Disposing of Corbyn is undemocratic and mindless

When Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation on Friday morning and a vote to leave the European Union started to take its toll, many would have thought that only the Conservative party would be the losers. The staunch divide created by tension between the politics of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, and the likes of Cameron and Theresa May has doubtless been accentuated thanks to last week’s vote.

But the Conservative Party’s destructive toil isn’t unique to them. Over several months, the Labour party has split into a collection of raging factions, fighting a bitter war against each other. After a catacylsmic defeat for Labour last May, the more radical Jeremy Corbyn was elected as party leader with a resounding victory. Corbyn has been successful in speaking for a massive body of Labour members who yearn for a different party. However, he has hammered in the wedge that divides the opponents to and supporters of his leadership far deeper.

The chaos caused by the EU referendum’s surprise result is testing UK party politics to lengths never seen before. With the heightened possibility of a general election very soon, both Westminster parties are desperate to iron out their problematic ideological creases. For quite some time, Labour’s benches have been an arena for fierce competition between advocates of more Blairite politics and traditionally-principled Corbynista radicals.

The atmosphere on opposition benches has only recently grown more intense, though. Labour’s movements of late have shown that the party seriously lacks unity and direction. Failure to eradicate such turmoil could mean that the party provides next to no function, unable to adequately hold the Conservatives to account. With exits quite different from last week’s, but of a level of seriousness that is just as worrying, Corbyn’s shadow cabinet has been ripped to shreds.

It were the grassroots members of the Labour party who elected Corbyn and his revolutionary politics last year. But it now seems that a lurch back towards the right may underpin the future of the party. The amnesty which Hilary Benn spearheaded early on Sunday morning has seen 47 MPs who were previously on Corbyn’s side abandoning their positions as department ministers and under-secretaries, profoundly questioning Labour’s status and its abilities. 150 Labour MPs are expected to support a motion of no confidence against the embroiled Labour leader this afternoon.

In the midst of the ongoing mass exodus, Corbyn’s position as Leader of the Opposition has never been so hotly contested by many politicians and commentators. But the grounds for the stubborn leader’s removal appear weak. Over two thirds of the party’s supporters voted to remain in the European Union. A degree of opposition is natural and a left-wing Brexit was, for a large number, a sure anti-establishment vote. If a majority had voted against remaining in the EU, Corbyn’s leadership would certainly be more justifiably fragile.

The stark divide which has manifested itself across the Parliamentary Labour Party is now more than just an inconvenience. And it is all the more frustrating given that support for Jeremy Corbyn amongst party members and recent Labour voters remains robust. A survey carried out in recent days by pollsters BMG showed that 85 percent of those who voted for Labour in 2015 would vote again for the party if Corbyn was leader in a possible snap general election. Three quarters of those who declared themselves as considerably left-wing would support a party led by Corbyn. The party has even seen an increase in membership over recent days, many voters desperate to secure Corbyn’s leadership in a likely internal vote. Corbyn’s impressive mandate still exists, but has been defaced with the EU referendum scapegoat with which his former allies have fatally sided. Several weeks ago, Jeremy Corbyn was more popular than David Cameron, a position which his own party has shamefully removed.

Evidently, the present Labour leader still commands a great deal of support amongst current party members. In the same way that taking Scotland out of the European Union would be unfair, so would the removal of Corbyn against the will of a majority of Labour’s support base. Corbyn’s victory last year was a major breakthrough, creating the potential for a revitalised Labour, galvanising progressive political forces.

Vote Leave’s win is unfairly being used to oust Corbyn. He is the man whom many MPs deem to be the antithesis of General Election-winning material. Coinciding with similar internal strife within the Tory party, Labour could have appeared as the united force ready to push for a progressive Brexit. Those who have abandoned Jeremy Corbyn and his progressive platoon show little faith in the causes that they previously pledged to defend. The break up of the shadow cabinet has wrecked prospects of election-winning unity any time soon.The party should be embarrassed, and it is somewhat disheartening to see that MPs are oblivious to the amount of self-harm that the removal of Jeremy Corbyn during such party system paralysis would create.

The well fuelled campaign for an end to Corbyn’s leadership shows that many of the party’s MPs are attached to the old, Blairite days of Labour. So few seem to believe in the socially democratic cause now. With a media which seems largely against Corbyn, looking instead to the forward-thinking aspirations of many party members could successfully prove the strength of our democracy, and the strength of the Labour party. This is a missed and now savaged opportunity. Labour now runs the risk of alienating its core supporters. Ignoring the wealth of voters and party members who still vehemently support Corbyn is mindless and undemocratic.

Should this weekend’s events spark an inevitable Labour leadership election, Jeremy Corbyn still has the ability to be successful. The incumbent chief still has the potential tto gain significant support and prove his opponents wrong. He may even hold on to his position as the face of the Labour party. If he is to emerge unscathed, it will expose a damaging truth – that Labour MPs are out of touch with its members.

The Labour MPs who have walked out this week have done their party no favours whatsoever. What it has shown is that much of the Labour frontbench will do anything for votes, succombing to the right and carelessly tossing away their truly socially democratic values. Jeremy Corbyn’s politics has refreshed the Labour party, and MPs should abandon him at their peril. Corbyn is the only chance the Labour party has of reflecting the views of ordinary people, and of achieving decisive and principled direction. A challenge to Corbyn’s membership is not in the interests of MPs or, most importantly, of Labour’s core voters. Many members of the shadow cabinet have this weekend only emphasised the rift in the Labour party more, and made progressive politics harder to achieve.

