly-on-the-wall account of how the Syriza Government of 2015 led the left’s fight against a European Union intent on enforcing a psychotic programme of perpetual austerity), proves to be a timely and instructive read. Varoufakis was teaching economics at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas when Prime Minister in waiting Alexis Tsipras offered him the high profile post of Finance Minister in the event that the radical coalition of Syriza triumphed in the forthcoming election (Varoufakis had been acting as the party’s unofficial advisor since 2013 and his outspoken opposition to destructive European Union bailouts was beginning to win support for a defiant, unorthodox alternative to austerity).

As whistleblowers go, Varoufakis is surprisingly measured and composed, telling his tale with refreshing good grace, and with a rare capacity to identify and acknowledge his own mistakes. Nevertheless, any 550-page account by a serious economist intent on detailing the considerably thorny subject of his country’s malicious bankruptcy can’t help but get itself enmeshed in a thicket of statistics every once in a while. Some of these bear repeating: unemployment soared from 7% to 27%; national income fell by 28%; healthcare expenditure was cut by 11.1% between 2009 and 2011, while 36% of the population currently lives at risk of poverty and social exclusion.

Varoufakis, however, guides us ably through the minefield of facts and figures with the same relaxed charm and sense of humour that he displays while reviewing the papers on the Marr Show or on his annual pilgrimage to the Hay Festival (standing ovation guaranteed), and this makes for an engaging and easy read despite the intricacy of the subject matter. The following, somewhat lengthy extract, proves the point -

‘The German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble once told me that my opposition to austerity placed me in a minority of Europeans, citing opinion polls showing support for government expenditure cuts. I replied that, even if that were true, a majority can be wrong about the cause of their malaise. During the Black Death of the fourteenth century, I reminded him, most Europeans believed the plague was caused by sinful living and could be exorcised by bloodletting and self-flagellation. And when bloodletting and self-flagellation did not work, this was taken as evidence that people’s repentance was not sincere enough, that not enough blood had been let, that the flagellation was insufficiently enthusiastic - exactly as now when austerity’s abysmal failure is cited as proof that it has been applied too half-heartedly. If he was amused, Wolfgang did not show it’.

At the heart of his intriguing book, is Varoufakis’ head-on confrontation with the troika: the European Commission; the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, all of whom emerge as essentially duplicitous and anti-democratic institutions in their dealings with the Greek government. Time and again the troikas’ apparatchiks doctored agreed communications or withdrew concessions they had made 24 hours earlier while French ministers routinely engaged in doublespeak, supporting Greece in private only to cow-tow to Germany at Eurogroup meetings. Varoufakis often conceded ground, offering his opponents ingenious and imaginative solutions to a crisis that threatened to tear Europe apart. The troika was never interested, not for a moment. Austerity was the only (crooked) game in town! Few people emerge from the book with any credit - in Washington, Bernie Sanders tried in vain to pressurise the IMF and, surprisingly perhaps, Emmanuel Macron, then the French economy minister attempted to convince President Hollande to back a more ‘sustainable solution’ to the crisis. Macron even visited Varoufakis after he’d been deposed in order to clarify his support for the beleaguered ex-minister.

Of more interest, perhaps, to British readers post-Brexit and in light of our forthcoming detachment from Europe’s power brokers, is the other relationship at the heart of the book. From the moment that Varoufakis accepted the toxic post of finance minister, he doubted that Tsipras and his ragbag ‘war cabinet’, suspiciously stuffed with bankers chums, would have the resolve to take on the troika in a fight to the death. Time and again he counseled his wavering colleagues that they could not bluff their way out of economic collapse; they had to commit to a negotiating strategy that sought to convince Angela Merkel and co that Syriza would opt for Grexit rather than accept roll-over bailouts that only served to escalate debt and poverty to stratospheric levels. Only then, argued Varoufakis, would the troika, recoiling from a policy that might lead to the disintegration of their beloved European project, abandon its fateful obsession with austerity and finally agree to meaningful talks on restructuring the massive Greek debt.that austerity had brought crashing down on the poorest members of society.

Yanis and Alexis: Bromance followed by betrayal

The betrayal, when it came, was swift, stunning and incredibly bizarre. Having called for and won a referendum to reaffirm their anti-austerity mandate (an inspirational 61.3% voted in favour of continuing to resist a merciless troika), it gradually dawned on Varoufakis that he was almost the only minister at Maximos Mansions, the Greek prime minister’s official residence, in a celebratory mood. Tsipras and his cabinet, openly despondent at having won the vote, were behaving as if they had been heavily defeated. Even as the results were being announced, Tsipras was firing Varoufakis as finance minister (offering him a token post at the department of culture as a consolation), thereby signaling an irreversible surrender to the troika and an acceptance of punishing austerity*. Returning home, Varoufakis could only tell his partner Danae ‘Tonight we had the curious phenomenon of a government overthrowing its people’.

It’s to Varoufakis’ credit, then, that the book closes with a moving and objective analysis of a leader who betrayed the cause that they had both fought for,

‘Friends and critics criticise me for having seen things in Alexis that were not there. I think they are wrong. His desire to liberate Greece from its vicious cycle was there. His intelligence and capacity to learn quickly were self-evident. His enthusiasm for the deterrent I had proposed and the debt relief I was prioritizing was real. The reason that I had seen all these things in him was that they were there. When he instructed me, on our first day in office, to hand over the keys to our offices to the opposition rather than capitulate, he was not lying. The part of him telling me that was speaking the truth. This is why I was brought to tears by his words. This is why I believed him’.

* On the 15th of June 2017, the latest Greek bailout was agreed to the tune of 8.5 billion Euros. Once again, there was no agreement to cancel Greek debt.

Below is an extract from Yanis Varoufakis’ analysis of the deal

In short, poor pensioners will annually forfeit one of their twelve-monthly pension payments, as a result of a reduction in the threshold above which income tax is withheld. For a country where one in two families have no one working in it, and thus have to survive on some small pension that a grandparent collects, this is a socially devastating cut. Moreover, it will also lead to further small business failures (due to the large multiplier effect of reducing a small pension: when poor families reduce their spending in local shops already on the brink, many of these will go under), the result being more people on the scrapheap of unemployment and fewer contributors to the stressed pension funds.

His article can be read in full here

https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2017/06/16/the-annotated-15th-june-2017-eurogroup-statement-on-greece/

Further reading on the statistics quoted above

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/13/suicides-of-benefit-claimants-reveal-dwp-flaws-says-inquiry

http://www.partnersinsalford.org/documents/DWP_Benefit_Conditionality_and_Sanctions_in_Salford_-

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223050/incap_decd_recips_0712.pdf

2 notes · View notes

jobsearchtips02 · 5 years ago

Text

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair on Brexit, Boris Johnson and extra

CNBC Transcript: Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair Speaks With CNBC‘s Wilfred Frost At present On CNBC

Following is the unofficial transcript of a CNBC interview with Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair right this moment on CNBC. Following is a hyperlink to the total interview on CNBC.com:

Know extra about Russia than your folks:

Get our free e book on how the Soviet Union turned Putin’s Russia.

Q3 2019 hedge fund letters, conferences and extra

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair on Brexit, Boris Johnson and US politics

All references should be sourced to CNBC.

Wilfred Frost: Simply speaking within the studio in regards to the election after all to what extent are you offended with the stay events that they gave up attempting to hunt a second referendum earlier than basic election and gave into the Prime Minister’s calls for for an election first?

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair: Effectively what I feel was the improper factor to do. It will have been higher if we might had an election on the traditional election points, and a referendum on Brexit, however that’s not what occurred angers a little bit of a redundant emotion on this, the circumstances, however know that the issue that you have within the election is when you muddle up the Brexit query with who governs the nation which is a unique query, then clearly the the chance is that you just get a really sophisticated political scenario, you may have some people who find themselves passionately anti Brexit, however perhaps concern Jeremy Corbyn and Downing Avenue and different people who find themselves passionately professional Brexit.

However you understand wish to vote for a Labor authorities so it is not a smart factor to do shall be completed it so would possibly as properly handled all these phrases

Frost: if Boris Johnson wins the bulk Do you settle for, he has a mandate to finish Brexit?

Blair: Effectively he will definitely declare that I imply I feel you might find yourself one of many explanation why that is so unsatisfactory is that you could be find yourself in a scenario the place he wins the bulk with 40% and even lower than 40% of the vote, and the mixed vote of the anti Brexit opposition events is extra, however you understand sure after all he’ll declare a mandate

Frost: However you disagree that he’ll have a mandate following the referendum 2017 election which delivered a mandate for Brexit.

Blair: Once more, frankly, it does not actually matter whether or not I feel it or not, I imply he’ll declare the mandate for it and you understand, folks will argue will labor’s not clearly saying it is towards Brexit and subsequently, if he wins the bulk Brexit will occur.

Frost: What’s a practical path to stay from, from right here and what probability do you placed on that.

Former UK Prime Minister: The lifelike path is the place you aren’t getting a conclusive outcome. Say the conservatives are the biggest get together and, after which it is determined to resolve Brexit by itself phrases. I imply the issue that you have with Brexit which is sophisticated to clarify however it’s crucial to grasp when you, if you wish to get into the, the, the difficulty of why brexit so troublesome is that there are two negotiations the primary negotiation with Boris Johnson is concluded different phrases of exit. and that features the Irish border downside that is been so troublesome.

