UK Politics

In this election, Britain is neither left nor right, but a smörgåsbord of opinion

may%20corbyn.png

The British electoral landscape is at its most volatile in years, Brexit dominates doorstep pleas, and the Tories just thought it would have been easier. Now, either Jeremy Corbyn or Theresa May will set foot in Number 10 tomorrow. Today at the polls, where class becomes more and more irrelevant, voters must make an informed choice based on issues alone.  

This time, both main parties offer policies further away from the centre ground. Despite the mudslinging, the chaotic radio interviews and the backfired soundbites, issues matter most. No longer can we expect, as last year’s Brexit victory showed, working class voters to continually side with the socialists, after the populist hijacking of globalisation, portraying it as something impossible to balance with home affairs, rather than something bringing great opportunity and success. Similarly, no longer can we expect wealthier and more middle class voters to always side with the Conservatives. Class boundaries have become so hazy that we may even question the effectiveness of predicting outcomes based on wallets, and indeed the current working or middle-upper class dichotomy. This is the end of big party tribalism in UK politics. 

Today’s snap vote, originally designed to erode the foundations of the Labour party, has instead reshaped the British political landscape, bringing the resurrection of the left-wing that Theresa May only two months ago thought was dead. 

The past two months of campaigning have indicated that Britain is about to pass through an important political portal, however. At the end of this campaign, the Labour and Conservative parties will not be the same as they were several months ago. Party politics is no longer, as Clement Attlee, Tony Blair, and David Cameron seemed to believe, entirely about class. Instead, politics is now more about policy, and more particular factions. Whilst we can still describe parties as either left of right of the spectrum, voters cannot rely on leaders to speak for one entire branch of society; the entirety of the left or the right.

In this election, both main parties have tried to catch-all, looking to reel in all sorts of voters, regardless of class. With May’s focus on strength and stability, and Corbyn’s impetus on governing for the greater good instead of the top 1%, both campaigns have run with messages which partly forget class divisions. One of the most astonishing developments of the Brexit vote only last June was that it leapt across social class boundaries. 

As a result, Theresa May has attempted to prove that Brexit is a transformation which can benefit all – the disenchanted working class, and the wealthy who look to abandon the red tape of the European Union. Similarly, the Labour Party, with its campaign of compassion and a celebration of society, has tried to attract both voters on average incomes, and even the most high-end of champagne socialists.

Right-wing and left-wing parallels can still be drawn with the main parties’ respective social care policies and increases in corporation tax. But largely, Labour and the Tories are out there to grab everyone. Myriad columnists and political scientists have reported that the Conservative manifesto is – wait for it – surprisingly socialist in places, regulating the energy industry, and even talking about a kind of centre ground in its manifesto.

But are the main parties really that similar? In reality, however, Theresa May’s party remains adamant that an intensely right-wing Brexit will be a success. Similarly, Corbyn’s Labour party remains quintessentially 70s-style socialist in places. The two parties, however, as much as they have tried to appeal to all, still remain within their individual right-wing and left-wing camps. Crucially, the two parties don’t even represent the entirety of their right or left wing bases, instead arguably speaking only for smaller details of the bigger picture – Brexiteers for the Tories, and traditional socialists for Labour.

Perhaps, therefore, the Tory party represents only Brexiteers. If this be the case, surely much of the British population remains unaccounted for. Not even Theresa May herself voted for Brexit. As for Jeremy Corbyn, he may have achieved overwhelming success in the past month, but there still exists a fiery branch of more Blairite, New Labour-oriented MPs, who have received little limelight since Corbyn’s anti-Tory crusade gained real traction over a month ago. New Labour MPs in the next Parliament will surely be keen to flex their muscles.

Not everyone can be a winner. Perhaps this is just a fact of democracy. But as society breaks down into more specific groupings, with more fluid conceptions of class, perhaps the big, social class aggregate party is now dead, and can be rendered impractical. Trans-class issues have dominated this election. The Tories are quietly torn between Brexit and liberal internationalism. The Labour party have, until only very recently, found themselves sitting on the fence between Corbyn’s radical socialism and the Blairite third way. How can these parties now appeal to all, if they represent one distinct portion of their ideological wings, let alone their entire right-wing or left-wing sides? Perhaps there is a new gap in the political market. 

There are several possible solutions – firstly, that the catch-all, all-encompassing party becomes successful in pleasing all (a rather utopian idea, based on this campaign and the politics of previous years). Secondly, the UK political landscape could break down, heralding a wider range of political parties, each reflecting different pools of political opinion, welcoming a new proportional system of voting. Or, parties could learn to agree internally – something that the Tories have performed at better over Brexit. Hopefully, however, Corbyn sceptics will consider the success of the party leader of late, and run with his more socialist manifesto.

