Election Countdown

“Yes Rachel I have an eight, headache”

Constitutional politics just got even sexier! Actually, let me scale that back a touch. It’s still hardly Café Risqué, but to a politics badger it’s the stuff that wet dreams are made of – that should give you a pretty good insight into the deformed mind of a politics badger. It also serves to keep my Bachelors degree relevant, so bravo for that.

On the 18^th April Theresa May said “stuff you”, albeit with more class, to the Fixed Terms Parliament Act brought in under David Cameron. Whilst the Act was hardly an engrained facet of British politics, it nonetheless remained a part of the uncodified British constitution. Let’s take a moment to appreciate such a system. If anywhere else in the world, a leader declared their intention to depart from legislation enshrining the regularity with which democratic elections took place, there would be international uproar. It’s a testament to Britain that we are able to do this and is a subtle jab to our American comrades who still rely on a 250-year-old piece of paper.

Behind the guise of constitutional change, this is hardly the biggest shock. Victory in 2017 would hand the Conservatives a mandate until 2022, giving them a chance to get close to the 13 years in power that Labour enjoyed under Blair and Brown between 1997-2010. Crucially, victory this year would allow them 3 extra years after the deadline for Brexit to make their plans work, removing the largest of elephants from the Brexit negotiating room.

The timing of this was crucial, the initial outlook would suggest that the Conservatives stand to reap their largest majority since the Thatcher years. For the opposition, this move will see election strategies hastily brought forward and for Labour, this brings the Corbyn question right where they didn’t want it…in public. Even I, a humble student, can see that it would be preferable for an election to be held once Jeremy Corbyn became more than a meme to most internet dwellers. A decimation of Labour is on the cards. Whilst for the Lib Dems their biggest weapon, time, has been cut. The longer Brexit rambled on for, the more discontented would likely rally to their cause. With time now viciously cut short, they now have 2 months to exploit their anti-Brexit target audience. They’re also 3 years closer to the memories of the Clegg years than they would have hoped for.

On the face of it this move was genius. A kind of ‘out with the old, in with the f*ck you’.

Kudos to the Prime Minister for doing it. It’s a very bold political move and one which happens less than one would imagine. The last time a PM had to opportunity to call a snap election to secure their power was Gordon Brown shortly after he succeeded Tony Blair, he bottled it. And Labour lost the 2010 election.

However, there is a clear and present danger here. This is likely to become a Brexit 2.0 referendum. Don’t be fooled however, this is no ‘diet’ or ‘lite’ referendum, this is a full fat opportunity to make your voice heard. Unlike the referendum last year every advocate or opponent will be mandated to carry out their preference. Whereas before the issue was between squabbling individuals, it’s become party politics.

To me, the Brexit policies nowadays are very much comparable to cheese. You have the Labour plan, which is alarmingly similar to some feta. It’s crumbly, inconsistent and likely to be a big hit with the Greeks who’d like us to stick around and help fund a bailout. The UKIP plan is like a nice Caerphilly, hard in its conviction but likely to collapse under pressure…also surprisingly popular around Wales. The Tory conviction for Brexit is akin to a sharp cheddar, terrifyingly English with a significant backing of farmers. As for the Lib Dems…their plan is best visualised in the form of the Cheese Shop in the Monty Python sketch. Shortly, there’s nothing there. If an opposition to Brexit defines your vote this year then you must vote Liberal Democrat, it is that simple.

But a message for everyone for the election. Brexit is important and the sole reason behind this move. However, it isn’t a referendum. That means every other issue you can think of is up for grabs. That includes a Conservative education plan which has seen academies rise and fall as the solution to education. As a well as an incoherent policy which has changed the layout of GCSE’s with students now receiving ill-thought out number grades rather than letters. That includes: student fees which stand poised to financially cripple a generation, the never-ending question of the NHS, Scottish Independence, environmental policies which stand to once again be overlooked as we play politics over the planet.

The events of the last year alone serve as evidence as to why voting is important. By not voting you lose any right to complain about the system in which you live.

Predictions? I’ll level with you here, if my thoughts had been right over the last year then we’d be saying ‘Madame President’ and this election wouldn’t be happening. But what the hell right.

I worry for Caroline Lucas’ seat. Although she has the experience of twice winning her seat I fear the ‘brexification’ of the election may undermine her efforts.

I predict that the most Nigel of Farages will once again pop-up into the electoral proceedings. Will UKIP do well? No. There is no reason for them to do so. The problem is with a single-party is that you become irrelevant once that issue has been addressed. UKIP have also been plagued with in-fighting. Will they get lots of votes? Of course, but the First Past the Post System counts for little in that respect. Expect a swathe of second and third place finishes.

This is the opportunity for redemption the Liberal Democrats have been waiting for. It’s just come up rather quickly. Have people forgotten Nick Clegg and the tuition fee promise? I’m expecting a revival as anti-Brexiteers flock to their calling. A return to third place in the party tables.

At least in England that is. The Scottish votes will tell the tale of the sub-story to this election. An SNP majority in Scotland will deliver the mandate for independence that Nicola Sturgeon seeks. Anything less than that and the PM will have the mandate to hold back powers for independence referendum indefinitely.

Will the grassroots support of Jeremy Corbyn, which saw him remain leader of Labour, emerge to fight his cause? The Polls tell a different tale.

I’ll predict a blue victory but because of that don’t be surprised to see an FUKP landslide under Al Murray. See you in June.

18/04/2017

Rob Randall

 

 

5 Lessons I learned in D.C.

It’s incredible how far away a student will run to escape their work; as well as the terrifying calls to address their future, a threat which looms like some ungodly odour over their very being. Having already fled the career laden land of England, I decided that even Tampa was becoming too serious and that further escapism was needed. Hence why I recently found myself in Washington D.C. over a weekend which may have a profound impact on the course of humanity over the coming years. The experience of such a vibrant city was one that won’t be forgotten and one which has emphasised several key aspects about the American way of life.

American Patriotism

Whilst this won’t come as a shock to any freedom fans out there, it’s worth mentioning that the scale of American patriotism is an unparalleled phenomenon and one which is particularly bemusing to one so British. Whilst their politics has never been so divided, their allegiance to their nation has endured. Hearing the national anthem being sung by a US marine in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial was awe inspiring in itself. Yet to stand in the presence of thousands of Americans who erupted into the final two lines of “the land of the free, and the home of the brave” was an experience which made the hairs on my neck stand on end. Whilst the gloss of Trumpfest 2017 was slightly eroded by the sight of the man himself warbling along to “God bless the USA” it was still a sight to behold. However, this led me to question why such patriotism is alien to me as a humble Brit? Then it dawned that the British equivalent is a much more daunting and altogether more cringeworthy prospect. Whilst a few hundred people singing “God Save The Queen” isn’t too hard to imagine, the second half of the performance would be less of a triumph of nationalism but more of a triumph for middle age office parties. In this instance the British equivalent could be reduced to Boris Johnson air guitaring to Bohemian Rhapsody whilst Theresa May provides a karaoke version of “Rule Britannia”. The Americans even get more inspired by the British monarchy than we humbled islanders do; it’s a scary thought when the best representation of British patriotism is Nigel Farage drinking very warm, very brown beer. Regardless of the circumstances of the weekend, the essential American feel was rife throughout proceedings.