However you’ve got now obtained an extra negotiation. As soon as we exit we then have an extra negotiation that can run till the tip of subsequent 12 months, which is about Britain’s future relationship with Europe notably its buying and selling relationship. And that is additionally going to be a really troublesome negotiation whether or not the precisely the identical dilemmas as we had over the Irish border.

So, the issue that you have, is that the British folks clearly are advised that you probably have the election that is the tip of Brexit a technique or one other, I am afraid shouldn’t be. Both means it should be the subsequent chapter

Frost: In your conversations with European leaders do you suppose they’re prepared and keen to welcome the UK again as a completely fledged member if if that eventuality materialized?

Blair: Effectively Britain’s Obtained the fitting to remain at any time limit earlier than we have legally left but when, if we’ve a conservative majority they usually do Brexit after which we’re out

Frost: on the subject of the election President Trump publicly backed for us Boris Johnson mentioned Jeremy, Jeremy Corbyn shall be dangerous for the nation in an interview with LBC. Final week, ought to the US President be doing that.

Blair: Effectively I feel I ought to think about Jeremy Corbyn was in all probability happy. As a result of when you’re when you’re this from a Labor Get together perspective or an anti conservative perspective, you understand, Donald Trump clearly is kind of a divisive determine right here in addition to again within the US and, you understand, his assault on Jeremy Corbyn I ought to suppose is not going to hassle Jeremy Corbyn very a lot. And now look ultimately with this stuff are determined by our citizens.

Frost: However do you suppose the US is as dependable a accomplice for the UK as, as maybe throughout your time as President.

Former UK Prime Minister: The issue is, you understand, I, I consider in two issues a robust transatlantic relationship between Europe and America, and a robust bilateral relationship between the UK and America. And if the, the UK is powerful with America makes our relationship with Europe higher and likewise if our relationship with Europe is powerful its one of many causes I am towards Brexit, it is a lot simpler to accomplice the US, so look what’s occurred in the previous few years is that there is been a weakening of that transatlantic Alliance. I imply there may be clearly a detailed relationship between the US president and the present British Prime Minister.

However, you understand, this stuff are usually not simply in regards to the private relationship you are going to discovered that on values on curiosity on a shared sense of the place individuals are going and I feel the fear on a regular basis. I feel in, not simply in in Europe however exterior is the place, the place does the US stand on this barely troublesome house between America first and America alone. So that is the that is, and I feel one of many issues that shall be very crucial.

As soon as we get our election out of the way in which as soon as we get Brexit resolved, is that we take a look at how we revive that transatlantic Alliance as a result of it is, it is massively vital that imply I’m continuously overwhelmed by the sense of how geopolitics is altering on the planet, how the rise of China goes to dominate the 21st century, and the need of Europe and America, together with the UK standing collectively and having a transparent view as to how we address that vast growth within the in our lifetime is I feel one thing that is so vital, it wants allies who consider in the identical fundamental democratic methods to remain collectively.

Frost: You constructed a really shut relationship with each presidents throughout your tenure and caught by President Clinton by means of thick and skinny together with throughout his personal impeachment proceedings, as impeachment proceedings loom massive for President Trump ought to, ought to that affect how shut a relationship that the UK Prime Minister builds with the US.

Former UK Prime Minister: I feel you have to allow us to politics look everybody’s politics is bizarre proper now. I imply, what occurs is, wherever you go wherever on the planet, and leaders begin speaking to one another you get into a contest as to who’s politics is loopy. I all the time say to folks I feel we’re forward, however you understand it is lots of people are competing to meet up with us. So, you understand no, no matter occurs in US politics lead again to the US, the connection between the UK Prime Minister and the US president ought to all the time be sturdy. I imply I you understand one factor I’ll by no means criticize Boris Johnson for, regardless that I disagree with them passionately about Brexit is having a detailed relationship with the US president That is crucial for each international locations.

Frost: I spoke to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a couple of weeks in the past and we had been speaking in regards to the notorious Trump Zelinski cellphone name, he mentioned quote, as not too long ago as yesterday I had a international chief, name me looking for to use stress to United States to get us to behave in a means that was in step with what they had been attempting to do it is the character of politics of energy of international interactions. Every nation attempting to behave and ship for its personal folks, figuring out what we all know from the transcript of the decision. Do you agree with the theme of what Secretary Pompeo mentioned that that’s the norm in worldwide relations.

Blair: Okay, so one factor I’ve realized over an extended interval time politics is to not get combined up in another person’s politics, I’ve obtained sufficient issues again right here at house, so we’ll depart all these questions round Ukraine and impeachment to American politics.

Frost: Okay, truthful sufficient. On the subject of the Eurozone. Do you might have any recommendation for Christina Lagarde as she takes the helm Do you embrace detrimental charges

Former UK Prime Minister: Im actually troubled by the idea of detrimental charges, I’ve obtained to say, and I feel the long run penalties are fairly critical I imply I feel one of many issues right this moment with the way in which our politics is developed, is that you’ve got this huge query round macro financial coverage, and the connection between financial coverage and monetary coverage, which is not actually explored by policymakers in in any nice depth however actually must be.

So I feel the long run implications of detrimental charges are immense. And I feel one of many issues you’ve got obtained as a policymaker right this moment, is you understand you possibly can take a look at the worldwide economic system. And whereas after I was beginning in politics 20 years in the past, most respected economists would let you know kind of the identical factor.

The massive problem for policymakers right this moment is that, you understand, respected economists are on two utterly and diametrically opposed sides of an argument, one will say properly look, financial easing you have to keep on detrimental charges that is no downside supplied which you can preserve the economic system shifting and different folks say no, this can be a long run, it is obtained enormous penalties and detrimental penalties for the economic system, and it is actually robust.

When you’re a policymaker to work out who is correct. I feel the one factor that’s clear although about Europe, is that it is nonetheless obtained two huge challenges structural reform of European economies.

And secondly, it is exhausting to see how you might have a single foreign money correctly grounded long run, until you might have successfully. The entire of the eurozone standing behind every nation inside that inside that single foreign money. And that I feel these two unresolved points are, what’s beneath lots of the issues in Europe.

Frost: Once you take a look at the way forward for the European Union in addition to the eurozone particularly do you concern the day when when Angela Merkel does determine to face down

Former UK Prime Minister: Effectively she is a big and mainly stabilizing affect in Europe however Germany, you understand it is it is politics is powerful and fairly sturdy and the purpose about Europe ultimately is there is a quite simple purpose for Europe right this moment me again in my father’s era, the explanation for Europe within the European Union was peace, however right this moment its energy, you understand, within the subsequent 20 years there’s going to be a prime desk with America, China, and presumably India, truly, due to the scale of its inhabitants.

Now, if Europe, and international locations like Germany, France, the UK wish to be at that prime desk, they have to have a block that is ready to sit on equal phrases, and the European Union’s obtained the biggest business market on the planet we might do this if we’re collectively.

It is one of many explanation why it is splitting Europe is senseless. So I feel, you understand, sure, I feel, for Europe after all when Angela Merkel goes it will likely be an enormous change in altering of the guard however you understand the the forces that preserve Europe collectively are basically geopolitical as a lot as financial right this moment.

Tony it has been a pleasure as all the time thanks a lot in your time. Thanks. Effectively, thanks, Tony.

from Job Search Tips https://jobsearchtips.net/former-uk-prime-minister-tony-blair-on-brexit-boris-johnson-and-extra/

0 notes

revolutionaryeye · 7 years ago

Text

Jeremy Corbyn’s speech put Labour on the offensive - but also showed up its limits

Graffiti celebrating Jeremy Corbyn - many back his message of taking on the rich (Pic: Duncan C/Flickr)

Jeremy Corbyn was probably right to claim that Labour has become the “political mainstream” under his left wing leadership.

Every rally for Corbyn is a reminder of how much the political landscape has been transformed since his election as leader just over two years ago.

And Labour’s success at the general election meant that Corbyn could go on the offensive with his leader’s speech at conference last Wednesday.

In it Corbyn said the general election result “has put the Tories on notice and Labour on the threshold of power”.He suggested that a transformed Labour Party would lead a different type of government.

“Our democracy needs to break out from Westminster into all parts of society, and the economy where power is unaccountable,” he said.

“Democracy must mean listening to people outside of election time, not just to the rich and powerful who are used to calling the shots.”

Big parts of Corbyn’s speech will have angered those Labour MPs who still want to move back towards the right.

He nodded to that when he admitted, “There’s quite a few who would prefer to do politics the old way.” But he insisted that “we will do politics differently”.

Corbyn even took a veiled swipe at right wing Labour councils, such as the one in Haringey in north London, for “regeneration schemes”. He said such schemes that replace social housing with luxury flats “really mean forced gentrification”.

Yet being the political “mainstream” comes with its own dangers. The closer Labour gets to government, the more pressure Corbyn will come under from forces inside and out of the party to show he is “responsible”.

Parts of Corbyn’s speech were aimed at reassuring the bosses and pitching Labour as the safest government party. His plans to transform the system were pitched as a way of rescuing it.

Ten years after the financial crash Corbyn said, “now is the time the government took a more active role in restructuring the economy”.

Reckless

Alongside attacking the Tories over austerity, he also attacked them for being “reckless” and threatening the “national interest”. This is the idea that bosses and ordinary people have a common stake in the system.

Earlier that week left wing shadow chancellor John McDonnell praised right wing Labour leaders Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He said they brought in “the scale of public investment that a 21st century society needed”.