Chiefly, perhaps our political system is outdated, with a need for rejuvenation if it is to facilitate a wide-range of political opinions. I fear that, despite the successes of Jeremy Corbyn in this campaign, the numerous New Labour supporters in the PLP will rise up against him if Theresa May wins on Friday morning. Furthermore, if Theresa May pushes on with her Brexit agenda, perhaps centrism will resurgence, as Corbyn and May polarise the system. Perhaps a more centrist force like French President Emmanuel Macron’s La République en Marche will soon come to the fore.

Centrism needn’t be the answer, and could only confuse things more, aiming to match the weaker right-wingers with left-behind Blairites. The Labour party may find itself with relative post-election peace, allowing Corbyn to do his socialist job. If intra-party feuds spawn, however, a pluralist proportional system could be the answer.

Today, however, the message is clear. Voters must vote based on the issues. Prime Minister Theresa May has shown herself to be unaccountable in debates, and has proven that a vote for the Tories is a blank cheque for Brexit. The Conservative Party’s plans for Brexit will turn the nation into a bargain basement economy. The party’s record, which so many government ministers have suggested that voters examine, shows myriad cuts to public services, and an NHS on its knees. Food banks shouldn’t have to be the core of so many communities. May has revealed herself as a leader who isn’t afraid to overlook the disgraces of Donald Trump’s presidency, let big business take the controls, turn away from the massive benefits of free movement, or broker deals with dodgy dictators. What’s more, reducing the effects of climate change isn’t high on Theresa May’s creaky agenda.

By contrast, Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign has galvanised much of the British population, and re-engineered the left’s platform. Once the media abandoned him, the Labour leader was last year deemed all too quickly as someone who just wasn’t electable. Reducing the Tory party lead from over 25 points to five would show otherwise.

Corbyn’s Labour Party has shown that it stands up for progressive politics in Britain, and is a truly possible antidote to May’s damaging game plan. Under Corbyn, work may truly pay, and public services will be injected with new life. Labour’s insult-free campaign of compassion, morality and straight-talking socialism has worked wonders. Labour will defend important human rights, uphold Britain’s place as just one cog in a complex international civil society where individual nations cannot always supremely call the shots, and reduce hardship at home and abroad. The nurturing of human success will be placed at the heart of society.

Corbyn’s campaign has been revolutionary, and a much-needed breath of fresh air for the electorate and those who feel upset by the failings of New Labour. Even in opposition, Corbyn has finally given a platform to those left behind. His supporters will not easily fade into the background. However, his next mission is to keep the Blairites at bay, just as Theresa May must calm down the more internationalist, liberal conservatives if she wants to be successful. Class is growing less irrelevant in UK politics, and voters instead shop around on issues and manifestos. Both May and Corbyn now have the tricky task of healing the divides in their parties as they veer their respective right and left wings in specific directions. Failing to do so could mean great constitutional change for the UK, if the huge class-driven aggregate parties which have for so long defined the UK’s political landscape soon fail to speak for all.

Advertisements
Standard
europe, society, UK Politics, World Politics

The future of Boris and his ambition is in May’s hands

GettyImages-120762_3356334b

Flapping around in the midst of the EU referendum fallout, the Conservative Party is currently enduring what may only be the start of a lengthy spell of political turbulence. Prevailing volatility amongst raging factions of Remainers and Brexiteers has shown that the UK’s recent vote has failed to eradicate the tense mood which currently shrouds the Tory party. Stranded at the epicentre of the Brexit wreckage, the Tories have been left broken and despairing. June’s ballot has certainly not put an end to the Conservatives party’s epidemic of quarrelling, and future success for the party looks to be considerably far out of reach.

The European Union isn’t the only source of the UK government’s quandaries, though. In a vetting process originally set to take at least ten weeks, David Cameron’s successor has been rapidly selected in just three. Upon the surprising victory for Vote Leave, it were former Mayor of London Boris Johnson who was originally tipped to succeed the now disposed of Cameron.

After a rather uncharacteristically serious stint as co-frontman for the Vote Leave campaign alongside Michael Gove, a large proportion of the Tory party believed that it were Boris who had proven himself worthy of leadership. But Gove’s crafty moves to undermine Johnson in the party leadership contest were relatively successful. His cunning decision to run against Johnson – an act described by many as treachery – has certainly prevented Boris from mapping the Conservatives’ direction in the short term.

Last week, most thought that Boris Johnson was finished, and that he may never hold any more influential party position than that of a constituency MP. But the prominent blondie may well come back to widen the Tory party’s divide in months and years to come – especially during or following the incumbency of newly-appointed Theresa May.