American News Networks are Rubbish

A lot of talk has occurred in the recent weeks surrounding ‘fake news’, with the new President himself having launched scathing attacks on American news networks. Now, whilst stories about potential election hacking are clearly a waste of time (at least to the more orange members of American society) I can’t help but agree with Mr Trump’s suggestion that American news outlets have been very poor in their selection of topics. D.C. was bombarded with potential news headlines, an inauguration and a women’s march exceeding all expectations of size just to name a few events. Yet the item which plagued the news feeds throughout the weekend was a ludicrous comparison between the sizes of inauguration crowds enjoyed by President’s Trump and Obama respectively. The insistence of the new White House regime to continually address the apparent difference between the figures has reduced the story to being no more than a comparison in size between the respective presidents’ male appendages. And, to be honest, at seventy years of age I’m not sure it’s the right sort of battle to pick for Mr. Trump. The insistence of the new President to address this story only serves as a reminder to people that the man remains an ego maniac. Surely swearing the oath of office would be enough to satisfy any man? Apparently not.

The ladies aren’t for turning

Normally it takes a special kind of fool to accidently stumble into the middle of a near million strong crowd, but I am delighted to announce that you are reading the words of such a fool. Whilst it had been made clear that a women’s march would be occurring on the Saturday following the inauguration, the scale of it remained a mystery until the day of reckoning. Suddenly a simple attempt to visit the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum from this humble Brit turned into an accidental march with the women in question, and whilst we tried our best to elbow our way through the staggeringly large event, it was to no avail.

The scale of the march was breath-taking, a true eye opener into the minds of many people, both men and women, who feel that their best interests will be hampered by the new administration. In truth, the whole weekend, given the divisive nature of the election, was a true demonstration of democracy in action. In very few countries on earth could large portions of the capital be brought to a standstill in such a largely peaceful way without retribution.

But the purpose of the march went far beyond a test of the nature of American democracy, it was a stance on values which will be challenged over the coming years, and it is a challenge which quite rightly has many women worried about their right to choose. Already President Trump has issued a ban on funding to groups which fund and promote abortions abroad. Whilst this doesn’t affect the current reproduction rights of US women it sends an alarming signal abroad to the poorest and most deprived regions of the globe that women don’t have the right to choose how to plan a family. Given the already perilous state of the legal pro-choice nature of the US system today, this could potentially have further alarming repercussions in the future. Too often have people condemned such marches but none of these arguments have convinced me. The inconvenience of a few blocked roads and metro stations incompatible to the potential restrictions in freedoms that women may face in the future. The pro-choice vs. pro-life argument is one that remains deeply dividing and heavily influenced by the religious factions in American society; however, the simple fact there are arguments which favour dictating to women on what they should and should not do to their own bodies when it concerns their health is the reason why marches such as this need to continue to happen. Whilst a class of straight, white, car factory working males stand to benefit from the new era, the feeling is common amongst others that their new-found glee may not be shared.

The US has often likened itself to a shining city at the top of a hill, an example set so that the rest of the world’s nations may follow. The possibility of a backwards step must leave the rest of the world wondering what will come next.

Symbolism is Rife

In an effort to escape the crowded streets, and even more crowded pizza parlours, my adventures drew me to the Arlington military cemetery. Whatever someone may think about military intervention it’s hard not to be moved by the sights that will greet you. Graves upon rows of graves. But it wasn’t a depressing place, it was sombre and a timely reminder of what America has given to the world.

As we returned into the middle of DC, following a day protest, we were greeted by the sight of rows upon rows of signs, previously held by protestors, adorning the gates close to the White House and Capital building. The messages ranged from humour to anger, but the emotion was palpable on every one. Whilst the Arlington memorial was the grave for many an American soldier these signs will perhaps mark the gravestone of America’s Liberal Democracy. Whilst the democratic process is alive and well, the loss of liberal values, in particular tolerance, has been obvious for some time. This election was the climax of that demise and there is a sweet irony around the graves of tolerance and interdependence are located in the capital of their previous champion.

In 1992, Francis Fukuyama penned a book called “The End of History and the Last Man” which spoke of how the social evolution of humans had ceased once they had reached a stage of liberal democracy and free market capitalism. Whilst capitalism is still very much with us, liberalism in America has become a tainted word, and now one which looks like it will become increasingly redundant as time goes on. Perhaps we are now seeing “the end of ‘the end of history”.

 

Most Importantly

Yes the key lesson to take away from a weekend in Washington…they do have Nando’s in the US.

Please For the Love of God Make it Stop

I’m currently sat about two hours away from the Kennedy Space Centre (Center for those with alternative spelling dispositions); there countdowns to major events are ushered in with metronomic and calculated efficiency. Pull ourselves away from the awe-inspiring thought of intergalactic travel into the context of the current American election and the countdown to voting day is everything but. Instead, let me liken it to an attempted killing of a James Bond style character – who is strapped to a table and is forced to watch as a terrifying laser bears down on his crotch. Only in this instance, the laser has been going for some 18 months now and frankly Mr. Bond is so fed up he is just begging for the process to be over – even if that comes at the expense of his groin guardian. There are 2 days to go until the moment of truth and there is an overriding sense of exhaustion and desperation in the air. This election has so often been likened to a car crash, how that seems to be much more merciful than the slow, testicle cleaving, death we’ve endured so far.

Anyway, in the words of Douglas Reynholm (of the IT Crowd to those in the dark) enough about our balls.

As a humble Brit abroad in a cauldron of political hostilities and split voters, there are many reasons why it seems so perplexing that this is still a contest. Back home Donald Trump is perceived as a laughing stock; alas he’s now a joke which is all too real. But why? How did it come to this? Throughout my time in the states there has been one argument that has been repeated no end to me and it’s one I constantly grapple with.

“I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton.” Often this is the hard line stance that many people take; both from hard core Republicans to those who care little for politics and prefer to draw their views from the sh*tstorm of American media outlets. But this just seems a contradiction in terms. If voting from the basis of conscience is at the heart of your decision then how on earth is Donald Trump a better alternative?

Let’s break apart the argument as it normally gets presented. “The emails, she deleted all the emails, she’s incompetent…I know it, you know it, we all know it.” Granted, there can be no arguments here. To use a private email server as a tool for the exchange of classified information is grossly incompetent; but is it anything more than that? It’s highly unlikely, and this is just a guess, that all 30,000 plus emails were nuclear codes sent to Islamic jihadist groups or to Putin, so speculation is unlikely to get us anywhere. Surely this issue should have been put to bed when she was cleared by the FBI of any criminal wrongdoing?