Read more from Robert Guthrie

Advertisements

Sturgeon has total power over UK’s fate after Brexit

When the major blow of Yes Scotland’s defeat set in during the aftermath of 2014’s Scottish independence referendum, many believed that the SNP would become a paralysed, lost cause from then on. Few would have thought that, under the sturdy leadership of the formidable Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish National Party would regain its position in dominating Scottish decision-making. However, Britain’s surprising verdict on EU membership has proven that Sturgeon’s contingent isn’t just controlling Scottish politics.

Rated by Forbes magazine as the most powerful woman in Britain after Queen Elizabeth II, not to mention the 50th most influential in the entire world, Brexit is changing Nicola Sturgeon and her party’s fortune. Perhaps next year’s rankings will have Sturgeon placed higher. I certainly wouldn’t argue with it. But whilst Brexit is stripping the good fortune of many British politicians, such as that of the precariously placed Jeremy Corbyn, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and her party has only gained a position of greater power.

Given that victory for the Leave campaign in last week’s EU referendum was largely down to English votes, protest by many passionate internationalists and keen Scottish nationalists has dominated headlines. Scotland’s intentions evidenced by last week’s vote – of more than 70% support for Remain in many areas north of the border – has clearly shown that policy should take a different direction here.

After arguing consistently that a Brexit is not in the interests of the people of Scotland, the Scottish First Minister’s gargantuan new task is to rescue Scotland from the effects of Vote Leave. But the flipside is that this gives the SNP an exceptional political advantage. Nicola Sturgeon is in total control of Scotland’s future within the EU, and that influence does not span across issues with regard only to Scotland. In the likely event that the SNP leader is unable to forge a deal granting European Union membership to Scottish citizens alone, it will be Nicola Sturgeon who is in charge of deciding whether or not the United Kingdom really is united, refuelling her independence crusade.

The volume of influence that the Scottish First Minister now brandishes places Scotland in a very strong position at the fiery EU negotiating table. The events of this week have shown that the First Minister will remain silent at her peril. The Brexit result which hoped to bring increased sovereignty for the entirety of the UK has in turn weakened ties between Westminster and its sibling Scottish parliament at Holyrood.

Since 2007, the SNP has been the major force in Scottish politics, standing as the party of traditional social democracy, and, of course, independence. However, Sturgeon’s position as a key player in international affairs has become stronger thanks to a victory for Vote Leave. The triumphs of Johnson, Gove and Farage in terms of the European Union have not translated into triumphs for the UK’s union. For a Brexit has all the more accentuated the deep political crevasses which set apart the different components of the UK.

It seems that David Cameron has made a fatal error by underestimating the challenges of keeping Britain in the European Union, not to mention the challenges of keeping Britain on side with his party’s government. A harsh split, further nursed by the Prime Minister’s Friday morning resignation, threatens the future of Conservative party politics. The Labour party is no safe haven either. Ravaged by a leader deemed unable to take it to its peak in a possibly imminent General Election, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership looks tenuous.

Nicola Sturgeon is no fool. Her party has seen numerous victories of late, and her ability as a skillful tactician is more obvious than ever before. The aforementioned failings highlighted by the shock of Brexit have only widened Sturgeon’s stage as an influential policymaker. In recent days, SNP support has surged, an effect similar to that achieved by the Party during the aftermath of the 2014 referendum. Inner party turmoil certainly doesn’t riddle the SNP. Sturgeon’s socially democratic force is one of the only ones avoiding a rift with its clear-cut policy, and this is one of its grandest assets.

The SNP is a decisive and strategic band, a tidal wave which now seems to dwarf the fragmented Labour and Conservative parties at Westminster. Sturgeon isn’t right-wing populism, Sturgeon isn’t scaremongering, and Sturgeon isn’t austerity. Faisal Islam of ITV remarked this morning that it is Nicola Sturgeon who has “the most thought out plan” for Brexit. In a likely snap general election, the First Minister is sure to pick up some of the votes of those who have become dismayed by the Tories’ and Labour’s endless internal strife. Her shrewdness and sharp-witted nature are her doubtless fortes which have been brought to light all thanks to Brexit. As long this adeptness does not fail, the SNP will call the shots in Scottish politics, and indeed in European relations, for many months and years to come.

With the failings of the UK Parliament parties in producing constructive political change, as well as a vote for Brexit which ignores Scottish votes, Sturgeon’s movement for independence may, too, build in strength and support. A reassessment of relations between the UK and EU has brought the question of national sovereignty back into the political arena. Aims of the Smith Commission evidently haven’t gone far enough, and in ways akin to the post-Brexit case, Scotland’s opinions are becoming drowned out. The contrast in opinions over the EU between England and Scotland serves to demonstrate exactly why Scotland is growing tired of the talking shop that is Westminster. Sturgeon has the ultimate upper hand over the future of the United Kingdom, and Sturgeon’s movements may well provoke a breakup.

More interestingly, the future of Scottish Labour looks grim. The European Union question may well change opinions of the Holyrood party whose support has plummeted over recent years. Yesterday it was widely reported that the Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale, will consider support for independence. But this is surely a political death of Sturgeon’s arguably inadvertent making. Dugdale’s extreme desperation for votes in tandem with growing support for the nationalist cause could mean that even the skeleton of Labour’s Scottish branch is no longer safe from a painful fracture. If her strategy is to support independence, Dugdale risks splitting her party between nationalists and unionists, only playing into Sturgeon’s hands.

The European Union debate has questioned not only UK sovereignty, but also the sovereignty of the separate nation states which make up the UK. Recent events have shown clearly that the politics of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are vastly different.