Yesterday, it were instead she, the former Home Secretary, who triumphantly stood in front of Number 10, ready to colonise Westminster with her distinctly formidable demeanour and uncompromising approach to decision-making. Today, May pressed on with the hand-picking of her new political arsenal. Mrs May’s cabinet has seen many a surprising appointment, however, including – rather controversially – that of the  Boris Johnson who is now Britain’s foreign secretary.

One of the politicians deemed most responsible for the great rift which has sprung up in the middle of the Tory party now sits in one of the most important positions in politics. But seated underneath the watch of Theresa May means that Johnson will be, to an extent, constrained. Everyone knows that Boris is a careerist and has dreams of the Tory party leadership. Theresa May’s tactics remain to be seen, but, needless to say, Mrs May will be keen to dissociate herself from Johnson’s politics which could subvert her much-needed authority.

But it is Mrs May who has the upper hand now. It is she who has the power to decide the fate of Boris Johnson. Will he be a successful foreign secretary, bolster his standing within the party, continuing to stoke the still red hot coals of the Eurosceptics’ campfire? Or will the new Prime Minister user her iron fist to manoeuvre Johnson off her path, clamping down on his sizeable realm of support?

By promoting Boris Johnson, who will surely be one of her government’s most prolific ministers, Theresa May could possibly have made a fatal error. Despite only a marginal win for Vote Leave, Brexit generated not only wide support for cutting ties with the European Union, but also for Boris Johnson himself. Today’s cabinet announcements include six Brexiteers – six individuals who still advocate for the views of the Tories’ large Eurosceptic, more libertarian base.

Herein lies the problem. In the event that the popularity of Mrs May begins to wane, the grounds for Boris Johnson to become the backseat driver of this government could look strong. Providing Boris Johnson with such stature could come back to kick Mrs May, and could be detrimental to the stability of her brand new premiership.

On the other hand, allowing Boris Johnson to have a degree of political ammunition is a somewhat clever move. Undoubtedly, Boris’ careerism and ambition to work his way into the top seats of government still exists. Keeping the man who has the power to be most divisive in the cabinet forces a great deal of responsibility upon him.

His ability to largely manage the UK’s global affairs, and, needless to say, implement the Brexit for which he so desperately advocated, shows that sympathy is not one of Theresa May’s defining characteristics as a politician. If the operation of leaving the European Union backfires, it will not be Mrs May who takes the blame. And, of course, an ability to broker deals and negotiate with international neighbours is essential for truly great politicians.

Should Boris Johnson fail to become a hit with the rest of the world’s biggest economies, the future premiership hopeful’s reputation will be destroyed. Currently, his global record isn’t wholly clean, having made several offensive remarks in relation to other cultures, prompting worldwide hostility. Johnson was booed at a French press conference today, is reportedly hated in Brussels, and many Germans cannot believe Boris’ new status. Judging by Theresa May’s ‘take no prisoners’ attitude to government, Boris Johnson and his future chances will be eaten alive by his fellow party members should he make detrimental diplomatic blunders.

Albeit considerably better organised, the Tory party is still precariously balanced upon the controversy of issues relating to the European Union, immigration, and the only very recently more earnest Boris Johnson. Prime Minister Theresa May has made the decision to feed Mr Johnson the power for which he eternally begs, but keeping Boris at bay is vital to the stability of her leadership. Gaffes, policy rejection, and rebellion could result in a challenge to her leadership just as messy as that carried out by Gove towards Johnson.

Theresa May has shown in the past that she is a formidable leader. She is one of few Home Secretaries to emerge from the position with their reputation unscathed enough to battle on in the cabinet. With the right foresight and meticulousness, Mrs May could indeed revive the Tory party to its former robustness. As the internal lining of the Conservative party fabric is now close to tearing, it is vital that stitches it back together, with Theresa May pushing her cabinet ministers and backbenchers into line with her tough approach – especially Boris Johnson.

UK politics has never before been so Machiavellian, based on opportunism, and required such precise tactics. If the nation’s new Prime Minister shows any signs of flinching, those on the other side of the Tory party will surely squirm their way out of their muzzles immediately, Boris Johnson clenching the reins. Theresa May had better have had her game plan drawn up weeks ago. The careerism and ambition of Boris Johnson has certainly not been halted, but the Prime Minister must fast minimise it. Clever manipulation by Mrs May of her internal opponents is what will veer them away from her new political stomping ground. Johnson is the Prime Minister’s biggest threat, but whether or not he will be a success or a failure is her call.

Standard
American Politics, human rights, society, UK Politics, World Politics

Only our governments can end invasive surveillance, but they won’t

support-whistleblower-edward-snowden-with-bitcoin_snowden-bitcoin-3_1462267475

Geo-tagging a memorable photo, signing up for a social networking account, or sending a text message each seem like pretty innocent actions at face value. But with a fast flurry of government dogma in relation to omnipresent extremism, our civil liberties are placed at risk more and more with each day. Desperate to combat the threats of violent militants around the world, many governments have rapidly introduced intense surveillance measures, nowadays monitoring our every snap, move, and spoken word.