Corbyn said the change that Labour wanted to make must be “credible and effective”. Yet being “credible” often means having to accept limits to what a Labour government will do.

So Corbyn said, “Scrapping the public sector pay squeeze isn’t just an act of charity—it’s a necessity to keep our public services fully staffed and strong.”

But shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said Labour wouldn’t meet trade union demands for a 5 percent pay rise to help make up for years of cuts.

That same pressure to be credible can also mean distancing Labour’s leadership from struggle outside parliament.... Read on:- https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/45414/Jeremy+Corbyns+speech+put+Labour+on+the+offensive+++but+also+showed+up+its+limits

#UK Politics #Labour Party #reformism #Jeremy Corbyn

3 notes · View notes

ericfruits · 6 years ago

Text

On political caricatures, “real” policies and the idea of public service

THE PARADOXES of Brexit multiply by the day. Brexit was supposed to allow Britain to take back control of its destiny. This week a British prime minister sat in a windowless room in Brussels while 27 European countries debated the country’s future in the council chamber (though Donald Tusk, the European Council’s president, did nip out halfway through the meeting to keep her updated). Brexit was supposed to restore the sovereignty of parliament. This week a British prime minister, borrowing the language of demagogues down the ages, berated MPs for not enacting the “will of the people”. Brexit was supposed to force the political class to venture out of its bubble and rediscover the rest of the country. The political class—journalists as well as politicians—is more navel-gazing than ever. I could go on but I think you get the general drift….

****

Get our daily newsletter

Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor's Picks.

IN THE Blair-Cameron years politicians competed to be as bland as possible. Today they compete to be as grotesque as possible. The age of identikit politicians (which culminated in the Jedward that was Cameron-Clegg) has been replaced by the age of caricatures.

Jeremy Corbyn is one of George Orwell’s sandal-wearing pacifists drunk on his own moral purity. His office is full of upper-class socialists who fell in love with the working-class while attending some of the world’s most expensive schools. Theresa May is an archetypical grammar-school girl who thinks that she’ll get a gold star if she keeps re-writing the same essay in neater handwriting. John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, is a classic puffed-up little man who likes to remind MPs of the importance of brevity in labyrinthine sentences that include, in no particular order, words like “sedentary”, “chuntering” and “loquaciousness”. The hard-core Brexiteers are divided into two types: golf-club bores who could sort it all out if they were put in charge and mumbling monomaniacs who keep dragging the conversation around to the same point.

****

THE CARICATURES on both the left and the right have one powerful argument on their side: that they represent “real Labour” or “real Conservatism”. The left’s trump card has always been that “real” Labour voters are coal-miners and steel-workers—and that “real” Labour policies have always been about redistributing income and nationalising things. The right can’t summon up a “real” Tory voter in quite the same way—the Party survived its aristocratic past by discovering “real Tories” in every social class—but it has made up for this by emphasising “real Tory” values: flag-waving nationalism, suspicion of foreigners, belief in British exceptionalism.

More moderate elements in each party have always been haunted by the fear that they are betraying the real party. Tony Blair had to resort to a combination of top-down control (policing not just what MPs said, but also what they wore) and cynical gesture politics (the hunting ban). Theresa May has repeatedly given in to the Brexiteers despite her realisation, as a rising politician, that a Tory party keen to recruit new members needed to shed its image as “the nasty party”, rather than becoming a rest home for elderly cranks.

****

THIS WEEK provided yet further proof—as if we needed any—that the country’s political class is in dismal shape. Britain not only has the worst prime minister and the worst leader of the opposition it has ever had. It has the worst cabinet and shadow cabinet as well. For much of the democratic era Britain contrived to send the most talented members of its various sub-divisions into parliament: Winston Churchill (pictured left) from the landed elite; Harold Wilson (pictured centre), Richard Crossman, Anthony Crosland from the intellectual elite; Ernest Bevin, Nye Bevan, Jim Callaghan (pictured right) from the working classes. Now it not only sends less talent but leaves much of the talent that it does send stuck on the back benches.

That said, I’m sceptical of the idea popular in business circles that all the great talent has migrated to the business sector and all we need to do is to recruit a few more business types and Britain will be on the road to recovery. I’m struck by how many business types are essentially private-sector bureaucrats who spend their (very well-paid) time holding meetings and recycling memos. Certainly, the performance of those business types, such as Archie Norman, who have gone into politics is far from inspiring.

I think there is a deeper problem with the nature of Britain’s governing class as a whole: a problem more to do with the corruption of its soul than with the allocation of talent between various sectors. The governing class has lost its sense of public service and become obsessed with lining its own pockets. Not that long ago retiring politicians spent their retirements cultivating their gardens and giving sage advice in the House of Lords. Now they join the ranks of the super-rich, not just stuffing their pockets with gold, which I can understand, but also devoting their spare time socialising with billionaires, playboys and dynasts, which I find incomprehensible. A good part of the appeal of Jeremy Corbyn is that, for all his failures of intellect and judgment, he is at least a self-denying type who lives an austere life.

The loss of a sense of public service is also driven by two more profound structural changes. The first is the advance of the division of labour. Academics write for other academics. Business people are overwhelmed by an ever-multiplying list of metrics (many of them imposed by the government). The second is a profound loss of cultural self-confidence. For all the differences between Tories and Labour the governing class used to share a common sense of cultural values: they might disagree about who got what but they agreed about the virtues of Western (and particularly English) civilisation. Now that those common cultural values have been dissolved by the acids of academic fashion and interest-group politics it is much easier to abandon public life entirely and concentrate on making money.

https://ift.tt/2UOVxBD

#IFTTT #Feedly

0 notes

bill-the-baker · 6 years ago

Text

Is history repeating itself?

So, I’ve considered that our current age of right-wing politics is dying. The President of the US is barely getting even 50% approval ratings and the UK’s Conservative government is collapsing on the weight of their own incompetence, when it has come to these Brexit negotiations. With the rise of Populism and more extreme left-wing ideas, I’ve considered these times to be the ends of two political eras, and I have personally theorised that every forty years or so, politics in the western world (or perhaps even the world in general) sees an extreme side of the political spectrum take power, with the other side doing the same forty years later. Basically, it would follow like this:

1. Strongly left/right-leaning ideology comes to power

2. Ideology is popular and opposing side adopts it’s characteristics in order to compete

3. Ideology expands in presence, possibly forming second boom in popularity

4. Issues rise and Ideology’s reputation collapses

5. Final attempt to resuscitate broken ideology, before a replacement gains power

To further demonstrate my point, here are three “eras” from around 1900 onwards that could conform to this narrative ( though some may work more than others). Feel free to read on if you’re interested:

1900-1933/1945: Ultra-Nationalism and Laissez-Faire economics:

1. Events in the Balkans, the fear between different European countries and the subsequent laying of the grounds for conflict (UK’s Dreadnought construction, Germany’s Schlieffen Plan, etc.) gives rise to Ultra-Nationalism in Europe, with the Scramble for Africa also displaying these nationalistic tendencies.

2. Throughout the First World War, Britain was led by the Liberal Party, which, as their name suggested, was much more liberal than their Conservative rivals, and despite their efforts in the conflict, they were still losing ground in Parliament. In the United States, on the other hand, whilst the Republican Party was noted for their Laissez-Faire economics, they still held the title of being the party that ended slavery. However, President Calvin Coolidge had to give up on his attempts at making lynching a Federal crime, because his right-leaning Congress wouldn’t allow it.

3. The 1920s sees a new rise in these policies. Fears over immigration in the United States and the rise of extremism post-WWI in Europe, would result in a return to Ultra-Nationalism, with the Ku Klux Klan boasting millions of members in the United States, whilst figures such as Benito Mussolini rose to power in Europe. The First Red Scare and the Republican Party’s success during the 1920s would see a spike in interest to Laissez-Faire politics.

4. The Wall Street Crash, and the subsequent Great Depression resulted in these old ideas quickly falling out of interest in the general public’s views.

5. President Herbert Hoover still stuck by to the Republican Party’s economic ideas during the depression, before he was voted out of office. To a more extreme extent, Adolf Hitler attempted to return to the ideas of Ultra-Nationalism that Germany used to hold. The events of the Second World War was the final nail in the coffin for these ideas.

1933/1945-1980: Social Democracy and Social Liberalism:

1. President Franklin D. Roosevelt institutes the “New Deal” as a solution to the Great Depression. This involves a heavy amount of government intervention in industries, with Roosevelt’s Presidency also seeing the rise in labour laws such as the minimum wage and 40-hour work week. Britain would also see Clement Atlee’s Labour government come to power, which sees the formation of the National Health Service, and a fully state-funded educational system, with the first steps towards decolonisation being made, as India gains it’s independence. Much of Eastern Europe also becomes Communist following World War II, as the USSR’s influence over the region expands.

2. The UK’s Conservative Party chooses to continue using the services that the Labour government formed, with few changes being made besides certain cutbacks, such as British Rail’s “Beeching Cuts”. The majority of Britain’s African colonies would also gain independence under the Conservative governments of the 1950s and 1960s. The United States, however, shows an exception to this rule, as the events of McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare, sees these ideas as being “dangerous”.

3. The Civil Rights and Counterculture movements gained mainstream success in politics and culture respectively. President Lyndon B. Johnson would also go on to declare a “War on Poverty” and initiate his “Great Society” programme.