With Sturgeon ceasing the opportunity for using this as a vehicle for constitutional change within Scotland, it is easy to see that the Scottish First Minister’s actions over coming months will largely determine also the United Kingdom’s fate. Along with the most prominent of British and EU officials, it is the Nicola Sturgeon who will have one of the most influential seats at the Brexit negotiation table. Whilst both major political parties within Westminster are fast collapsing, diseased by pathogens of indecisiveness and disarray, it is Nicola Sturgeon’s party which remains dead set on its policy. The First Minister of Scotland only has Westminster to thank for her unprecedented leverage. After the breakthrough of devolution in 1999, along with an intense referendum discussion two years ago, few could have foreseen Scotland continuing to pose such a huge threat to the longevity of the UK.

Read more from Robert Guthrie

The EU referendum has highlighted not only the European Union’s faults

The pollsters had, for several days, proclaimed an easy win for Remain, and even UKIP’s Nigel Farage, known for his strong-willed politics, suspended his Brexit celebrations yesterday at 10pm. As much of the UK population downed tools last night, Prime Minister David Cameron and his team believed that a victory for the Remain camp was in the bag, and that their futures were secure.

But after a passionate yet emotive speech from David Cameron this morning, it is clear that a defeat for the Europhiles was in fact the reality, and that it would cause an almighty stir. Conceding Remain’s defeat after a tumultuous EU referendum campaign, it was his nemesis Boris Johnson’s turn to breathe the sigh of relief. Hailing a win for his Vote Leave campaign wasn’t the only feature of his unusually civilised speech, however.

Shortly after Cameron’s unexpected news, Johnson paid tribute to “one of the most extraordinary politicians of our age”, Cameron soon to set out on a departure of his own. After watching our politicians spearhead a somewhat childish referendum campaign, featuring many old playground tactics, we must question the credibility of our leaders and their Establishment.

Today’s marginally winning, but evidently considerable, support for an end to the UK’s relationship with the European Union tells us many things. Leaving the EU will have a monumental impact on our nation’s operation, and may well tear the threads which tie the United Kingdom together – now with all the more fragility – apart.

Whilst the wealth of support for the campaign to leave the EU has shown that the continental community is problematic, it also provides us with alarming truths of our own society. The European Establishment is obviously at fault, but in the same way, that of the United Kingdom is, too. Citizens throughout England, Wales, and parts of Northern Ireland, primarily, are evidently finding the current political regime tiresome.

It is nothing short of devastating that so many have been compelled to reject a co-operative European administration which keeps its member states in line, and that a huge proportion of our nation’s trade and investment opportunities have become suddenly fractured. In addition, the air of common culture that only the European Union was able to promote and diversify has become smoggy. Our borders will soon be barred, and our ability to co-operate easily on the largest of international issues has been shattered.

The overwhelming gains made by Johnson, Gove and Farage have shown that the entire political Establishment has failed many a British citizen, and that the status quo is not working. Such numerous working class Leave votes throughout the Midlands, the North of England and Wales were surely fuelled by the failings of past years’ budgets to revolutionise living and working standards for the most deprived. As London and Scotland voted overwhelmingly for a seat at the European table, it is clear to see the divide between these culturally diverse epicentres and communities which feel hard done by with current government.

With blatant lies and scaremongering, the campaign agenda of Vote Leave in many cases revolved around playing to the fears of the electorate. A debate which featured not a conversation on the nature of free movement, but instead xenophobia, failed to focus on the positives of a vote to leave the European Union. A campaign which has revolved around the demonisation of minorities, and the confusion of many voters who have become caught up in a bog of sly statistics has generated fear and instability throughout endless scores of communities.

Doesn’t this form of campaign strategy in itself paint a vivid picture of our decaying Establishment? Our nation’s political integrity has hit a very low point. Whilst the EU referendum has now been won, no one can dismiss the tricky tactics deployed by those advocating for a vote to leave Europe. The degrading tone of many of our politicians over the past ten weeks has shown that the UK must fast restore its social respect. For the obsession with blame and fear that has dominated the EU debate has only boosted the tense culture which flows throughout many British communities.

Let us not forget one of the most important aspects of this year’s referendum. Hasty to combat the imminent threat that UKIP posed to British politics, and keen to restore Tory party unity, it was Prime Minister David Cameron who dug his own grave by risking the referendum.

Cameron is responsible for a campaign of scaremongering himself, but his intent on using a matter of great public interest in order to heal the Tory party has come back to kick him. Perhaps one of the greatest mistakes of the Establishment this time was its focus on careerism, and its desperation for political advantage, adamant that the discussion would effortlessly stamp out UKIP. Many would argue that Boris Johnson secretly hoped that a win for Vote Leave would help to cement his future as a Prime Ministerial candidate. Instead, the Tory party has cost itself valuable allies and its credibility. The Prime Minister’s running away from Downing Street today speaks loud enough volumes. His ‘master plan’ to redeem the Conservative party of populist threat has markedly backfired.

Scotland’s mammoth 62-38 vote in favour of staying within the European Union has shown the intense social divide between our two nations all the more. The UK Establishment has been unable to smoothen out the arduous terrain of the new political landscape, already reshaped by pro-Scottish independence sentiment. Of course, the Scottish remain vote was nothing at all of a protest, unlike the possible intentions of those across England and Wales. But the robust links of Scotland with the EU have shown Scotland’s distinct mindset, and has only made Westminster’s relationship with Holyrood more prickly.

Surely after such a game-changing campaign and result, the Establishment will not be able to rest comfortably for many nights to come. Today’s vote result was undoubtedly a loud SOS from many who feel largely discontented with the European Union’s present operation. But the surprise victory of Vote Leave has served to pose new challenges for the British Establishment. Its fear-centric campaign has shown that the UK must find a new source of political integrity, and today’s unforeseen victory has highlighted that many feel failed by politics within the EU, and the UK.

The Establishment in itself has wrecked Britain, and has killed its own chances of success. But it didn’t have to be this way. Populism is the fault of governments around the world. Euroscepticism and right-wing populism has the failings of our global Establishments right at the heart of its rapid spread.