“AHA” I hear vocal Trumpites scream… the investigation has subsequently been reopened. Unfortunately there are a few issues with this. Surprisingly one of them isn’t the timing – criminal investigations shouldn’t be put off even at such a critical election time. Firstly, it’s fairly comical that people who denounced the FBI’s credibility after the first investigation are now rejoicing at the Bureau’s return. It’s quickly becoming a form of Schrödinger’s bureau which can be both corrupt and legitimate depending on its findings. Secondly, the discovery of new emails which warrant re-examining the case arose due to investigations into Anthony Weiner’s charges of indecency with a child. It seems like a crime this serious has been overshadowed by the political drama that has engulfed the nation. There’s a real danger he might go down as a footnote in history as a cause of a failed Clinton campaign – when he should have the spotlight completely to himself and suffer the consequences of his disgraceful criminal actions in full public view. It speaks volumes about the concerns of society that people care more about political drama than serious crimes committed against a child.

So what else makes Trump appear as the morally superior candidate? Well questions have often been levied against both the Clinton Foundation and the speeches that Mrs Clinton has done which have commanded substantial fees from Wall Street Banks. Some people argue that she is corrupt. Let’s begin with the charities. At a glance, the comparison between the two candidates’ respective charities is easy to distinguish on charitynavigator.org. The Clinton foundation receives a total score of 94.74 out of 100; with 87% of all contributuions going directly into places in need. Alternatively the Donald J. Trump Foundation has been issued a moderate warning over its activities due to the investigation by the New York General Attorney over its dealings as a non-profit. This may or may not have something to do with the purchase of a giant painting of his own face with fund money…how morally enlightening.

As for the speeches; high profile politicians making speeches for high fees is nothing new or unique. Just this year George Osbourne has earned £98,000 for three speeches in the US. Whilst Mitt Romney is reported to have earned $374,327 in 2012, the same year that he himself was running for office. So to isolate Hillary Clinton’s speech making as a new and disturbing phenomenon is an argument that Republicans shouldn’t be levying.

It’s far from the place of a humble Brit to dictate who the American people should vote for…but I will lambast the motives behind peoples’ choices. For instance there is a perfectly easy way to justify voting for Donald Trump and it’s got nothing to do with having a clearer conscience.

If your reason is to avoid suffering a slow painful death by cringing then that’s the winner. Yes in a last throw of the dice move, like a possessed grandma, we’ve been treated to the sight of Hillary Clinton courting support from the likes of Jay Z, Katy Perry and John Bon Jovi. This causes me deep psychological pain; just imagine Theresa May appearing at a Stormzy concert; or how about Jeremy Corbyn holding a rally alongside Lil’ John. That’s the reason that therapy was invented.

Credit where credits due to Donald Trump he’s definitely avoided situations like that and focused his time on providing us with a clean conscience candidate for the presidency. Gracing us with endless morally righteous acts like: sexually assaulting women – and then bragging about it, advocating a racist policy to Muslims, backing war crimes during the war on terror and many more.

We’ve not even got to actual policies yet. However, it’s safe to say that if Mr. Trump has a policy that concerns anything other than: NAFTA, Muslims and the failsafe practise of trickle-down economics then I’m yet to hear it. But just remember Hillary was bad with her emails so none of that clearly matters.

With Election Day nearly upon us it is time for people to truly focus on the issues that matter to them and pick a candidate accordingly. If you’re not one of the wealthiest 1% then your vote should be going to Hillary. If you value Christianity over Liberal Democracy and draw the line for voting at issues such as abortion then Trump is probably your best bet. If you’re failing Geography then Gary Johnson is candidate for you. Or if you’re prefer to ignore the basic workings of Economics then don’t worry, Jill Stein is here.

The message is simple. Be true to what you believe and be honest about the issues you hold dear; because this is the wrong election to be idealistic about your choice. Pragmatism truly is the word of the day.

Depending on how things go over the next few days my status as a foreigner could land me in a spot of bother. We live in hope that America sucks up its pride and does what needs to be done for sanities sake.

©

Rob Randall

06/11/2016 (11/06/2016 if I’m auditioning to remain…a common  theme of my life this year)

 

I Still Miss EU

(Credit to the internet for the title, the photo and for always being there)

What’s a really British thing to do? Obviously apart from making tea and talking about the Queen; which is pretty much all of my American cohorts think about us. If you answered “become engulfed with indecision” then we have ourselves a winner. Yes the issue of Brexit once again rears its questionable head…Come to think of it…queueing was also a good answer.

Fresh(ish) off the presses, unlike anything I usually write, it was confirmed earlier yesterday that in order to pass Article 50, the legislation signalling the beginning of the formal process to leave the EU, the bill will have to pass through parliament. This is parliamentary sovereignty at its finest; with parliament acting as the primary law making body, exactly what the Brexit vote wanted right? Yeah…about that. The decision has provoked anger from the usual suspects *cough cough Nigel cough* and a statement from the government has even come out condemning the decision. This is ludicrous. The people have spoken and the normal procedures to pass legislation should remain in place; if parliament subsequently voted against Article 50 then that would undermine the point in ever holding referendums. But let’s face the facts, this hasn’t happened. On the face of it, today’s decision was a Brexiteers paradise; a British court making a decision empowering the British parliament. If the respect for the result of the referendum endures then people who backed the leave campaign should have nothing to worry about. All the decision does is to provide us with one final forum for debate which is in no way a bad thing. However, as tends to be the case, our support for democracy often waivers our views are not in the majority. In theory this decision shouldn’t affect the governments will. They have a majority for a reason, precisely so as to pass its own legislation.

But a question arises when an issue is this polarizing among both the populous and MP’s. Should leave supporters be concerned? 270 Regions voted to leave compared to the 129 which opted to remain. Now whilst these aren’t constituencies as expected for a general election if we were to take a similar proportion and apply it to a vote in the House of Commons then Brexit triumphs. That’s without taking into account party affiliation and the personal stances of respective MP’s. An MP rebelling against the will of their constituents over an issue like this would struggle for re-election…in theory at least. Alas the question of safe seats and proportional representation is for another time. Add to that a government which has a mandate to implement the outcome of the referendum; to suggest that anything other than Brexit is going to happen is quite the statement.

Then again, should we be surprised? The excessive reaction to this court ruling is not only akin to a petulant child who’s been denied their every whim; but also to most of the ‘leave’ campaigns amateur dramatics that took place during the whole Brexit debate. The claims that this will halt the process of Brexit are about as unfounded as their claims that the NHS would directly benefit from the money saved by EU withdrawal…Then again anyone who believed that statement should probably not take political advice from a bus. Unfortunately I fear that many of the British public displayed classic symptoms of ‘bus based’ political voting. Believing that Team Brexit would be able to deliver their promises, given that they weren’t an elected majority in the House of Commons, is yet more evidence of a hastily concocted view on the issue. In which case, we’re in need of bigger, more informative, buses.

Now of course the decision for Brexit has been made and this should of course be respected. Whilst Nigel Farage made it clear that if the result had been close, say with 52% in favour of remain, he would demand a second referendum. Clearly it would be foolish for this to apply to sides because *insert UKIP logic here*.

Light hearted jiggery-pockery aside the legislation to pass Article 50 should get passed in parliament – it’s the right thing to do. Whilst it could technically be rejected if MP’s were feeling particularly rebellious; this would undermine democracy at its most direct, when the people have the greatest say. It would be the equivalent to Nicola Sturgeon receiving the ‘No’ vote on Scottish independence before taking the executive decision to ‘sod it’ and go ahead anyway. Such a bill would even be likely to pass in the SNP dominated Scottish parliament. This didn’t happen for two reasons. Firstly, because Scottish rebellions would be much more violent than English ones; with much more ginger hair and alarming numbers of kilts and all together more haggis-y than anything those south of the border could come up with. Secondly, and altogether a tad more likely, because she respected the will of the Scottish people as well as the principles of the fabric of our democracy. Ultimately the representatives of the British people in parliament are just those…representatives.