4. The events of the 1970s, such as the Oil Crisis, the Three-Day Week, and the Winter of Discontent show the consequences of these ideas, as the Great Depression did for the earlier ideologies. Britain’s pro-trade union economic ideas led to one of the most disastrous strikes in history, with many garbage collectors and undertakers choosing to strike, leaving the streets littered with trash and people having to bury their own family members. My father even considered the Winter of Discontent to be the reason his father became a hard-line Conservative. The United States also saw the consequences of high government spending with the “Great Inflation”.

5. The Labour Party attempted to curb the financial situation in the UK, but their government essentially died out following their actions in the Winter of Discontent. President Jimmy Carter also attempted to curb the country’s financial issues, but his ineffectiveness in curbing the Great Inflation, as well as his poor decisions relating to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran Hostage Crisis, resulted in him falling out of popularity and being voted out in 1980.

1980-2020 (probably): Social Conservatism and Laissez-Faire economics:

1. Margaret Thatcher is voted into the position of Prime Minister, and would go on to bring about heavy amounts of privatisation, with telecommunications, practically all modes of transport and utilities such as water and electricity now in the hands of private companies. Much of the country’s wealth was placed into the banks of London, whilst much of the North and other regions experienced a severe decline in industry. Ronald Reagan would also become President of the United States around a year-and-a-half later. He would reduce Federal spending, de-regulate business and cut taxes. Socially, he was supportive of America’s old principles of family and religion. The consequences of de-regulation can be seen with the abundance of poor business practices in certain areas of the economic world.

2. Though some were left out, these ideas brought about many rejuvenated economies, with even the member states of the former USSR choosing to side with these policies in the years following Reagan’s negotiations with General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. As a result, the opposing parties of the US and the UK: The Democratic and Labour parties, chose to adopt more Centrist ideas in order to compete. The “New Democrats”, led by Bill Clinton, continued to maintain low taxes and de-regulated businesses, whilst still supporting state welfare. Tony Blair’s “New Labour” would see an increase in government spending and events such as the formation of Civil Partnerships, but they made no attempt to re-nationalise businesses and still supported some socially-Conservative values.

3. When George W. Bush was inaugurated as President, he would create tax cuts, ban “Partial-birth” abortions, and, in the years following 9/11, would bring about the ideas of Patriotism into the everyday lives of Americans. The Conservative Party would also return to power under the leadership of David Cameron, with the issuing of tuition fees for universities and limits on benefits being their main issues on the agenda.

4. The Great Recession shows the consequences of offering too much power to the wealthy and disregarding the lower classes, with the following years seeing the rise of the Occupy Movement, which tried (but failed) to bring change to our current system, mainly because they offered no alternative ideology.

5. The concepts of Populism arise from the ashes of the Great Recession, with many other attempts at suppressing certain ideas by certain elitist groups fuelling it’s return. As a result, Prime Minister Cameron uses this rise to allow his citizens to vote on the idea of leaving the European Union, after the UK Independence Party appeared to gain traction among the general public. Meanwhile, Donald Trump chooses to run for President, promising the return of power to the people, with the Republican Party choosing to take him in under their personal doubts. So far, these attempt at bringing about Populism have failed, with the idea still rising, whilst calling for the removal of the current leaders. Britain got a taste of Populism, and in return received something completely different from what they had hoped for. America saw a rise in Populism through Trump, but his ideas have resulted in strong divisions and countless issues to the United States. However, as the impact of the recession continues, and the younger, more left-leaning generations continue to be barely able to get by, Populism continues to grow. Britain has people such as Jeremy Corbyn (though, he is much less connected than he once was), whilst America saw the success of Bernie Sanders’ Presidential, with people such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez showing that this isn’t just a dying trend, but perhaps the start of a new political era.

So then, hopefully we might see the start of another era in western politics. One that will likely be dictated by Populism and Social Democracy (or Democratic Socialism [Yes, they are in fact two different things]). The only problem is that in 40 years time, it will collapse for whatever reason and we’ll have another ideology replace it. What I think can break this cycle would be some kind of a system that benefits from all of these ideas, with there being emphasis on certain ones when the time is right for them. Therefore there wouldn’t be such a strong backlash and replacement of ideas that could end up harming one side.

I don’t suppose this could mean much else in reality though. It’s mainly just food for thought.

#world history #politics #political ideologies #populism #history repeating itself #sorry if this was a long one

0 notes

rustynr · 8 years ago

Text

When I first moved to Boise some eight years ago, I assumed the Treasure Valley would be a musical wasteland, especially for metal. Having spent my life in San Francisco, Denver, Dallas, Phoenix, and other large cities, I could not fathom that Boise would have much to offer. As it turned out I had my head planted squarely up my elitist arse. The Treasure Valley is not only home to some amazing musicians and incredible bands, but the metal community is one of the strongest and most welcoming I have yet to experience. When Traitors Gate bassist Colby Dees reached out and asked if I would MC the Heavy Metal New Year’s Eve bash at The Knitting Factory I was floored and honored. It certainly turned out to be a memorable night featuring five of Boise’s best heavy bands and a large gathering of the Family in Black and Idaho Death Militia members.

Kicking off the night, Tulpaa took the stage first. For most in the crowd this was a first look at one of the Valley’s most intriguing new bands. Their sound meshes together elements of black and folk metal with nuances of many other things. It’s quite unique, as is a 7-piece metal band that features a cellist, a percussionist, male and female vocalists, as well as the usual array of guitars, drums, and bass. Fronted vocalists Raider Dean and Morkenna Fornjotsdottir, the band also features Hannah Maddox (percussion), Steve Chavez (guitar), Dean Gehrmann (bass), and drummer Marlon Roubideaux. The New Year’s show marked Tulpaa’s debut on the Knitting Factory stage, and one of their first with new cellist Will Reynolds. The band turned out an excellent show that included the set highlight, “Rotting in the Gallows.” with Morkenna and Hannah taking over vocal duties. Even the crowd sang along with that one. The rest of the set included; “Fires Die,” “Hallucinations,” “Manipulated,” and “Drought.”

The night also marked the return of Rise of the Fallen, performing their first show as a quartet. Over the fall the band stripped down to the core of vocalist Kegan Stucki, drummer Scott Mifflin, guitarist Daniel Rodriguez, and bassist Jeremy Franklin. No longer a two-guitar band, it put the onus on Rodriguez to deliver, and he did in high fashion. Rather than hearing holes in the sound without a second guitar, the band sounded clearer and stronger, with Franklin filling the void quite nicely. Rise of the Fallen also sounded tighter than I have ever heard them as they blazed through songs like “No Lord to Follow,” “Survivors Are We,” “Aisle 9,” “Project Society,” and “Politricks.” Stucki, as always, owned the crowd with his stage presence and personality.

Vault7 has been on a tear this year, including an opening slot with Anthrax this fall. They are also in the running to perform at Rock into Spring in Las Vegas later this year. Saturday night’s show marked the Boise debut for the band’s new bassist Paul Blair, who added some much needed punch to the band’s sound. Taking nothing away from the stellar performances of drummer Dennis Goodman, guitarist Brian Hoyt, and frontman Nathan Polnow, Blair’s debut truly stood out. The guys have finished recording their debut album, and hope to have it ready for mass consumption later this month. Fans got a heavy dose of the record at the show as the band ripped through the cuts; “Shadow of Vacancy,” “Soulgo,” “Fear Nothing,” “Digital Heart,” “Too Long on our Own,” and the Sabbath-esque “SLBS.” They also performed “Deception” and “Come to the Deep,” both of which have aired on Metal Nation Radio. Vault7 continued the running theme of the night, being that every band on the bill delivered an amazingly tight performance. As one fan stated: “Every band brought their A game.”

Next up were our X Fest Battle of the Bands winner, Traitors Gate, all tuxed up for the occasion. The guys are just about ready to drop their debut album (which is excellent, by the way), and they had a couple dozen copies on hand for the show. They played much of the record Saturday night, including fan favorites like “Killing Fields,” “Static,” “Dear Ms. Kelly,” “Plausible Deniability,” and “Acceptable Losses.” The rhythm section of drummer Tim Allan and bassist Colby Dees were dialed in tightly, with Dees bass in particular really cutting through. Guitarist Ken Mansfield delivered as only he can, despite getting a little muffled in the mix. Vocalist Mister Y prowled the stage in his charismatic and menacing manner, winding the crowd up and delivering a sense of excitement and celebration to the evening.

Closing the evening out were Treasure valley stalwarts, Black Tooth Grin, who always deliver a crushing set of riff driven revelry. Vocalist Justin Arthur knows how to work a crowd and Saturday was just another night at the office. Guitarist Jeremy Schmidt delivered a metric shit ton of heavy riffage, with bassist Lou Miller and drummer Derek Sanford cementing the foundation. The guys brought up their better halves on stage for the midnight countdown and even broke out a cover of Corrosion of Conformity’s “13 Angels” dedicated to our own Neeka Rodriguez. After opening with “Witch Hunt,” BTG dug out a set of classics including; “This Fucking Bullet,” “Shine On,” “Season of the Crow,” “Drifter,” “Plastic Jesus,” and “Ghost.”

Every time I step into The Knit lately, it seems Gary Pike has made improvements to the building and the sound, and things just continue to get better for all the bands and fans that pass through its doors and across its stage. Huge thanks to all the bands, all the fans, and the mighty Knitting Factory Staff, as well as our own photographer Katarzyna Cepek who captured many memorable moments of the night.