It is now only the Establishment which must restore public confidence and diminish its own detriment. It is only the Establishment which can start to once again champion the hardworking people of British society, and support the deprived. And it is only the Establishment which can pop the dreams of future right-wing populists such as Donald Trump by treading the moral high ground.

If the EU referendum has proven anything, it has proven that our leaders have made a great mistake in trying to combine political advantage with serious questions of the position of Britain in the world. The British Establishment’s fearful campaign tactics have displayed the lack of political dignity that surrounds our nation’s decision-making process. Surely our leaders wish to avoid further calamity. But to do so, they must first restore themselves and their own structures.

Politics isn’t about what you favour, but instead about what you don’t

It has been a long time since I have heard predominantly good things being spoken of a politician, the current political landscape, or their policies. Perhaps some of the moments which last sparked jubilation in the political sphere were when Barack Obama was elected as the first black US President, when Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was last seen conversing naturally with a group of – actually interested – schoolchildren, or when German Chancellor Angela Merkel stood in front of Syrian refugees with open arms.

But it seems that right now, political contentment is at a low. The tone of debate around the world has degraded in recent months, and many of our politicians and their policies seem to revolve around counteracting some form of societal evil. Every day we are instructed that immigrants, nuclear power stations, or even Donald Trump will be the reason for the world’s end. Energised by multiple failings from both above and below, a wide range of voters, activists, and ordinaries have come to believe that politics is not working, a pessimistic and tiresome mindset which is fuelling politics of bitterness.

This advent has helped to kick-start fiery anti-establishment groups, seeing a rise in politics which focuses on resenting specific parts of society, creating a dangerous political culture. This engagement with ‘blame; policy is rapidly increasing, and is having a somewhat devastating side-effect. Whilst many citizens are, of course, uniting in opposition against what they deem to be most threatening to themselves and society, many are detrimentally turning hurtfully against certain social groups, in some cases minimising minorities and bolstering fear.

A handful of recent events serve to prove this. Only last week, the shooting of British MP Jo Cox showed that a sad minority believes in an act as shameful as killing an elected official. In recent days, Italy’s main anti-establishment party has made huge gains, Italy not the only country to see such a rise. Worldwide, the refugee crisis – the biggest movement of people since The Second World War – has provoked mixed sentiment, including a large pool of anti-immigrant protesters, and in many areas, even xenophobic and racist feelings. And a couple of months ago, the Panama Papers revelations exposed large-scale wrongdoing across global governments, fuelling anti-establishment feeling all the more.

It is no wonder that citizens across the world are bored with such endless, fruitless rhetoric. Fear and hatred are fast coming to define politics as citizens see no other remedy to their ailing governments and communities. Wrongdoing within government, a selfish hostility to an influx of immigrants, and resentment towards our MPs are each playing a part in tearing up society. Politics now revolves around marginalisation – not celebration of the good qualities which enhance our nation.

So, who is at fault for the culture of torment and blame which is reconstructing our political culture? Many would argue that society itself is causing the problem. The rise in barbaric terrorist acts shows that much of the gusto for wreaking havoc comes from the people. But it does indeed look like the Establishment has a monumental part to play. In many cases, electorates around the world have turned dead set on voting for manifestos which show pent up discontent with their current rulers. Recent corruption in relation to financial wrongdoing and offshore accounts, the polarisation of our political parties – fostering such intense left and right wings – and the rise of such casually outspoken leaders such as Donald Trump and Nigel Farage are each contributing to a new politics stubbornness. In the same way as many of our politicians, scores of voters now flippantly find anyone to blame for the worst of societal calamities. The success of anti-immigration ideals and anti-establishment policy emphasises that such an ethos is becoming increasingly – and somewhat worryingly – commonplace.

Hatred and blame are becoming international epidemics, diseasing our politics. On the social media stage, and even on our streets, jibes aimed at specific minorities are growing worryingly normal. The demonisation of a select few is creating an all too casual class of resentment amongst both voters and our leaders – incumbent and prospective. When, indeed, will an air of acceptance, teamwork and common good return to the fore of society’s mind? Without definite steps towards a strong emphasis on co-operation and interdependence, Britain will grow alien to the world in the same way that many deem outsiders as alien to Britain.

If anything, at least our democracy is functioning properly. A healthy democracy must have channels for opposition, but the scale of dissent is becoming too huge. As governments struggle to deal with new political, social and economic challenges, a blaring national forum is playing out. Our principles of free speech and the ability to challenge are evidently strongly in place. But out nation’s obsession with opposition, and the willingness of albeit very few to marginalise set individuals may soon have the adverse effect. The sudden influx of political discontent and the deeply rooted challenges that many pose to the status quo could see the destruction of our democracy.

Perhaps I am, in some ways, no better than the few who continue to rage, exaggerating the pessimism which seems to surround Britain’s politics. Whilst opposition is a fundamentally good thing for politics, the movements in which a select few citizens are involved are turning the act of standing up to certain policies into a license for hatred and resentment. If our politicians and citizens are adamant to blame an failing establishment and lax leaders, perhaps it is indeed our representatives who are wrong, and it is those who continue to fuel such a dirty discussion. Maybe when Britain starts to re-energise its public services, a blame on migrants will diminish, and our discussion will become cleaner. Maybe when our government proves to be truly in touch and right on the level of the people, anti-establishment and its needless addiction to blame will fade away. And maybe when leaders who believe in the acceptance of racial slurs and scaremongering step down from the podium, society will start to rebuild its bridges.