The people have spoken and that is why in six months’ time Article 50 will have been passed by Parliament. It is the right thing to do and anything other than this would undermine the whole process of holding a referendum in the first place. It’s very likely that the promise of the Conservative Party to hold and abide by the result of a referendum on EU membership was crucial in their surprise election win back in May 2015. To not abide by it would be one of the most blatant broken promises in the history of British politics.

Until Article 50 passes, there will be noise, complaints and moaning coming from Brexiteers who feel they are being cheated out of their wishes. But if you look at it, the whole process should be a Brexit advocate’s wet dream. British courts, British Parliament, British decisions made by British (apart from Scottish…) people.

Or maybe a mistake has been made. Perhaps a higher power should be able to set the rules for parliament and be able to pass legislation without its approval? Sound great, it would mean immediate Brexit with no faffing about. Oh wait a minute…that’s what the European Parliament could do.

©

Rob Randall

05/11/2015 (11/05/2016 for ‘muricans)

 

Please welcome to the stage, not Donald Trump

In the last week my good British soul reached peak bemusement. It was America at its most American. There was religion, there was Bruce Springsteen and my goodness there was a lot of buzzwords. Whilst this might sound like another standard day in Alabama, it wasn’t. This was a sunny Tuesday at the University of South Florida; this was a Hilary Clinton rally.

There were of course many things that seemed peculiar to the humble Brit; chief amongst which was the rather disgruntled Christian man who took great pleasure in holding a sign aloft next to the queue telling all of us that we were destined for hell. I was feeling upbeat about the whole thing until it was pointed out to me that “Men who act girlish” were sinners. Normally this is no issue, however my relief was short lived as the ‘holy man’ cast his gaze upon my humble Salmon pink shorts. His face didn’t scream of salvation. Luckily before the confrontations got too heated, a student of USF took great pleasure in holding up his own sign calling for love and respect between all people. Who knows, maybe there’s hope for the locals yet.

 

(The offended party)

Still after some light hearted heckling and a serious once over from the secret service, to make sure I wasn’t a villain, I made it in. The arena could well have been the most American setting on earth.

We were marshalled into a basketball court which had been decked out for the occasion. The sound that blared out from the speakers seamlessly switched from Bruce Springsteen to Bon Jovi; perhaps the ideal soundtracks to accompany the American flag, which had been lovingly adorned across every available inch of wall. If there had been a bald eagle present then there wouldn’t have been a dry eye in the house. At a glance it looked suited for either a presidential nominee or for the sudden appearance of the cast of High School Musical…luckily we were graced by the former.

As the Democratic nominee hit the stage there was a chorus of applause and cheering; the atmosphere was electric. But the crowd wasn’t allowed to settle; from here Ms Clinton unloaded her full repertoire to fuel the feverous crowd. The USF football team was praised, US veterans were praised and the people who attended the rally were praised. If this were a game of buzzword bingo, it would have been all over in the opening seconds. To me, as a reserved Brit, the opening gambit was predictable and straight out of the book. This was politics 101. Somewhere there was a team of very content political advisors. And this is where we two great cultures differ; the Americans absolutely adored it. The only applause which matched that received by Ms. Clinton was the emotive send-off afforded to the veteran who welcomed her onto the stage. The ferocity of the applause throughout was incomparable to the polite and reserved acknowledgement that politicians are given in the UK…if they are so lucky.

(‘Murica with a side order of freedom please)

The response to anything concerning veterans, from my brief time in the US, has been unanimous. Either you support the troops or you hate America. Pacifist? No. You hate America.

The speech itself was a mixed bag; unlike the manner in which it was delivered. Without mincing words, it was presidential. She controlled the stage from the moment she set foot on it and the manner in which she spoke was both authoritative and sincere. As a careerist politician the ability to give a good speech shouldn’t be a surprise, but it is in the context of this presidential race where it becomes important. Her opponent, political views aside, has the ability to instil an innate sense of nationalism into his audience; such is the passion in his speeches. Whilst the content of Mr Trump’s speeches should leave anyone with a basic education with great cause for concern, the manner in which he articulates his opinions is quite phenomenal. Ms. Clinton’s demeanour was calmer yet gripping.

Unfortunately, for large sections of the speech, it became a Trump bashing show. An essential, yet ugly, feature of most political encounters it would seem. Of course with Donald Trump as an opponent, political sniping is too easy; this speech itself came just a week after Trump had taken a trip to Mexico, which provided plenty of ammunition. In most cases, such an opponent wouldn’t have lasted this long…but this isn’t ‘most cases’.

The fact that this speech contained so much Trump slander only serves to enhance the claim that Ms. Clintons own candidacy is less than inspiring. Playing the “I’m not Donald Trump” card is hardly unique and makes it appear as if the Clinton campaign views itself as the lesser of two evils. And it is this argument which only serves to ignite Trump supporters who are very much aware of how close Ms. Clinton came to facing genuine jail time.

However, despite the glaring negatives. The Clinton speech found salvation when the real issues were finally addressed (unlike the looney Christian geezer, whose salvation arrived through the wearing of very plain grey trousers.) When discussing ISIS, Clinton stated that “We will do whatever is necessary to defeat them.” However more American boots on the ground was immediately ruled out. So what does “whatever necessary” mean?

In all likelihood, this means that the NSA will play an ever increasing role in the US’ fight against terror, with domestic monitoring of technology set to increase. Whilst some might argue that this is a violation of civil liberties, it is merely a sign of how significant the threat is. And by suggesting such a thing in her speech, Ms. Clinton distinguished herself from Mr Trump. She showed willingness to compromise, to be pragmatic and to address threats in a way to minimise bloodshed.

For all those who doubted the extent to which Donald Trump might be a racist lunatic, they should look no further than his advocacy of pre-emptively killing family members of terrorists. His faith in American primacy is undermined by his failure to grasp the delicacies of international conflicts.

The choice, for me at least, is obvious. The rally was an eye-opening event for myself as an outsider; and for all the flaws I may pick in the campaign of Hillary Clinton, they are miniscule when compared to what else is on offer.

I’m with her.

©

Rob Randall

(12/09/2016)

 

 

‘The Price of Genius’

The student cash cow continues to roam and its herd is mighty.

“The only way is up”. It’s a phrase that many of us will have heard repeatedly through our lives. Often it’s a quote aimed at inspiring improvement from a low level; often it is said tongue in cheeck.

Today however, it refers to the state of tuition fees for UK universities. In the week just gone by the Minister for Universities and Sciences, Jo Johnson, announced plans for an increase in the upper limit of tuition fees to £9,250 – in line with inflation. The increase is only an extra £250 a year, a mere drop in the ocean when your fees are already the highest on average across the world. But the potential reality where £10,000 fees are the norm is looking increasingly likely. Whilst the increase is only modest there is a lot wrong with the proposal and is another example of the Conservative party getting their education policy wrong.