On behalf of Metalholic Magazine, Metal Nation Radio, and Idaho Music Scene I wish everyone a Happy New Year!

Click on any photo below to view as a slideshow.

#gallery-0-5 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-5 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 25%; } #gallery-0-5 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-5 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

Idaho’s Heavy Metal Scene Comes Together for New Years Bash When I first moved to Boise some eight years ago, I assumed the Treasure Valley would be a musical wasteland, especially for metal.

1 note · View note

courtneytincher · 5 years ago

Text

Brexit Stirs the British Class War

(Bloomberg) -- Nothing runs through the veins of British society more than the colors of an old school tie.With the country deep in conflict with itself over leaving the European Union, the opposition Labour Party may be about to stir up another quintessentially British argument: the class war over private schools.The party faithful convenes for their conference in Brighton on England’s south coast this weekend and a group of members is pushing for their “Abolish Eton” campaign to be part of the debate. Named after the U.K.’s most iconic school and alma mater of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, it aims to shut down establishments for fee-paying elites or at least tax them out of existence.The scrapping of private schools has several hurdles to overcome before becoming Labour policy, let alone U.K. law. But the fact that it’s being discussed alongside Brexit and workers’ rights at such a febrile time shows how the party under socialist leader Jeremy Corbyn is eager to make political capital by attacking the rich. It also helps explain why many in Britain are as wary of a Labour government as they are of Brexit.The vote to leave the EU cleaved the electorate between “leave” and “remain,” yet it was as much about income and opportunity disparities in a country with the wealthiest capital in Europe and yet where a United Nations report last year concluded that a fifth of the population lives in poverty.“You can talk about it being a zeitgeist issue,” said Robert Verkaik, author of the 2018 book “Posh Boys: How English Public Schools Ruin Britain.” “You can see there are people who are angry about their predicament or their place in society. The referendum has awoken some of these feelings about being left behind in parts of communities where there is a two-tier system not just of education, but also of life chances.” Read More: Will Brexit Trigger England’s Next Civil War?British society is still very much defined by its class system, with a person’s background often betrayed by accent and education as much as money. Private schools cut to the heart of that. They command their own fees and operate alongside the taxpayer-funded state system whose access is usually just determined by where a child lives. The privately funded schools benefit from being registered as charities and some other tax breaks. Prices can vary by region. In Birmingham, the girls-only King Edward VI High School charges 13,300 pounds ($16,600) per year. Eton, where annual fees can top 43,000 pounds a year and uniforms are a tail coat and pinstripe pants, is at the higher end of the market, although it takes some boys for free and provides grants to others. It has educated royal princes and 20 of Britain’s prime ministers.To its detractors, Eton is a symbol of the division between the nation’s haves and have-nots. A report for Britain’s children’s commissioner this week found there was a “shameful” rise in the number of young people in England leaving school without enough qualifications.Thelma Walker is one of the Labour members of Parliament backing the “Abolish Eton” campaign. A state-school teacher for 34 years before becoming a lawmaker, she sees how sports fields at a private school near Parliament in London are kept behind iron railings from the rest of the community, she said.“Games lessons are held there, but for most of the day and out of term time it is empty with local people living close by, many living in poor quality housing, unable to access the one green space,” said Walker. “For me this is symbolic of the massive inequality in our society.”Fee-paying schools educate only 7% of under-16s in England. Yet a report by education charity The Sutton Trust revealed that 65% of senior judges, 52% of junior ministers, 44% of media columnists and 16% of university vice-chancellors were educated in private schools.About two thirds of Johnson’s cabinet was privately educated. And it’s getting more exclusive, campaigners say. Last year, fees rose an average 3.7% and pupil numbers dropped to a five-year-low.Supporters of the system point to inequalities in society based on where people live, who their parents are and pressure on high-performing state schools to demonstrate the demand for quality education. House prices are pushed up around good schools, while other parents opt to attend a place of worship to boost the chances of their kids getting into a religious school.If Labour sought to abolish private education, children would just transfer to top-performing state schools, according to Patrick Derham, headmaster of London’s fee-paying Westminster School.Private schools have also offered scholarships to children from less affluent backgrounds and shared facilities with nearby state schools.��I completely accept that the correlation between socio-economic group and educational attainment is too close in the U.K.” said Derham. “It worries me, but it goes way, way beyond any influence private schools can have. We should stop focusing on the outcome of a few thousand pupils.”While Corbyn is painting Johnson and the Conservative Party as the elite, Labour isn’t just about state schools.Former leader Tony Blair, who won three consecutive elections, attended the elite Fettes College in Edinburgh. Among the current crop, Winchester College, founded in 1382 where fees are 41,709 pounds a year, educated two of Corbyn’s key advisers. Corbyn himself attended a fee-paying junior school, known as a preparatory, or “prep” school.Campaigners are considering a range of options before phasing out private schools altogether.A report published on Thursday by the pressure group Private School Policy Reform claims adding standard 20% sales tax on to school fees would raise about 1.75 billion pounds even after taking into account a 5% reduction in pupil numbers as some families get priced out. A second proposal suggests axing the status as charities for tax purposes.Labour has already pledged to impose sales tax on fees and spend the revenue on free school meals for all in the state sector. But how much revenue the reforms would actually deliver is disputed by research commissioned by the Independent Schools Council, which represents private schools. It could end up costing at least 416 million pounds because schools would reclaim the sales tax like other businesses, it said.“There is a clear contradiction in a policy that aims to raise revenue from independent schools and reduce demand for them at the same time,” said Julie Robinson, who heads the council.For now, it’s not clear if anything will get off the ground. The private school debate has to be selected in Brighton, then passed by delegates before being fully costed and adopted into the party’s manifesto, even though it was endorsed by the party’s finance spokesman and key strategist John McDonnell.A total abolition of private schools would require a sizable Labour majority in Parliament, something that looks unlikely given the division over Brexit. The Conservatives lead the polls by as much as 10 percentage points even after more than three years of upheaval and political sclerosis over leaving the EU, in part a reflection of concern over a socialist government under Corbyn.If it did come down to it, though, moderate Labour politicians could back abolition, said former party lawmaker John Woodcock.“No Labour MP is going to go down fighting for class privilege if it came to a vote,” Woodcock said. “If it’s a matter of throwing a bit of red meat to the left of the party, then I expect they’d let it go through Parliament.”To contact the author of this story: Kitty Donaldson in London at [email protected] contact the editor responsible for this story: Tim Ross at [email protected], Rodney JeffersonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