The Westminster system is halting UK political progress

It doesn’t take the most keen of political junkies to tell that British party politics is reaching a frustrating stalemate. The Labour party, since the growth in support for – and election of – Jeremy Corbyn, has become the arena bearing witness to fierce internal strife over its position on many issues. But the current debate over Britain’s membership of the European Union has smashed the complacency of many Conservatives who believed they were safe from the epidemic of divide. A huge rift has developed between staunch supporters of David Cameron and other hard-line Eurosceptics. If anything, this is a stark message alluding to the evidently out-of-date Westminster Establishment.

The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party last year marked a significant turning point in Labour policy. Torn between the Blairite ‘third way’ and Corbyn’s by-the-book socialism, vast numbers of MPs are struggling to find much common ground. The Tories have proven to struggle with similar issues of their own, with a camp strongly in favour of ideas from further right, and war over the quandaries in relation to immigration and EU status.

This is worrying for a democracy like Great Britain. If parties fail to wholeheartedly unite and allow such instability to thrive, the future of British government looks bleak. The current Westminster structure is outdated and old-fashioned, unable to adapt to the specificities of modern day voting behaviour. There is simply no way that Britain can be forced to mould itself into such an uncomfortable structure which takes only a few indecisive policy options into account. Without change, governments will become ineffective, oppositions feeble, and the electorate switched off.

This issues lie with the Establishment and its pace alongside a fast-changing society.  Our main political parties of Labour and the Conservatives were once formed with the target of aggregating their respective working and middle class citizens. But nowadays, our political society cannot operate in this way. Social class is now far less important for voters than it was during the war-time and post-war periods.

Thus, the factors of gender, political personality, age, location, and simply the precise issues themselves have gained in astounding importance over the past decade. The attempts of many ‘catch-all’ parties in Britain, and further around the world, to gain the support of the average voter may be somewhat genius abroad, but is seemingly not practical in the UK. The diversity of our nation’s society today means that each person is looking for something different from politicians, and our leaders are failing to inspire each and every one of them. The Westminster parties in Britain are struggling to adapt to the new challenges of the 21st century, and aren’t succeeding in raking in the trust of all sorts. The British political system is stuck in the past in its old social class boundaries, and needs new rules.

So how can Westminster become the dynamic environment for engaging political debate that it once was? The people and the society are in place, but the institutions aren’t keeping up with the electorate’s transformation. The fact that both of the largest parties must deal with somewhat eternal internal splits, and juggle two very different pools of policy, must hint that the political framework of the UK needs to be taken a part and put back together again.

PR is the answer. Many reports have shown that if proportional representation had been used in recent elections, the share of seats in parliament would be markedly different. In 2015, the SNP in Scotland would have seen substantially less seats, UKIP would have achieved a whopping increase, and the Liberal Democrats would gain a position as fourth party in parliament with a 7% share. The key advantage with PR, is that it is a modern system designed for a modern society, which takes the growth in issue voting into account. The most important thing is, however, that PR would nurture Conservative and Labour party splits which are much needed for any form of progress. PR would not mean instant death to one of the parties’ internal camps, but would build a separate party stage allowing them to truly proclaim their message, instead of begrudgingly succumbing to their inner opposition.

Perhaps the Tories and Labour would be reluctant to split currently, eager to cling onto their inevitably greater share of power through the First Past the Post system. But in the next ten years, unless both sides unite, the crevasse will grow deeper and a parting looks inevitable. Separate parties with pacts on their similarities, giving a degree of leeway for their differences would revolutionise the Westminster system and make the party system considerably more workable.

We need a change. Through a complete overhaul of the Westminster institution via voting system, politics would become fairer and more true. Certainly, large sections of Britain would become more politically engaged, waving goodbye to the blockaded politics we have witnessed for too many months. Many societies worldwide have made the change, including Germany, New Zealand, and, of course, Scotland. It is time for Westminster to follow suit. If the London Establishment continues to trudge on in Westminster – the abyss of torment and interparty battles – Britain’s democracy will become decayed and society will grow bored of the nation’s dysfunctional decision-making.

The EU debate’s slips and slurs have degraded politics

In the quiescent aftermath of the Scottish independence referendum two years ago, one major criticism was made. It does, however, seem forgotten today. Both David Cameron and Alex Salmond continually slammed each other for campaigns of scaremongering in the months leading up to the 2014 vote. Press outlets unleashed damning reports of both the Yes and No sides’ tactics, and many voters argued for a more fact-based approach in future. Surely this year’s EU referendum debate would be something more civilised.

Frustratingly enough, the past few weeks of dialogue between the remain and leave camps have failed to foster the clear and precise discussion for which the electorate increasingly yearns. Weeks of needless racial slurs from Vote Leave, deliberately provocative press spin, and crafty controversy from Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, as well as other prominent Eurosceptics have destroyed what might have been a sophisticated debate. As personality and press coverage become more important in the voting process, the electorate will vividly remember the pathetic playground tactics that have come from some of the most prominent MPs. The fact that our politicians have failed to present stimulating facts and figures in a straight-forward manner shows that the tenor of the UK’s political dialogue is set lower than ever.

The tone of the EU conversation is gravely worrying for the future of the UK’s political society. The ersatz debate has switched off vast numbers of voters, and has turned politics into a violent shoot-out with politicians hotly trading insults. Blatant scaremongering and carelessness has left a large proportion of the electorate uneducated and unable to make an informed vote. Last week, the head of the UK Statistics Authority rendered just one of the figures used by Vote Leave in relation to EU spending as inaccurate. One MPs’ report made similar conclusions, and today the campaign has backed down on claims in relation to EU energy spending. How can we trust such deceptive campaign tactics? For these reasons, it is devastating that several thousands of voters will inevitably give up this time, and fail to turn out on 23 June. Politicians are falling short of inspiring British citizens to take part politically, especially in such a crucial vote. Our political decision-makers will only be held less accountable unless debate becomes refined, a prospect which could seemingly thin our democracy.