The most prominent issue with the proposals made by the Business and Innovation Select Committee lies in the mechanism for deciding whether a university can apply the higher fees. The ‘Teaching Excellence Framework’. In the White Paper released by the committee it is stated that universities which are deemed to offer high quality teaching will be allowed to charge the upper limit. The issue is that all UK universities are thought to have met this standard. That means that from 2017 you could be charged £9,250 a year to attend the prestigious London Metropolitan University (ranked 127^th in the complete university guide), or the University of St. Mark & St. John (ranked 124^th) or even the mighty Teesside University (ranked 107^th). This isn’t an attempt to ridicule universities down the bottom of the list; it’s an observation that they have been deemed to meet a blanket framework of teaching alongside Oxford and Cambridge. The question is simple. What use is a framework for quality teaching if every university meets the criteria? At this point it’s worth mentioning that 2017 is the target date for the start of ‘Phase 1’ of this process. The conditions of excellence are expected to be revisited and revised. But don’t hold your breath if you expect fees to be reduced if establishments subsequently don’t meet these new standards; good performers are again likely to be rewarded with the ability to raise fees once again. As said earlier, the only way is up.

This raises the question about the standard of teaching. How will it be affected by the changes? I would expect that if any changes were likely to occur they would be most prominent at the lower level universities who will be chasing the ability to charge more. But does this mean that teaching will improve? The committee has already indicated that they are concerned about how the proposal could have an adverse effect on standards. They say there is the potential for marking levels to drop so more students receive top marks. Statistics can be easily manipulated if course are made less demanding. As for the Russell Group universities, it’s hard to see why any concerted effort would be made to push teaching which is already deemed to be of the highest quality. What it would mean for their students is simple. More money for the same standard of teaching. I’m afraid it looks like the main benefactors will be Vice-Chancellors who will take great pleasure in inflating the university budget and their own six-figure salaries.

Perhaps the most confusing aspect of the proposal is that it doesn’t seem to take into account the issues that many already face with the repayment of their loans. According to the Complete University Guide, a student who receives a mid-level grad job after their degree will end up taking 23 years to repay their loan. This is only the case for students who received the minimum level of maintenance loan from student finance; so those from poorer backgrounds will end up paying even more back in the long term. To add insult to, well…another insult, once interest has been added, the standard graduate will end up paying back nearly £20,000 more than they borrowed. But if you add a year abroad into the equation, then the likelihood is that you will end up paying back about 91% of your £80,000 debts before they are wiped after 30 years. Whatever way you spin it; this is a lose-lose situation. The government is unlikely to get fully repaid and the graduates are burdened with delicious helpings of extra debt. It is ludicrous to think that these issues will be solved by allowing further increases in fees. The real kick in the knackers though comes from a quote in the White Paper on this issue. Specifically in their aim to give “Value for money to students”. Personally, I’m struggling to see how raising fees will give me greater value from the 8-10 contact hours a week I receive at Exeter as a Social Sciences student.

As previously mentioned the initial addition of an extra £250 per year to fees isn’t going to be the greatest barrier to education. The increase is miniscule in the grand scheme of things. The greatest barrier to education came when the government decided to end maintenance grants to students from the lowest income households. Whilst the money is now available as a loan; if these students want to be able to pay off their debts then they are now faced with the challenge of obtaining a grad job of the highest level. No pressure then.

But what of the potential knock on effects? University is a stressful time as we know; students leave home for the first time, they are presented with academic challenges and the very real challenge of building a new life for themselves. This is bound to have an effect on students’ mental health. Every year the graduate market is saturated with students with 2:1’s chasing graduate jobs; so the pressure to achieve better grades for better employment chances is very real. To reach the upper echelons of employment has become less of a dream for students and more of an essential achievement if they are to have any prospect of paying off their debts and (eventually) live a good life. The impact of financial pressures on students is referenced in a report here from York University, https://www.york.ac.uk/media/studenthome/features/2016/Student%20Mental%20Ill-health%20Task%20Group%20Report%20Mar%202016.pdf . They go on to say how more than one quarter of students can be seen to demonstrate the effects of mental ill-health. It’s hard to compare data between years as the issue of mental health has only recently become prevalent; still, it’s an issue which cannot be ignored. Of course university is supposed to be a stepping stone into real life where young people experience adulthood for the first time. But the crippling exposure to such levels of debt, to me, seems like an assault on their wellbeing; not a learning curve.

To play devil’s advocate though, there is logic to having high tuition fees. The life experience aside what is university principally for? To get a degree. Where some see a very expensive piece of paper; others will see an investment in your future. And the brutal truth is that, theoretically, universities should only be for the most academically capable. They are a training ground for only the sharpest minds to go into the top level jobs. That’s not elitism; that’s a meritocracy where people rise and fall on account of their own work. Theoretically at least, the calibre of student attending these institutions should be capable of obtaining high level employment and subsequently paying off the loans. Having high fees in place should force people to consider whether university will be a useful investment if they aren’t planning on filling one of these highly trained roles. If people would be better served in their interests by getting an apprenticeship or going straight into employment at 18 then why pay the money? Perhaps high fees are in place to dissuade people from taking less well thought of courses (I shan’t name specifics, as a politics student I am, and should, be open to ridicule.)

The problem here is that we’re then in a situation where we’re reducing individuals to mere workers in the grand scheme of life. Which all sounds a bit Marxist and I like to think we’ve moved on from that. University should be about training but also about personal enrichment and education. The biggest danger to humanity, the way I see it, comes from the un-educated. Surely we should be encouraging people to learn as much as possible. Society can only benefit from having more citizens capable of engaging in healthy debate. Why should knowledge be restricted to those who can afford the price?

In the film ‘The Dark Knight’ the Joker says, “If you’re good at something never do it for free”. Whilst he was referring to murder and bank heists you could be forgiven for thinking that most university vice-chancellors could pull off a similar look. The truth is that UK universities are of a world leading standard; and boy do they know it. Should the proposals get passed then students are going to have to get used to paying a higher price for an education which is unlikely to change. The new increases aren’t significant in of themselves; they’re just a continuation of a string of horrific Conservative implemented policies concerning universities which started back in 2011 when fees tripled to £9000. It was continued when the grants system was scrapped. The time to be a student has never been so pressured, so important or so costly.

For more on universities in the UK,   http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/

©

Rob Randall

26/07/2016

‘A Blonde Bull in a China Shop’

Actually that title is probably a little too short. It should be more like ‘A Blonde Bull in a China Shop, that’s on fire, during an earthquake whilst it’s hosting the final of this years ‘Young Hooligan’ of the year award. Much better.

This really is the month that keeps in giving in terms of headlines. This week the top domestic story is how Boris Johnson became the new Foreign Secretary. It’s a mystery that parallels: the Bermuda triangle, the true identity of Jack the Ripper or, for a more contemporary example, how Jeremy Hunt kept his job at the Department of Health. On the face of it the appointment of Johnson is divisive, much like his character, winning praise from his supporters whilst drawing looks of despair from his opponents. And this is only outside of the political bubble. To this day Foreign Office workers are likely to get a cold chill down their spine if they ever come across the imagine of Johnson holding an AK47 during his visit to Iraq. A trip which can only be considered a success for the bar which he visited. Hardly an inspiring venture in diplomacy.