(Bloomberg) -- Nothing runs through the veins of British society more than the colors of an old school tie.With the country deep in conflict with itself over leaving the European Union, the opposition Labour Party may be about to stir up another quintessentially British argument: the class war over private schools.The party faithful convenes for their conference in Brighton on England’s south coast this weekend and a group of members is pushing for their “Abolish Eton” campaign to be part of the debate. Named after the U.K.’s most iconic school and alma mater of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, it aims to shut down establishments for fee-paying elites or at least tax them out of existence.The scrapping of private schools has several hurdles to overcome before becoming Labour policy, let alone U.K. law. But the fact that it’s being discussed alongside Brexit and workers’ rights at such a febrile time shows how the party under socialist leader Jeremy Corbyn is eager to make political capital by attacking the rich. It also helps explain why many in Britain are as wary of a Labour government as they are of Brexit.The vote to leave the EU cleaved the electorate between “leave” and “remain,” yet it was as much about income and opportunity disparities in a country with the wealthiest capital in Europe and yet where a United Nations report last year concluded that a fifth of the population lives in poverty.“You can talk about it being a zeitgeist issue,” said Robert Verkaik, author of the 2018 book “Posh Boys: How English Public Schools Ruin Britain.” “You can see there are people who are angry about their predicament or their place in society. The referendum has awoken some of these feelings about being left behind in parts of communities where there is a two-tier system not just of education, but also of life chances.” Read More: Will Brexit Trigger England’s Next Civil War?British society is still very much defined by its class system, with a person’s background often betrayed by accent and education as much as money. Private schools cut to the heart of that. They command their own fees and operate alongside the taxpayer-funded state system whose access is usually just determined by where a child lives. The privately funded schools benefit from being registered as charities and some other tax breaks. Prices can vary by region. In Birmingham, the girls-only King Edward VI High School charges 13,300 pounds ($16,600) per year. Eton, where annual fees can top 43,000 pounds a year and uniforms are a tail coat and pinstripe pants, is at the higher end of the market, although it takes some boys for free and provides grants to others. It has educated royal princes and 20 of Britain’s prime ministers.To its detractors, Eton is a symbol of the division between the nation’s haves and have-nots. A report for Britain’s children’s commissioner this week found there was a “shameful” rise in the number of young people in England leaving school without enough qualifications.Thelma Walker is one of the Labour members of Parliament backing the “Abolish Eton” campaign. A state-school teacher for 34 years before becoming a lawmaker, she sees how sports fields at a private school near Parliament in London are kept behind iron railings from the rest of the community, she said.“Games lessons are held there, but for most of the day and out of term time it is empty with local people living close by, many living in poor quality housing, unable to access the one green space,” said Walker. “For me this is symbolic of the massive inequality in our society.”Fee-paying schools educate only 7% of under-16s in England. Yet a report by education charity The Sutton Trust revealed that 65% of senior judges, 52% of junior ministers, 44% of media columnists and 16% of university vice-chancellors were educated in private schools.About two thirds of Johnson’s cabinet was privately educated. And it’s getting more exclusive, campaigners say. Last year, fees rose an average 3.7% and pupil numbers dropped to a five-year-low.Supporters of the system point to inequalities in society based on where people live, who their parents are and pressure on high-performing state schools to demonstrate the demand for quality education. House prices are pushed up around good schools, while other parents opt to attend a place of worship to boost the chances of their kids getting into a religious school.If Labour sought to abolish private education, children would just transfer to top-performing state schools, according to Patrick Derham, headmaster of London’s fee-paying Westminster School.Private schools have also offered scholarships to children from less affluent backgrounds and shared facilities with nearby state schools.“I completely accept that the correlation between socio-economic group and educational attainment is too close in the U.K.” said Derham. “It worries me, but it goes way, way beyond any influence private schools can have. We should stop focusing on the outcome of a few thousand pupils.”While Corbyn is painting Johnson and the Conservative Party as the elite, Labour isn’t just about state schools.Former leader Tony Blair, who won three consecutive elections, attended the elite Fettes College in Edinburgh. Among the current crop, Winchester College, founded in 1382 where fees are 41,709 pounds a year, educated two of Corbyn’s key advisers. Corbyn himself attended a fee-paying junior school, known as a preparatory, or “prep” school.Campaigners are considering a range of options before phasing out private schools altogether.A report published on Thursday by the pressure group Private School Policy Reform claims adding standard 20% sales tax on to school fees would raise about 1.75 billion pounds even after taking into account a 5% reduction in pupil numbers as some families get priced out. A second proposal suggests axing the status as charities for tax purposes.Labour has already pledged to impose sales tax on fees and spend the revenue on free school meals for all in the state sector. But how much revenue the reforms would actually deliver is disputed by research commissioned by the Independent Schools Council, which represents private schools. It could end up costing at least 416 million pounds because schools would reclaim the sales tax like other businesses, it said.“There is a clear contradiction in a policy that aims to raise revenue from independent schools and reduce demand for them at the same time,” said Julie Robinson, who heads the council.For now, it’s not clear if anything will get off the ground. The private school debate has to be selected in Brighton, then passed by delegates before being fully costed and adopted into the party’s manifesto, even though it was endorsed by the party’s finance spokesman and key strategist John McDonnell.A total abolition of private schools would require a sizable Labour majority in Parliament, something that looks unlikely given the division over Brexit. The Conservatives lead the polls by as much as 10 percentage points even after more than three years of upheaval and political sclerosis over leaving the EU, in part a reflection of concern over a socialist government under Corbyn.If it did come down to it, though, moderate Labour politicians could back abolition, said former party lawmaker John Woodcock.“No Labour MP is going to go down fighting for class privilege if it came to a vote,” Woodcock said. “If it’s a matter of throwing a bit of red meat to the left of the party, then I expect they’d let it go through Parliament.”To contact the author of this story: Kitty Donaldson in London at [email protected] contact the editor responsible for this story: Tim Ross at [email protected], Rodney JeffersonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

September 20, 2019 at 03:30PM via IFTTT

#Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

0 notes

biofunmy · 5 years ago

Text

Boris Johnson and the Rise of Silly Style

On the world stage there are few national leaders who can compete with President Trump in the indelible image-making sweepstakes of the new social media order.

With his tangerine skin and white-circled sun-bed-goggle eyes, his candy-floss blond comb-over and too-long bright red ties and blowzy Brioni suits, he is a cartoon of a politician straight out of late-night TV: risible and seared into your retinas at the same time. It’s funny, until you realize it’s also unforgettable.

Emmanuel Macron with his neatly cropped hair and well-cut navy suits doesn’t come close. Nor does Justin Trudeau, despite his attempt to get creative with socks. Xi Jinping of China may have rocked his party by allowing his hair to grow gray, but globally he is entirely buttoned up.

Vladimir Putin’s off-duty uniform of bare chest and leather jacket screams mutant machismo, but he dresses by the rules at official public events. It’s possible that only Kim Jong-un, with his Mao suits and flattop bouffant, has reached the same level of absurd, yet effective, self-caricature.

Until Tuesday.

Until, that is, the members of the Conservative party of Britain voted two-to-one to make Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson its new party leader, and hence set to be the prime minister.

And though he stood for his first speech as Tory leader in a spotless dark blue suit, his top jacket button firmly buttoned, a pristine white shirt and a sky blue tie only just slightly right of center, it is possible that Mr. Johnson trumps even President Trump when it comes to strategic use of a deceptively absurd image and sleight of sartorial hand.

He is certainly the only other head of government who has had multiple stories devoted to the evolution of his hair: a unique mop of very fine electric blond that has on occasion resembled a medieval bowl cut but more often is standing on end in confusion after having been tugged willy-nilly by its owner. It has even had its own Twitter account (@Boris_Hair) and conspiracy theorists (Boris Johnson Hair Truthers).

And it is possible that with the rise of both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Trump, it is time to start rethinking all traditional wisdom about what it takes to convince people that candidates are leadership material. Or at least that they look as if they are.

After all, attention to detail, the ability to control multiple variables at once, shoulders that can (ahem) shoulder the burden of office — qualities conveyed through the exactingly squared-off cut of a suit free from wrinkles and the polish of perfectly parted hair — were once considered crucial to electability but have been rendered seemingly irrelevant by the ascent of Mr. Johnson.

Since his government debut as a member of Parliament in 2001, his time as mayor of London (2008 to 2016) and foreign secretary, the adjectives often used to describe him include “shambolic,” “clownish” and “a buffoon.” His jackets are usually “rumpled” and flapping open, his shirts “spilling out,” his collars awry, his ties rarely on an even keel.

When he was mayor of London, he was famous for his eye-popping running outfits, which included a red beanie with an unzipped beige fleece and bright red and white Hawaiian shorts. Also what looked like silk boxing shorts with a giant dragon on the crotch. (Also for getting stuck on a zip line during the London 2012 Olympics while wearing a baby blue helmet, a blue and red harness, and waving two mini Union Jacks.)

These are clothing choices that would have, on most public figures, inspired ridicule and mockery to an extent that they might have subverted any faith in that individual’s ability to negotiate effectively during a G7 summit. On Mr. Johnson, however, they somehow became badges of credibility that bridged the class gap.

On the one hand, they spoke to what Sonia Purnell, the author of the biography “Just Boris: A Tale of Blond Ambition,” identified in her book as the mythic “English eccentric” (think the Duchess of Devonshire feeding her chickens in her evening dress).

On the other, they made the product of an otherwise elite upbringing — an international childhood, Eton, Oxford, languages that include ancient Greek — a figure of accessibility and affection: Yes, he looks like an idiot sometimes. But hey, don’t we all?

As a longtime fan of P.G. Wodehouse and Chaucer, and a student of history, Mr. Johnson surely understands the way bumbling plays in both the public mind and the British character narrative.

Nor could it have escaped him that, at least in recent history, this style has rarely, if ever, been adopted by those in power. Prime ministers like Tony Blair, David Cameron and even Gordon Brown were careful to button the top button to keep their suit lines straight when they were standing behind a podium, and they knew to sit on their jackets during an interview to make sure the shoulder lines stayed square.

Mr. Johnson lets it all sort of shuffle around. He doesn’t just break the boring old rules, he blows raspberries at them. His schlubbiness is both a product of his privilege and its antidote. It’s a balancing act that leaves his opponents at a loss.

When he embarked on the leadership competition, he seemed to toe the classic line more closely, apparently thanks to his girlfriend Carrie Symonds, who reportedly urged him to get a haircut and put him on a diet. Still he managed to show up at a Tory leadership debate in June with one of his socks inside out, a detail the British press — broadsheet as well as tabloid — seized on with great delight.

Now that he is about to move into No. 10, there’s no reason to expect any of this to change.

In the debate over whether his clowning is a sign of authenticity or pure genius calculation — or, most likely, a bit of both, in that he came by it naturally and then learned very quickly how to exploit it to his advantage — less has been made of its potential wider impact.

But in a world where casual Fridays, the pre-eminence of the tech uniform and the rise of street wear has freed everyone to de-stuff their suits, Mr. Johnson may be just the beginning. Are we in for an era of rumpled men?

After all, Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, deploy their dishevelment in strategic ways, each of them seemingly too passionate about the issues to iron. And while their physical sloppiness may once have been seen as reflecting a mental sloppiness, in an increasingly airbrushed and filtered world it telegraphs unvarnished truth telling and reality. It holds the allure of the anti-spin.

Even when it’s manufactured. Suddenly, looking like a mess looks to many awfully good. And when that happens, who really gets the last laugh?

Sahred From Source link Fashion and Style

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2MhLEen via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

ericfruits · 8 years ago

Text

A £10 minimum wage is not the best way to help low earners

MOST Britons have not had a decent pay rise in years, but the people of West Somerset have done better than most. Since introducing the “national living wage” last April the government has increased minimum hourly pay for the over-25s from £6.70 ($8.60) to £7.50, a steep rise by historical standards. By 2020 it is due to reach about £9. A fifth of employees in West Somerset are paid the minimum, a greater share than in any other local authority (and compared with just one in 20 in London). Butlins, a holiday resort there, is recruiting heavily, and many of its vacancies—from kitchen porter to lifeguard—offer the minimum rate. Last year average pay in West Somerset rose by 5%.

Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, wants to give low earners another pay rise. In its manifesto Labour is expected to pledge to introduce a £10 hourly minimum by 2020. That would probably give Britain the highest wage floor of any big, rich country. Could the labour market handle it?

The worry is that unemployment would rise as low-skilled jobs would become untenable. Indeed, that seems to have happened recently in America (see article). Yet British-economy watchers have been surprised time and again: since the minimum wage was introduced by a Labour government in 1999, increases have not caused joblessness to rise by much. As the chart suggests, low-paid workers have benefited. Even those earning above the minimum have enjoyed better pay. “After [the minimum wage] went up, it was snapping at my heels, so I asked for a raise,” says Harriet, a council administrator in West Somerset. She got one.

At a vintage shop selling starchy napkins and Victorian marmalade jars, the owner says her bottom line has not been affected much by the minimum wage so far. Alex de Mendoza of the local chamber of commerce says that few local firms complain about it (they are more concerned about business rates). Some have cut their employees’ perks in order to save on costs; the owner of one local café offers fewer free lunches to her staff. Not many seem to have responded by laying off their workers. West Somerset’s unemployment rate is just 3%. The job centre looks deserted.

How much more can firms afford to pay? Under the current government’s plans the minimum wage will continue rising, from about 55% of median earnings at the moment to 60% in 2020. Official forecasts suggest that this could ultimately cost around 100,000 jobs, equivalent to a rise in the unemployment rate of around 0.3 percentage points. Those forecasts imply that Mr Corbyn’s proposal could cost about the same amount again. The upshot would be that Britain’s economy would look more like those of other rich countries, most of which have recently had higher unemployment than Britain, but also higher wage growth.

The competition between Labour and the Tories over minimum-wage levels ignores a better way to help the poor. The Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown boosted in-work benefits such as tax credits (wage top-ups for the low-paid). The Conservatives are now cutting them with zest. Unlike higher minimum wages, tax credits do not threaten jobs, since their cost is borne by taxpayers rather than employers.

And increases in the minimum wage help poor families less than is commonly supposed. Many low-paid folk are second earners in middle-income families (think the mum with a part-time cleaning job), whereas many of the poorest households do not work at all. The government’s existing plans to raise the minimum wage are already expected to benefit households in the seventh income decile (ie, nearer the richest) by three times as much as those in the bottom decile. Mr Corbyn’s pledge to help low earners is welcome, but there are better ways to do it than with a £10 minimum wage.

For rolling coverage of the election campaign, check out our new British politics blog

This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under the headline "Min to the max"

http://ift.tt/2qcryaK

#IFTTT #Feedly

0 notes

robertawilliams · 6 years ago

Text

As Britain Stumbles Over Brexit, Support Grows for 2nd Vote

Image

Protesters waving European Union flags gathered in Cardiff, Wales, last month at a site where a pro-Brexit event was supposed to take place.CreditJim Wood/SOPA Images, via Getty Images

FFORESTFACH, Wales — In a 2016 referendum, Stephanie Holtom voted to leave the European Union, worried about immigration and convinced that other countries were telling the British government what to do.

But outside a supermarket recently in a large, suburban strip mall not far from the Welsh city of Swansea, Ms. Holtom conceded she might have been wrong.

“I agreed to come out of Europe, but I am beginning to have second thoughts. I think it’s a mess, and I’m sick to death of it,” said Ms. Holtom, who is retired, as she collected her shopping cart. She added that, if there were a second referendum, “people would vote to stay.”

Since a majority of Britons voted narrowly to leave the bloc more than 18 months ago, most politicians have treated a withdrawal, known as Brexit, as inviolable. Even amid signs of a slowing economy, few saw signs of a shift in public opinion.

London may be almost 200 miles away, but people here in Wales have noticed that Prime Minister Theresa May is struggling to negotiate Britain’s departure from the bloc, and to control her bitterly divided cabinet. “I think Theresa May is absolutely hopeless,” Ms. Holtom said.

As the political stalemate drags on, and with business leaders issuing ever more urgent alarms about the threats to the economy, growing public doubts are beginning to register in some opinion polls. And opponents of Brexit are quietly cultivating what they see as that rising sentiment in their campaign to soften, if not reverse, the whole process.

They even picked up support from an unexpected quarter when Nigel Farage, the former U.K. Independence Party leader and the leading proponent of Brexit, recently suggested that there might be a second referendum.

Prominent “leavers,” as supporters of Brexit are known, dismiss that possibility out of hand, but it may not be as far-fetched as they would have people believe.

Some time later this year Parliament is likely to face a fateful vote on the actual terms of any agreement Mrs. May can reach with the European Union on Britain’s withdrawal. A defeat in Parliament would prompt a political crisis, very likely topple Mrs. May and possibly prompt a general election. Potentially, that could open the way to a rethink, to new Brexit options, or to a second referendum.

That is what people like the local Swansea lawmaker, Geraint Davies, from the opposition Labour Party, are banking on. He believes the tide is turning against Brexit in Wales, where a majority opted to quit, although Wales is a big recipient of European development aid, and has several industries that might lose from Brexit.

Image

Prime Minister Theresa May is struggling to negotiate Britain’s departure from the European Union.CreditPaul Ellis/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

“What I am sensing is that people who voted Brexit in good faith are now saying, ‘Hold on, that’s not what I voted for, and I want a final say,’” Mr. Davies said, listing promises made during the 2016 referendum, including one — later ruled misleading by the country’s statistics authority — that quitting would free up 350 million pounds a week, or about $486 million, for health spending.

“You should have the right to look again, and say: ‘You ordered a steak and you ended up with a bit of chewed up bacon. Do you want to accept that?’” Mr. Davies added, arguing that Britain faces higher inflation and slower growth, and that, far from getting money back, it has offered around 39 billion pounds, or about $54 billion, in divorce payments to the European Union.

Mr. Davies and others have also pounced on recent reports that the areas in Wales and central and northern England that voted most strongly for Brexit are set to suffer the greatest economic harm from the rupture.

Experts say they have detected a subtle shift, in Wales and elsewhere. Though few people admit to changing their views, there is growing support for a vote on the terms of any Brexit deal, according to Roger Awan-Scully, a professor of political science in the Wales Governance Center at Cardiff University.

“There is some change on whether there should be another referendum on the issue,” he said. “We have seen a move towards the idea of the public having a greater say.”

Hard-line supporters (and opponents) of Brexit remain steadfast in their views, but many of the less committed have yet to fully focus on what it will mean and have been turned off by the stream of complex, sometimes contradictory, reports emerging from the tortuous negotiations. “It’s a bit like the O.J. Simpson trial: It keeps going on and on and people tune out of it,” Mr. Awan-Scully added.

And with signs that public opinion is volatile and could be shifting, the political ice is starting to crack.

When Tony Blair, a former prime minister, called last month for another plebiscite, Brexit supporters derided him as a pillar of a failed, elitist, pro-European establishment.

But it was hard to say the same when Mr. Farage suggested there should be another vote. Though Mr. Farage appeared later to retreat on the idea, Arron Banks, a big financial supporter of one of the Leave campaigns, endorsed it as well. For hard-line leave supporters, a referendum is a chance to once and for all kill off the argument to stay, and precipitate a clean break with the bloc.

Pro-Europeans, by contrast, would like a plebiscite on the specific terms of any deal negotiated by Mrs. May’s government, with the option to remain in the bloc if voters prefer.

Nigel Farage, center, the former leader of the U.K. Independence Party and a leading proponent of Brexit, recently suggested that there might be a second referendum.CreditAdam Ferguson for The New York Times

Several things would have to happen to make that a reality, including a change of government policy and, almost certainly, of prime minister.

Some say it is too late to rethink the withdrawal, given that Britain has invoked its two-year exit clause. Others say that to date the shift in British public opinion, if any, is simply not big enough, and that Brexit support remains strong outside the big cities and in many working-class communities.

But the logic of having a second referendum is compelling. The 2016 vote was a choice between leave and remain, yet was silent on the path that Britain should take thereafter.

At the two extremes, these are starkly different prospects. A so-called soft Brexit could keep Britain integrated within the European Union’s economic model and part of its single market and customs union, accepting all its rules, albeit without having a say over them.

A hard Brexit might cut most of those ties, and take the country toward a low regulation, low tax economy — “Europe’s Singapore” — for example.

The problem is that there is no specific democratic mandate for either option, or even for Mrs. May’s preferred (though probably unobtainable) idea of something in between. So any outcome is likely to be contested for years to come.

Within Mrs. May’s government, the implications of Brexit are causing concern, even as hard-line Brexit supporters step up their campaign for a clean break from the bloc.

Following the leak of a government analysis that predicted the British economy would suffer under all of the most likely scenarios, one minister, Phillip Lee, wrote on Twitter that, if the figures were anywhere near right, “there would be a serious question over whether a government could legitimately lead a country along a path that the evidence and rational consideration indicate would be damaging.”

One obstacle to another referendum is the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong Euroskeptic, who currently rejects the idea — despite arguing that, unlike Mrs. May, he would negotiate a withdrawal that would protect British jobs.

Yet, if Mrs. May reaches a Brexit deal that takes Britain out of the bloc’s economic structures, Mr. Corbyn would face overwhelming pressure to oppose it, a move that, if successful, could bring down the government.