The EU referendum campaign has been further plagued by tedious racial slurs – even from activists whom are becoming inspired by the controversial standpoint of Vote Leave. The activities of a handful of their supporters were condemned on social media yesterday after a questionable roadside billboard playing on an offensive German stereotype. Today, a campaign poster for Operation Black Vote was widely deemed racist. The plan to leave Europe was once a key to more political freedom and heightened national control. It seems, however, that the campaign for a vote to leave Europe is now based on other issues.

The recent weeks’ wagging of fingers and prodding of each other with insults like misbehaving schoolchildren may not only sacrifice a defeat against those campaigning for a Brexit, however. This approach of many is destroying the foundations of a quality political culture. The ten-week campaign is starkly showing that the biggest issue lies within the problematic and muddled UK Establishment. The fact that a notable rise in Euroscepticism in an array of political parties has recently materialised – namely Ukip and the Tories – and that many proponents of the leave campaign have advocated for the aforementioned controversial campaign tactics is something of concern. The disorderly and shameful methods used by both campaigns in the run-up to the June vote is highlighting why populism is becoming so successful, but is also seeing the politics of evil flourish. It is clear that this is what is leading to a decay in the quality of the UK’s political conversation.

Many of our elected representatives have seemingly failed the electorate, taking more time over the petty dirty work of politics instead of presenting straight-forward facts to the people. The EU campaign was the opportunity for more civilised and sophisticated politics, and an opportunity to build on the considerable rough-and-tumble of the Scottish referendum a couple of years ago.

But still our political culture is markedly degrading, proven by the quality of discussion over recent weeks. The most disheartening aspect is that the power to rejuvenate political debates lay in the hands of our politicians, and it is something they are choosing to ignore. Such a factually weak campaign with smear tactics at the core is degrading our democracy. With skewed statistics, deflection from the real issues, and childish taunting, in no way can many of the campaigning politicians claim to have run a constructive, informative campaign. Instead, our politicians have resorted to tiresome disputes with one another, chucking in many a hurtful jibe. Both the remain and leave campaigns have shown that they are unable to sustain a compelling atmosphere in relation to the 23 June referendum.

Such melodrama has only fuelled the chaos which currently riddles the UK’s political theatre, and has damaged the nation’s quality of politics in a plethora of ways. Next month’s referendum provided the perfect opportunity for a triumph over the politics of fear, and a growing, highly prejudiced sector of the hard right. Maybe this has proven that divisive, hurtful and more devious politics will become the norm. The juvenile dialogue of the European referendum campaign has becoming something of a spectator sport, rather than one in which all British citizens can fairly participate. Once again, our leaders’ poor performances have only halted chances of swift progression towards a brand new, better society – in this case, a reformed Europe that works for all.

Nationalist and unionist feelings prevented Labour wins in Scotland

Would you call yourself a unionist or nationalist? Did you side with Salmond or Darling in the independence referendum? Yesterday, did you give a vote to the nationalist SNP or the unionist Tories? The pivotal 2014 referendum over Scottish independence heated discussions of political identity. Few previous events had seen Scots passionately side with a political campaign so decisively. This morning’s Scottish Election results have shown that nationalist and unionist sentiment spurred by the referendum has little chances of waning in months – and inevitably years – to come. The extensive and somewhat surprising gains of Ruth Davidson’s Scottish Conservatives have proven that capitalising on the fears of independence and the growth in pro-union feeling will bring in easy seats. Similarly, whilst Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP has lost a few of its hotspots, it is clear that the heartfelt politics of many who yearn for increased decentralisation are still alive. Enhanced commitment to political identities is transforming Scottish politics and is becoming crucial in deciding the futures of our political parties.

The most profound change within the Holyrood establishment revealed this morning has to be the demise of Scottish Labour. The party, once dominating Scottish politics, has entered into a stark and likely prolonged decline. With left-wing feeling traditionally widespread across Scotland, and Scottish Labour gaining the most seats in Holyrood in 1999 and 2003, many hardcore supporters of the party would be most surprised at last night’s results. Labour prepared itself yesterday for a kick thanks to eternal issues surrounding anti-Semitism arguments, divides between Corbyn supporters and old Blairites, and the SNP’s storm in the polls. But one of the main weaknesses of the Scottish Labour party which has come to light in the wake of Ruth Davidson’s largely unforeseen triumph yesterday is that the Scottish Labour party does not have a strong political identity. Having likeable and well set out policies is undeniably paramount. But the other main parties within the Scottish parliament are taking a more decisive line over identity and nationality, as well as asserting their authority as issue-based movements.

Scottish politics has seen a well-established two party dominance emerge at Holyrood in recent years – something the AMS voting system was, in fact, designed to prevent. The rise of the SNP has seen a marked transformation from the consensus politics which prevailed in the earlier years of the Scottish parliament. The SNP has succeeded in dominating devolved decision making since its time in government from 2007, a political monopoly fostered by unquestionable leftist history throughout Scotland.

Last night’s election results in Scotland, however, further accentuated the SNP’s already strong nationalist identity. The rise of the Tories also, rebranding themselves in 2014 with heavy emphasis on the unionist element of their politics, marks a real change in direction for Scottish politics. The fundamental questions of identity, which surrounded the independence referendum two years ago, are evidently still hot on the minds of much of the electorate.

A survey carried out by What Scotland Thinks in March 2015 put Scottish nationalist sentiment amongst Scots at 62%, and British feeling on 31%. Whilst this may not exactly correlate with yesterday’s election results, the almost two-fold increase in the SNP’s gains from 2011 looks as if it may go hand-in-hand with the party’s victory this morning.