A further venture into his history of foreign relations only serves to further cloud the issue of his appointment. He has masterfully offended the current President and both potential future US leaders. Using his own words, the three most recognisable faces in US politics can be described as: a Kenyan descendent, a Sadistic nurse and Donald Trump…admittedly few extra words are required for the last one. Furthermore, in China, I’m sure they will have forgotten his speech following the 2008 Olympic Games where Johnson congratulated the Chinese on their mastery of ‘Wiff Waff’ (that’s table tennis to most normal humans.) As we know the Chinese are very forgiving and open minded when their culture is joked about…a good start to relations with the superpowers it would seem. The only way Theresa May could have caused more of a scene is if she made him the Grand Mufti of Uxbridge.

Luckily for the British people Mr. Johnson also has the ability to offend multiple countries at once. Both developed and developing states no less. As a prominent figure of the ‘Leave’ campaign, his thoughts towards Europe are no surprise. However it might be considered somewhat disrespectful to consider EU expansion similar to attempts made by Napoleon and Hitler to widen their ‘empires’. Although if memory serves me right then I believe the Nazi’s were less concerned with the single market than the signatories of the Maastricht Treaty; where the EU as we see it today was formed. This isn’t something which crossed the mind of Boris when he drew the comparison. This reference to history hasn’t been a one off in Mr. Johnson’s reporting. This can be seen in his remarks about colonialism in Africa, where he implied that some countries would be better off as colonies. It’s a very British interpretation of history; where events are determined good and bad by which side the British were on.

This leads us to the ultimate question. Why was he appointed? For me, it seems like a political test. Boris Johnson has long been lauded as a future Conservative leader and, if the timing was right, Prime Minister. Don’t dismiss his recent adversity to running for the leadership as a sign of his long term goals. By putting him in the Foreign Office Theresa May has secured a win-win position. Should he be a poor Foreign Secretary then he will have been proven not to have the credentials to operate at the elite level of government. Should he succeed, then the new PM will enjoy a period of good foreign relations. Ms. May also holds the trump card of being able to re-shuffle her cabinet at a time of her choosing. For Mr. Johnson, this must be viewed as an opportunity, almost as an audition for bigger things. Running an effective office will only increase his political capital. Personal politics aside, it will be intriguing how he adjusts his persona when concerning more delicate issues. It must be said that having to deal with the aftermath of the attack in Nice and attempted coup in Turkey is a true baptism of fire. The hot seat just got hotter.

For all the gaffes concerning non-western states, I feel that a key feature of Johnson’s time in the Foreign Office will be his effect on the ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the US. In some notable areas, there are fundamental differences between the two parties in their outlook. The first potential clash lies in relations with Russia. Under previous foreign secretaries Britain was at the forefront of the guard against Russia. It played a leading role in pushing for EU sanctions following the expansion into Crimea. More so than many other leading EU states; as Britain is much less dependent on Russian gas and oil to fulfil its energy needs. This may no longer be the case under Johnson’s stewardship as he has spoken of a willingness to work alongside Russia in an article in December 2015. Chiefly, in the fight against ‘Islamic State’. This in turn implies siding with the al-Assad regime in Syria. This is a brave thing to suggest. It implies that the UK should break away from any US led efforts- in pursuit of a multipolar anti-terror effort. In a way it’s impressive to see a break away from the traditional notion that the greatest threat to our security will come from an established nation state, such as Russia. It would be a pragmatic approach, rather than one anchored in traditional alliances and ideological alignment. Above all it shows that he has prioritized threats to the UK and is willing to cooperate with whatever party necessary. However it would take a brave man to look away from the Americans; not least because of the great historical alliance Britain has forged with them (please exclude Iraq from that great history.) But it’s a move which seems very unlikely given the need for post-Brexit Anglo-American trade deals.

Boris’ greatest weapon is perhaps he grasp of English wit and humour. The problem is that it only tends to work if the person you’re telling the joke to is…well…English. As a result it’s more of a hindrance in a place like the Foreign Office. He is a man who lambasts political correctness; just take a look at his description of Hilary Clinton. Alas this is not how the diplomatic game is played. If he is to succeed then he must adapt accordingly, if not for the country then for the sake of his own political career. When the curtain comes down of the premiership of Theresa May this appointment has the potential to be lauded as a genius move. That is provided that in the meantime Boris doesn’t accidently start a World War or three.

© Rob Randall

17/07/2016

Why act when you can pray?

Stars and stripes on gun

Time to see what really bemuses me

There’s a story which many of us have heard before. A man is sat on his roof to escape a flood and he prays to God to save him. Subsequently the man turns down both a man in a boat and then a helicopter who are offering him an escape, proclaiming that

“God will answer my prayers and save me”.

He is killed in the flood and at the pearly gates asks God why he did not save him. The response was damning.

“I sent a boat and a helicopter, what more could I have done?”

This story strikes a worrying accord with the continued spread of gun crime across America.

The recent attack in Dallas was another example in a long list of mass shootings; in a country which prides itself as being the shining example of a Liberal society. It followed just a month after a deadly shooting in Orlando which itself was preceded by attacks in New Mexico and Georgia. The irony in this instance being that the attack arose from a peaceful protest against the killings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, victims of police deadly force. If only the issues of race hate and gun violence were thought of as equal terrors. Let’s not kid ourselves; the issue of institutionalized racism in America is clearly prevalent. The protest was justified; it was carried out peacefully and raised serious questions about the police force. And yet I think that they missed a trick. The protest should have also targeted the accessibility of guns. For all the race related concerns, the deaths of Castile and Sterling are two more lives claimed by guns in America. The numbers quite frankly are staggering. Between 1968 and 2011 there were 1.4 million firearms related deaths in the US. This is 200,000 more Americans than have been killed in every war fought by the US since the War of Independence combined.

Albert Einstein (a man of relative credibility) once suggested that insanity could be defined as the act of doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. Given the facts stated above, you could be forgiven for thinking that the status quo response to guns isn’t working. What’s the status quo been? Rearmament. Worryingly, this trend seems to be continuing. Following the Orlando attack, the worst massacre on American soil since 9/11, the membership of the ‘National Rifle Association’ increased to in excess of 5 million. America still thinks it can fight fire with fire. It’s a problem that stretches deep into the psyche of the citizens. Why do Americans feel the need to be so heavily armed? Perhaps it’s because of distrust in the police, perhaps it’s been ingrained by the older generations. Whatever the reason it begs the question, how many more families need to suffer before the message gets home? Having easy access to guns doesn’t solve the issue.

The reactions of the political elite have been worryingly cliché. Barack Obama made reference to how deadly attacks are made worse, and more tragic, by powerful weapons (it took the brains committee long enough to work that one out); before stating that these issues must be addressed, “in the days ahead.” His days in office are numbered; you get the feeling this was more of a parting message to his successor. However this will have little impact should the next President be a Republican. In fact, it’s the reaction of the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump which covets my interest. He stated that…

“Every American has the right to live in safety and peace.”