A view of Swansea. The city voted in favor of Brexit but one of its Labour lawmakers, Geraint Davies, believes opinion has since shifted.CreditAlex Atack for The New York Times

Mr. Davies argues that the Labour Party’s large number of youthful members — the bedrock of Mr. Corbyn’s support — are strongly pro-European and want a second referendum.

Calls for a reconsideration of Brexit have come not only from Labour’s centrist lawmakers, but from some of Mr. Corbyn’s allies on the left, like Paul Flynn, a leading Labour member of Parliament from Wales.

“Isn’t it time to rethink this whole nonsense and plan for a second referendum where the nation comes to its senses?” Mr. Flynn recently asked at a parliamentary committee hearing.

Len McCluskey, a union leader and a close ally of Mr. Corbyn, wants Labour to oppose any Brexit deal that Mrs. May puts to Parliament, and has not ruled out supporting another referendum.

Of course, even if there were a second vote, it is far from clear that it would reverse the original verdict. Taking a break in central Swansea, Robert Hughes, a bus driver, said that as far as the Brexit talks are concerned, the public are “like mushrooms — we are kept in the dark.”

But he still supports Brexit. “We had a vote, it’s not best of three. Once it’s run, it’s run,” he said.

Back at the mall in Fforestfach, a spirited debate was going on in the coffee shop between two people whose views encapsulate some of Britain’s divisions.

Gerard Turley, director of an investment company and a Conservative Party voter, felt the pull of Brexit but concluded that the economic price would be too high.

“With my heart I wanted to go, but my head said stay,” he said, adding that he feels his decision to remain had been vindicated.

His wife, Christine Turley, a housewife, said that she voted to quit to stop “people in Brussels making our laws,” though she believes that, in fact, it was “too complicated a subject” for a straight yes or no vote.

“Now I’m not sure I made the right decision,” she added. “There is so much doom and gloom about how badly off we will be.”

Source

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/world/europe/uk-brexit-second-referndum.html

0 notes

party-hard-or-die · 6 years ago

Text

Why Canada

TORONTO (Reuters) – Jake Rowinski, a 20-year-old University of Toronto student, buys marijuana every week from one of the many self-described “medical” dispensaries in downtown Toronto.

FILE PHOTO: Two women enter the Trees Station, a medical marijuana dispensary, as others walk past in Toronto, Ontario, Canada May 28, 2018. Picture taken May 28, 2018. REUTERS/Chris Helgren

The illegal store sells openly to customers ranging from budget-minded recreational users like Rowinski to silver-haired grandmothers treating legitimate ailments.

“Nobody really cares at this point,” Rowinski said outside the shop, near the city’s financial district.

As Canada’s Liberal government prepares to legalize recreational marijuana use this summer, the biggest remaining obstacle to regulated sales will be competition from a thriving black market, according to cannabis investors, researchers, policy analysts and government data.

Many buyers of illegal pot will have little incentive to switch to legal weed, which is expected to be more expensive and less available because of strict regulations on sales, according to hedge fund GTV Capital, which invests almost exclusively in Canadian cannabis stocks, and the Marijuana Policy Group, a U.S. research firm.

As the first major economy to fully legalize cannabis, Canada’s regulatory rollout will be closely watched by other nations considering the same path – and by global investors, who have already poured billions into Canadian marijuana firms.

Canada legalized medical marijuana in 2001 but still restricts it to mail-order purchases from licensed providers. That has spurred the proliferation of unsanctioned retailers like the one where Rowinski shops, which recently changed its name to Trees Station Medical Dispensary.

Employees at the store declined to comment.

Such illicit retailers may soon compete with new legal outlets, and many provinces plan initially to limit the number of government-operated or -licensed stores. Medical marijuana, meanwhile, will remain legal only by mail, despite a push by major pharmacy chains to sell it.

The cautious approach could restrain legal investment in a market estimated by Statistics Canada at C$5.7 billion in 2017. About a fifth of Canadians between 15 and 64 years old used marijuana, spending an average of C$1,200 per person at C$7.48 per gram, the agency found. Ninety percent of that money was spent illegally.

GTV Capital estimates an average pre-tax price of C$8.33 upon legalization, already higher than the average illegal price because of testing, packaging and security regulations. That doesn’t include a planned excise tax of $1 per gram or 10 percent, whichever is higher, or sales taxes of 5 to 15 percent.

If the price difference allows the black market to compete, that will hamper the public benefits of legalization – legitimate investment, job creation and tax revenue – and complicate efforts to stamp out crime associated with illegal drug trafficking. Statistics Canada, working with police data in a 2014 study, found organized crime involvement in about a third of marijuana production and trafficking.

“Canada’s been brave enough to take the step to make cannabis fully legal, but they’ve also taken the stance that they don’t want to promote it,” said Steve Ottaway, managing director for investment banking at GMP Securities. “I can appreciate their intent, but at the same time, this is an adult-use market.”

Mark Ware – a McGill University family medicine professor who served as vice-chair of the federal task force advising on the legalization – said the measured approach aims to curb underage use and install government-controlled supply networks, safety checks and legal processes before further expansion.

“I don’t think anybody can be under any illusion that it will happen right away,” said Ware, who will become chief medical officer of cannabis producer Canopy Growth Crop (WEED.TO) on July 1.

FILE PHOTO: A marijuana plant is seen at Tweed Marijuana Inc in Smith’s Falls, Ontario, March 19, 2014. REUTERS/Blair Gable

LIMITS ON RETAILING

Most investors and analysts predict legal sellers will be able to compete on price in the next few years as regulations loosen and legal supply networks grow. At least for now, provinces plan fewer stores than needed to meet demand.

Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, plans 40 government-run stores at first, rising to 150 by the end of 2020; Quebec, the second largest, will start with 20 stores and decide the pace of expansion later.

That compares to about 1,000 retailers in the U.S. state of Colorado, which legalized recreational marijuana use in 2012 and has seen prices drop from more than $12 a gram to less than $7 with the expansion of retailers, according to research firm BDS Analytics. Today, about 70 percent of Colorado marijuana users buy legally, a state spokesperson said.

In response to questions about their policies, Quebec and Ontario spokespeople pointed to previous statements. Ontario officials have said they looked to their experience with alcohol and tobacco retailers to guide marijuana policy; a Quebec official has said the province will consider as many as 300 retailers in the long-term.

(For details on marijuana regulation in Canadian provinces, see: [L3N1SG6U4])

Patchy availability and higher pricing are likely to reduce provincial tax revenues in the early years of legalization, Moody’s Investors Service said in a recent report. It predicted British Columbia, with the most liberal retailing regulations, will collect far more tax revenue, about $50 million, than provinces with tighter rules. The federal government will get 25 percent of the excise tax revenue, with the rest going to the province where any given sale occurs.

‘A LOT LIKE PIZZA’

Canada’s national legalization of recreational use has little precedent; it will be only the second country after Uruguay to do so.

But it’s clear from smaller-scale legalizations that heavy users drive pot-market economics – an obstacle in converting illegal sales to legal ones.

“Heavy users use more than everyone else combined,” said Damitha Pathmalal, portfolio manager at GTV. Many will “stick to the illicit market, given the price difference.”

Daily users are only 14 percent of the total but buy about two-thirds of all pot sold, according to GTV Capital and a 2016 report from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

(For a graphic on Canadian marijuana consumption, see: tmsnrt.rs/2JvANMH )

Recreational consumers who don’t live near a legal store will be able to buy online. But many customers will turn to local outlets – legal or illegal – rather than wait for mail-order, said Miles Light, co-founder at the Marijuana Policy Group in Denver, Colorado.

“These are comfort goods; they’re a lot like pizza,” he said. “The model works, but it’s got to be pretty local.”

ENFORCEMENT DILEMMAS

Jeremy Jacob, president of the Canadian Association of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries, said availability issues could be solved by giving illicit retailers a path to legal status.

But most provinces want to “eradicate the existing industry,” Jacob said.

British Columbia is the exception. It plans to allow some existing dispensaries to apply for licenses, as Jacob plans to do for his Village Bloomery in Vancouver.

The province also plans to step up raids on shops who continue to sell illegally.

The goal is “to put a significant dent in the black market,” said Mike Farnworth, the province’s solicitor general and minister for public safety.

Ontario will set aside C$40 million for enforcement after legalization, including policing impaired driving.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police plans to add analysts to monitor organized crime in the cannabis industry after legalization and determine what enforcement resources are needed, said the RCMP’s Yves Goupil, a director of federal policing.

“If the black market can still operate profitably, there will need to be significant justice resources devoted to enforcement,” said Rosalie Wyonch, a policy analyst at the C.D. Howe Institute, a nonprofit economic policy think tank.

Canada has no plans to allow storefront access for medical marijuana despite a pharmacy-industry push to dispense it.

Pharmacies including Shoppers Drug Mart – Canada’s biggest chain, owned by Loblaw Companies (L.TO) – and PharmaChoice, the country’s second-biggest independent pharmacy group, have signed supply agreements with marijuana producers in case rules change.

A survey by the Canadian health regulator Health Canada last year found that only 29 percent of those reporting medical cannabis use had a medical document from a health professional, a requirement for buying from licensed producers.

The rest bought illegally.

To view a graphic on Canadian pot sales are dominated by frequent users, click: tmsnrt.rs/2JvANMH

Reporting By Nichola Saminather; Editing by Denny Thomas and Brian Thevenot

The post Why Canada appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2sQN7wK via Breaking News

#News Headlines #News Update #Sports Update #Business Update #World The News

0 notes