When the new Scottish parliament sits for the first time in a few days’ time, not only austerity, tax, and public services will place Sturgeon and Davidson at loggerheads. The new Conservative opposition and old timer SNP government will sit in their nationalist and unionist blocs. Whilst many believe that Labour’s demise is due to indecisiveness and leadership disputes south of the border, perhaps its lack of nationalist standpoint is really its Achilles heel.

The referendum is now over, although the SNP continue to angle for another which would take place in just a few years. It seems that the legacy of hyped patriotism and focus on national identity has largely changed the 2016 election’s course. The SNP and Conservatives are the parties for nationalists and unionists, respectively. Of course, a large majority are still issue voters. But Labour’s inability to decisively condemn or endorse another independence referendum may well have contributed to Kezia Dugdale’s fate. Those adamant about protecting the union could safely vote for a strong opposition led by Davidson, keen to protect relations with Westminster, in the same way that hardcore nationalists just know that Sturgeon’s team would never wholly backtrack on independence.

The Labour party is the odd one out when it comes to a focus national identity. The Labour party’s instability rests on its short-lived leaders, racial controversy, and a turf war between the grassroots members and the party’s elected MPs. In Scotland, however, the referendum has not at all diluted impassioned nationalist and unionist sentiment, which will, judging by yesterday’s election, continue to influence our nation’s politics. Stuck in between the fervent debate, Labour has fallen hard, failing to take a form of loyalist standpoint. It seems that the divisive referendum and its focus on identity has created clear-cut sides. The conundrum surrounding the still contentious ‘Yes or No?’ question is still alive. Whilst independence does not look imminent, there is still growing support both for and against such constitutional change. The possibilities for such a transformation are boosting identity-based politics, as well as gains for both the SNP and the Scottish Conservatives as decisive nationalist and unionist movements.

Young people are being forgotten during UK election campaigns

Over the days leading up to today’s Scottish General Election, I asked many of my fellow students whether or not they would be voting. Many responded enthusiastically, enfranchised for the first time – disregarding the Scottish referendum – as 16, 17, or 18 year-olds. But a large proportion of the answers I received were gravely worrying. Many told me that they didn’t feel educated enough, that they simply had forgotten to change to their new constituency, or that they hadn’t had time to register for a postal vote. The Electoral Commission’s social media drive and overhead billboards have failed to entice voter registration amongst citizens young and old. It seems that our system of electoral registration is failing to inspire many in society – especially students, as well as those who travel regularly.  A boost in electoral bureaucracy, spearheaded by the Tories thanks to recent reform, is making our electoral system more deceptive, and is resulting in the creation of a relaxed political culture. The principles of our nation’s democracy are under threat.

There must surely be something wrong about a society which does encourage people to vote, but makes it increasingly difficult to. Several months ago, Tory legislation removed the ability for collective voter registration, and thus made it less easy to become enfranchised. Due to these new government moves, households and organisations such as universities can no longer place large numbers of individuals on the electoral register at once. To top this, electoral participation is alarmingly low. Around a third of voters – and regularly more – failed to turn up to their local polling station last May.

The fact that such large numbers of people choose not to exercise their right to vote, or are missing – either deliberately or accidentally – from the electoral register is a serious threat to the United Kingdom’s political society. How can governments be held to account? Why should David Cameron and his party be allowed to create such a political monopoly, making it easier for the older and more geographically anchored individual to vote? It is abominable that the government is willing to sit back whilst its agencies fail to make registration an effortless exercise.

As many as 800,000 previously eligible citizens were deleted from the register several months ago. It was further revealed that the electoral register has shrunk by 1.6 million since 2012. In no way have the Tories’ electoral register changes been beneficial to the UK’s democracy. Instead of being a source of inspiration and empowerment, the Electoral Commission has become growingly bureaucratic.

The worst part of the government’s changes is the disrespect for some of the most influential groups of society. Students, many of whom will have to register to vote for the first time, are being failed. Moving between multiple addresses, the government has not provided an effortless registration process for young people. Without the participation of young adults, results of past elections would be markedly different. Voting amongst those aged between 18 and 24 saw a 20% decrease between 1990 and 2010. Perhaps the government is willfully ignoring the youth vote, knowing that their increased enfranchisement would diminish chances for Tory victories. Either way, such blatant disrespect for mass enfranchisement is a crime against democracy.

Besides the Tories’ tactical registration reform, there are other reasons why the youth vote, in particular, is becoming increasingly smothered by those above. Party efforts for encouraging student voting seems very weak. At my student flat in Glasgow during this election campaign, I received a puny supply of direct electoral information. The provision of three leaflets from the Scottish Green Party was very acceptable. However, besides this delivery, as well as one mailshot from UKIP and another from Solidarity, I received nothing else. The fact that a number of the main parties in Scotland – the SNP, Labour, the Conservatives and Lib Dems – were not interested in attracting the student vote through direct canvassing shows that more must be done to sell the pros of enfranchisement to young people. Don’t get me wrong – a large number of young adults are very politically engaged. But those who lack in political knowledge and experience are being forgotten. Surely it is the duty of our governments to promote the excitement and empowerment which comes with electoral participation.

There are several quick and effective fixes to the seemingly increasing threat to our democracy and the UK’s political culture. It is clear that the Tories’ new enfranchisement regulations are having a seriously negative impact on participation, and excluding vast populations from political engagement. Along with increased direct support from individual parties, a perhaps if universities, colleges and other institutions – as well as households – had power to enfranchise people en masse returned, our nation’s democratic foundations would be stronger than ever. On top, huge registration campaigns must become the norm. An inspiring Electoral Commission should be built up, ready to promote the benefits of participation to all. In addition, the lack of direct canvassing towards young people is shameful. An increase must be seen.