As a British person looking in from the outside I find it staggering to imagine how anybody can feel safe in a country where there are 88.8 guns per 100 citizens. The highest ratio in the world. The mass shootings alone are enough to cause panic, but couple this with race fuelled conflicts amongst an armed citizenry – it’s a deadly mixture. This is before we even talk about ‘accidental’ gun incidents (which already stand at 1179 in 2016 according to gunviolencearchive.org.)

Of course the US doesn’t have the worst murder rate for guns in the world. But it’s hardly a compliment to say that their gun murder rate is lower in comparison to places such as: Venezuela, Honduras and El Salvador.

Let us cast our minds back to the story at the top of the page. God provided the trapped man with multiple opportunities to save himself. The US has been similarly blessed. It has democracy; the citizens have the power to elect representatives to tighten gun laws. It has the rule of law reinforced by a (largely) un-corrupt police force. It has a flourishing education system – to teach people about the impact of unregulated gun ownership. As well as the wealth to implement sweeping reforms. The fact we are reduced to comparing its gun murder rates with countries such as Honduras and Venezuela is diabolical. Both nations are classified as being only ‘semi free’ by Freedom House. If a country was going to change its gun laws it would need to be blessed with many of the features possessed by the United States. Just take a look at the United Kingdom, where gun ownership was majorly restricted following the Dunblane Massacre of 1996. The death of 17 people in this instance was enough to affect the will of the nation, whose will was swiftly carried out by the government. The fact that the US stance towards guns hasn’t shifted despite the multiple mass murders is more than alarming. Today the gun murder rate in the US is 2.9 per 100,000. In the UK…it is 0.1. The American people have been sent the means for help but have so far chosen to ignore it. The demand for change simply isn’t strong enough.

The rhetoric around guns in the US has a feeling of Groundhog Day about it. The simple process goes as follows. Step 1: Mass shooting, Step 2: Thousands of tweets along the lines of ‘Pray for…*insert town name here*, Step 3: Nothing. Rinse and repeat. Following Dallas both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz can be seen to have tweeted offering their ‘prayers’ to the families of the victims. As we’ve already seen, what use are prayers when they are never acted upon?

It could be argued that gun crime is like a cancer. In order to beat cancer a person may well undergo some lifestyle changes…they will eat healthier, exercise more and undergo treatment. Except in this instance, America is a very uncooperative patient. Therefor the problem remains endemic. The means to make change happen are there, but the general will is not. I fear that it will take a massacre on a much larger scale to have an impact on the wider population.

It is time for America to stop religiously hiding behind its constitution and change. How can America be a symbol of hope and freedom when this freedom is abused through the easy access to guns? How can America act as a global policeman when it struggles to address its internal issues? How many more innocent people need to suffer? But the road to reform appears arduous. It is estimated that 4.5 million guns are bought each year. As long as the demand is there, there will be a supply. There needs to be a shift in the American perspective towards guns, but how many lives will it take before the message sinks in?

Actions will always speak louder than words. This is just as well, because the words haven’t achieved a thing.

©

Rob Randall

10/07/2016

An Eton Mess

It’s like waiting for the dust to settle in the middle of a sandstorm. In the short space of time since the EU referendum, high politics in the UK has seen many of its most prominent figures fall, many with decidedly little grace.

The predictable victim is the Prime Minister; despite his early announcement that he would carry on in the event of a ‘leave’ victory, his swift departure suggests that even he didn’t consider their success to be likely. But he was right to go. Expecting him to continue and implement a policy which went against his deepest beliefs is a bit like sending Donald Trump on a pilgrimage to Mecca.  Unwise and probably destined for trouble…ok perhaps a slight exaggeration, the point being is that in both circumstances there is probably someone else more qualified for the job.

As I write the first round of voting is underway for the next Conservative leader and Prime Minister. The choice is hardly overwhelming. For the same reason which has led to David Cameron’s resignation, I feel that candidates who backed ‘remain’ will struggle to fully implement the will of the people. This applies to Stephen Crabb and Theresa May. In the defense of the Home Secretary, she has stated a desire to place a ‘leave’ supporter in charge of the Brexit negotiations. However, who is that person going to be? Surely a job of such significance would fall under the direct supervision of the PM? The race currently offers more questions than answers it would seem. For what it’s worth I think there are major question marks hanging over all three male candidates for the job. Both Mr. Crabb (not to be confused with Mr. Krabs from Spongebob; albeit as a Conservative it’s easy to see where the money grabbing parallels may be made, I digress) and Mr. Fox have records which indicate that they oppose equal rights for same sex couples and their ability to marry. During a time where the LGBT movement has never been so strong, views such as this have never been more out of touch and out of place. As for Michael Gove, his allegations that Boris Johnson wouldn’t have been a unifying leader are hard to take seriously from a man whose tenure as Education Secretary is generally looked upon with contempt. It’s laughable to think where he concocted the idea that he would be a unifying force for his own party, let alone the country. Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom must be seen as the prime candidates. Both are fearsome operators and negotiators. Both are successful women in a world that is still dominated by men. Although in the long run, the CV of Ms. Leadsom would suggest that she is a strong candidate for the Chancellorship.

The General Election Question

But what is in store for the next leader? It has been suggested that they may lack a mandate, and as a result, should bring forward the next general election. This shouldn’t be on the agenda. Not least because of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act which schedules them at five year intervals. But chiefly because our parliamentary democracy means that we, the people, don’t theoretically vote for the leader in the first place. Unlike presidential systems like the US where the party leaders are the primary focus and are voted on directly; here the head of government ascends from the majority party. Because the Conservatives won the 2015 General Election, their party mandate was secured. More significantly, this means that their manifesto was in effect ‘approved’ by the electorate. The leader doesn’t need a mandate, the party does. However, it’s understandable why there may be confusion surrounding this. Since the first major televised debate between the major party leaders prior to the 2010 election, there has been an increased focus on party leadership. The hype surrounding success in debates has created a celebrity status around the most prominent leaders. Whilst the debates themselves, which some might argue are an integral part of our democracy, to me, appear to be a product of the entertainment industry. They are a melting pot of hostile and intelligent politicians pitted against one another in uncertain circumstances. They provide more drama in an hour than in weeks of script writing. Of course they aren’t useless, undecided voters might need a subject to be explored verbally at depth to really understand a subject. But, theoretically at least, governments are elected on the basis of their manifesto promises…not on the merits of their leader.

The Elephants in the Room

Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. Both prominent supporters of the UK leaving the EU. Both are two of the most instantly recognizable faces in British politics. Both have now moved out of the firing line. As the fallout from the referendum has escalated both men have been subject to scathing attacks. Shouts of cowardice and of them abandoning a cause which has proved divisive and that will prove difficult to solve. I however, don’t subscribe to this view. It is worth remembering that things aren’t always what they seem.