It is therefore clear that the political parties of the UK are in danger of becoming complacent. Party leaders do not seem to want to talk to young people as much as they perhaps once did. It seems that the 1920s struggles for suffrage have not ended, and will not end soon. Next year’s Scottish local elections will inevitably receive markedly less attention than this May’s general election. A new era of democratic encouragement must come into being. The Tories’ recent electoral reforms are damaging the chances for strengthened British democracy. Elections should not be made difficult to take part in. For if this is the case, Britain is simply not a democracy. Only tomorrow will we find out how exactly Britain’s young people have exercised their votes in one of the several elections taking place today. Call me a cynic, but I fear that the figures for youth turnout will not be as high as they could be. Of course, those who are politically engaged will certainly be rampant supporters of their chosen party. But without stark rejection of the government’s new registration obstacle course, we will be quietly submitting to the removal of our greatest democratic rights.

Climate change is coming, and the UK should be ready to face it

Amid a season of peace to all, it is clear that even the most comforting and soothing attributes of the winter season are not currently extended to all British people. Storm Frank has taken its toll on the nation, wrecking communities and causing disparities which contrast with the usual warmth felt by many in this festive period. Those in Southern Scotland and Northern England have been forced to evacuate and close small businesses, Welsh residents have seen losses of power, and the Northern Irish impact has threatened roads and rail services. Dumfries alone has seen riverbanks burst, and as much as 120mm of rainfall in one day. The impact of climate change is undeniably becoming more apparent, and this age of natural disaster must provoke changes in the way we relieve our populations and prevent the next environmental catastrophes.

Several years ago, there were obvious opportunities to learn from previous flood disasters in Britain. 2007 saw approximately £6 billion worth of Southern English property destroyed, atrocities which provoked Sir William Pitt’s study of British flood responses. Pitt’s report emphasised the naïve outlook British governments had on dealing with mass water damage, highlighting the need for investment in new interception techniques and a detailed flood action plan. But recent developments simply lack physical and political strength, and many Pitt Report recommendations have been ignored.

The question which remains afloat in the flooding aftermath is over ways in which Britain can better respond to similar episodes in the future. Whilst numerous changes have been made, this month’s catastrophe has proven that Britain remains incapable. Cabinet sub-committees with flood responsibility have been set up and legislation in both Westminster and Holyrood has been passed to reduce flood risks.

In Dumfries and Galloway, one of Britain’s most affected regions, Council Chief Gavin Stevenson emphasised the extent of the far and wide flood damage. Dumfries and Galloway Council’s CEO went further to explain that whilst financial aid can help flooded-out settlements, strong links and uncompromised cohesion between communities is key. Social researcher Kim Chang found that during flood disparity within Northern England in 2009 strong links between one another in communities were common in harmed areas. Seamless connections between civilians, emergency services, charities, churches, the NHS and our governments must exist for a smooth transmission of aid during environmental crises, and

In order to keep Britain buoyant in the future, both in mindset and in terms of flood resistance, it is clear also that more provision must be made for communities at risk. The Conservative government’s crippling cuts over recent years have already proven to be detrimental to many public institutions, and the UK’s flood preventions have suffered no less. The Guardian reported in December that the amount of money put towards flood resistance had decreased by 10% between 2010-2011 and 2014. In addition, criticism of the Scottish Government, with the power to regulate over flood control, has been voiced. A report by the Institution of Civil Engineers allocated a ‘C’ grade to the SNP government for flood policy. In the Westminster parliament, Chancellor George Osborne has already promised £400m for flood defence in England alone, but many experts doubt that English and Scottish allocations will suffice.

The World Resources Institute indicated in a recent study that the flood risk not just nationwide but worldwide could have increased almost three-fold by 2030. Governments are sure to be alarmed by these revelations, and solid prevention plans and increased spending seem absolutely necessary. Further to this, the Institute also revealed that whilst current flood costs amount to around £65 billion, governments of 2030 could expect a bill of as much as £340 billion. The only way leaders will survive this new environmental age is by rigorous planning and investing in safeguarding communities. Watching as preventable disasters threaten livelihoods in a supposed developed nation cannot become a convention.

In an international context, and as the Pitt Report stresses, the Tories’ cumulative £400m to be spent on English natural disasters is markedly less than neighbouring states’ provision on a grander scale. 2002 brought devastating flooding across Europe, resulting in fatalities and chaos in Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic amongst other states. The central German region of Saxony became one of the worst hit areas, prompting a governmental rethink in flood prevention. As a result, waterways were reconstructed and revamped, plans for every eventuality were outlined, and a substantial €1.3 billion was allocated, aimed at solving this ever-prominent social problem. Saxony’s neighbours have in fact blamed the region itself, with more advanced prevention systems, for increased environmental damage, showing that an increase in spending and planning is having a positive impact.

After countless cases of devastation caused by recent flooding, it is time that our governments on both local and national levels focus on spending and cohesion to better deal with natural disasters. As the global temperature rises alongside sea levels, climate change is becoming an inexorable issue. Atrocities at home and abroad show that our leaders’ policy direction must change. Ensuring the safety of populations and communities can only come with more investment in flood defences and research. As experts predict flooding in more developing nations such as Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Cambodia with lower GDP, cooperation throughout civilisation worldwide is paramount.

With an enormous environmental strategy to develop, the need for which reinstated by flooded out Britain, we cannot wilfully watch our communities crumble. Fresh funding is urgently needed, along with unified citizens and services. Until both governments across the nation invest in new methods of protection and react to alarming research, the mood in hard-hit communities will continue to dampen. No longer can we watch citizens suffer as easy targets for the tribulations of changing climates. Storm Frank, with its seemingly harmless and cosy name, has appeared starkly different underneath its clouds.