Firstly, Boris Johnson. He appeared to be a shoe-in to be the next PM. He was riding a tidal wave of momentum following the success of the ‘leave’ campaign, a cause which he championed. It has long been assumed that he would one day seek the leadership. Why on earth would he not seek it now? One reason. The timing. Contrary to what you’ve just read the timing was all wrong. Had he taken the leadership, it would have signaled the end of any long term goals he may have harbored. The next leader will be faced with: 15 million people who opposed the cause they stood for, internal party divisions and several months of arduous and unpredictable negotiations with EU member-states. Success in the next four years would be pivotal ahead of what will be arguably the most unpredictable General Election…well…since the last one. This is simply too big a risk. Don’t be fooled by the public antics he is known for, Mr. Johnson is a shrewd political operator. I predict he’ll be back when a more opportune moment arises (Jack Sparrow…yes some of these references are dubious.)

As for Mr. Farage. Say what you like about him, a marmite politician if ever there was one. But also, arguably, one of the most successful. Personally, I think it’s refreshing to see a politician resign when the going is good. It shows that he’s not another career politician, love him or loathe him, he had one goal and achieved it.

There are those that argue that he has abandoned a sinking ship (as rats do if you wanted to consult Christoph Waltz) however, there are some facts which cannot be overlooked. For all the promises made by the ‘leave’ campaign, Nigel Farage was never going to be in a position to address them. Policy is enacted by the government, something that Mr. Farage was never, and was unlikely to ever be, a part of. Even had he succeeded in the 2015 election, his reward for being one of two UKIP MP’s in the House of Commons would have been a seat on the opposition benches; with his chances to affect policy being restricted to any invitations to select committees he may have received. Why carry on when you have achieved as much as you realistically can do?

Now seems to be the ideal time for Farage to step down now that the referendum is over. As well as finding a new leader, UKIP will arguably have to reinvent itself to appeal as a mainstream political party which caters to more than a single specific issue. Recent party upheavals have been characterized by new dynamic leadership. New Labour was thrust forward by Tony Blair, whilst David Cameron attacked the notion that the Conservatives were a ‘nasty’ party. The importance of Nigel Farage cannot be underestimated, the fact his resignation was rejected in 2015 is a testament to his charisma and ability to galvanize support. For the sake of his party, and quite possibly his own sanity, he knew his race was run.

Where does this leave us? Uncertain futures over the leadership of: UKIP, Labour and the Conservatives with the most important negotiations of a generation ahead of us. It’s a bit of a pudding if you ask me.

© Rob Randall

05/07/2016

 

“Captain Hindsight, at your service”

It was obvious wasn’t it? All along it was destined that Britain would leave the EU. That’s why some betting services offered the Leave campaign less than a 25% chance of success with less than a month to go. That’s why, on the night of the referendum, you could still get odds of 10/1 for Leave. Given these facts many of us would be forgiven for thinking that the result was a foregone conclusion…*insert humble pie*.

Rewind thirteen months to the General Election in May 2015. Here, we’re given our first indicators that the winds of change were stirring. We saw the election of the Conservative party in a ‘shock’ majority; having emerged from a coalition government with enough credit to take the reins of government solo for the first time since John Major. They were aided, in no small part, by the annihilation of the Lib Dems across the UK and by the decimation of Labour in Scotland by the SNP. Crucially though, nine seats were gained  directly from labour themselves. Why? Let us imagine that the public voted on policy (stay with me now). Let us pretend that the increased scrutiny placed on party leaders had nothing to do with it; let us pretend that the public didn’t vote based on the ability of Ed Milliband to eat a bacon sandwich with grace. A rare moment of political bravery in the Conservative manifesto can be seen as a beacon of attraction for many undecided voters. A promise for a referendum over the UK’s EU membership. Of the nine seats gained from Labour, eight voted to leave during the referendum; something that was only possible under a Tory premiership. What’s more the only exception to this trend, the region of Morley & Outwood of Leeds, only just scrapped a ‘remain’ majority of 50.3%. The people knew what they were doing.

This is before we even address the ‘anti-establishment’ votes. UKIP, long seen as a party of protest, secured 3.9 million votes. To put that into context, that’s more than the collective total between the SNP and the Liberal Democrats. The fact that this was only enough to secure one seat in Parliament is another nail in the coffin of the First Past the Post electoral system – but that’s for another time. Yet the message of discontent stands clear for all to see. Their gain of the vote share was the largest amongst any party in Westminster, 9.5%. This wasn’t a protest. This was a paradigm shift (pardon sounding like Russell Brand.) The ‘leave’ campaign had the momentum and it also had the figureheads.

The tale of the two campaigns couldn’t be more different. The leave campaign was bolstered by emotive, and often divisive, figures such as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage; potentially the only two living people more British than the Queen. Whilst it is unfair to say that people didn’t vote with their heads, for the undecided, it’s easy to see why one could be swept away in a blaze of patriotic emotion. The promise of control and a return to past glories; you feel that Jerusalem should be played whenever they enter a room. The cornerstone of the ‘leave’ campaign’s success should be seen in its ability to portray a campaign of hope. This created a support base fervent in their beliefs. It’s only recently that many supporters have discovered that their promises were more like guidelines anyway (Captain Barbosa, 2003 – another politically astute source I know.) This is in stark contrast to the efforts of the ‘remain’ campaign. It suffered many great flaws. Firstly, a de facto leader in David Cameron, whose thoughts were occupied on the internal divisions within his own party. Not to mention the small matter of running the country. However, the greatest architects of the campaigns failings must be seen in the ineptitude of high profile supporters Jeremy Corbyn and George Osborne. Unlike the bandwagon of nationalistic pride that the ‘leave’ campaign was able to construct; Mr Osborne’s threats of cuts and tax rises an be seen as petty. A grown up equivalent of getting no pocket money when you are naughty, if you will. Unsurprisingly this message of despair was greeted with a great degree of cynicism and resent. Hardly a mix to inspire the undecided voter. As for the efforts of Mr Corbyn, or lack of, all that can be said is how expected such actions were. Although not evident at the time, his recent failings when faced with a motion of no confidence in his leadership screams of a man who places his own greed above a collective good. His ability to remain hidden at a time of such national importance screams of a sloth rather than sly politician. That’s two of the deadly sins, how many more do you need?

So there, how much clearer could the result have been? How can 17 million votes be seen as a surprise when they are in the majority?

Perhaps it’s because nobody expects anything radical from Britain anymore. Change is in fact a very un-British thing to do. That helps explain: the Monarchy, the archaic voting system and a House of Lords where 92 members are still able to affect policy on account of a title which they inherited. Any attempts at radical change have failed. The AV referendum reaffirmed the status quo of first past the post, the Scottish referendum saw the Union remain intact. Even ‘fundamental’ labour reforms following their victory in 1997 failed to see the elimination of a hereditary peerage. The Iraq war was radical, but that wasn’t an attempt to change the British way of life. Then again, who really knows what is was about.

The referendum result was a surprise because it caught the establishment napping. In fairness to the establishment, it caught the voters napping too. For some it was a protest vote that gathered speed, for others, it was the culmination of work years in the making. Luckily, with the benefit of hindsight, we are able to see how the movement developed. And whilst some people lament the motivations behind the voting; the fact of the matter is that this result was not a complete shock.

Maybe one day, with the benefit of hindsight, we’ll know whether it was the right decision. For now, as in most times of uncertainty and speculation, we are clueless.

 

©

Rob Randall, 02/07/2016