The continuing advent of technology is, needless to say, hugely exciting. But governments throughout many countries are getting down to curbing our freedoms on social networks, city streets, and even the most innocent of conversations to a monumental extent. The worrying facet of newly-introduced monitoring legislation is that the idea of freedom amongst global citizens is becoming something very 20th century indeed.

Enshrined in myriad global agreements, treaties and conventions, the right to privacy is precious and essential. So precious and essential, it seems, that our leaders are intent on enshrining it for only the very few – perhaps, very soon, even for none at all. It is estimated that nowadays one CCTV camera exists for every 11 people. It was reported in 2014 that many of our phone service providers willfully pass user data to surveillance bodies as if it comes on an endless factory conveyor belt.

There is no denying that extremism is becoming a frightening global epidemic which must be dealt with fast. Of course, with the most devastating of criminals, the resources that come with such intrinsic surveillance are no doubt invaluable. But already, a gargantuan range of measures which may soon veer our lives into public view for the wrong reasons have come into action.

The formidable Home Secretary, Theresa May, has built a reputation for her iron fist when it comes to the contentious issues of surveillance. For several years, the nation’s surveillance body – GCHQ – has seen a rapid increase in privileges relating to the covert monitoring of any citizen, personal communications interception, and intense collection of biometric data. In recent days, the Labour party and SNP have demanded numerous concessions be made for the next stage of the British Snooper’s Charter. Information as personal as medical records may become searchable with a warrant, and attacks on journalists becoming easier to set up could see the fabric of our free press start to fray.

Similarly, in the US, spying is becoming worryingly commonplace. CCTV figures are on the rise, and the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has spoken volumes. Data archives on every citizen of some of the world’s most powerful nations are becoming vast. No matter their position in society, the biggest secrets and most private facts of our lives are at threat of unfair exposure.

With such highly personal data in the hands of some of society’s largest and most powerful bodies, interception must be highly regulated, and details of the innocent safeguarded. Global governments have shown recently, though, that they may not be competent enough to take charge of such sensitive information, and that we may never regain the sense of privacy in which we once revelled.

Society is becoming like that most dreaded by George Orwell. With an influx of technology, not only police forces and our elected officials govern us. Social networks set political agenda, filtrating the news we see, and communications services can store our every click or instant message. Reports of Facebook’s anti-right-wing bias shows the political power it wields nowadays, and without a fierce revolution the strength of its unbalanced news crusade will not disappear. To top this, the company has been embroiled in many a court case over its draconian tactics of retaining its users’ personal information. When it comes to moderating such tactics, only our national governments can preside forcefully. But the far-ranging problem is that our governments are indeed involved in the collection of citizen data.

Who, then, is able to voice concern and reinstate our precious rights to privacy? Whilst hearty protest from the people can help raise awareness of the issue, it seems that only a revolution from inside can aid the government in its new data war. The problem lies with the government and society’s elites, whom are in control of social media, multinational companies, and, of course, our legislative bodies.

Regulation of such data interception is vital, but is just too weak. This week, MI5 has been vehemently attacked for its lack of seriousness in the scrutiny of interception cases, failing to seek fully fleshed out justification. It was also reported last month in the Guardian that the US foreign intelligence body didn’t at all deny any requests for surveillance last year. Further to this, the Guardian reported recently that the US Supreme Court has just granted investigatory forces new powers for surveillance. The line of human rights allowances is being forgotten. Our governments, responsible for this implementation are those who have the ability to revoke their legislation. The lack of scrutiny of surveillance policy worldwide highlights that, without staunch opposition, our civil liberties will soon become fully eroded.

The only success in highlighting the wrongdoing of international governments in surveillance has been had by whistleblowers, however. Perhaps they are the answers. Parliamentary oppositions are proving too weak. NSA leaker Edward Snowden successfully brought to light the infiltrating spying techniques of the US government, in the same way that Chelsea Manning helped to share the truth to WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, too, is invaluable in the fight to regain civil liberties. If our governments are too slow to act, we can trust only those in public office, and those who see the first-hand effects of such a privacy invasion to stand up for the fairer option of privacy.

Our leaders are the crafty ones here. With a rise in terrorism and organised crime, our elected officials our playing to our fears. Paranoia is what fuels such an intrusive media and privacy campaign. The success of the aforementioned surveillance methods has been far and few, and opens up the possibilities of not just privacy, but other human rights becoming forgotten in the future. We cannot let international atrocities make our global society that which is desired by extremists. Those who inflict terror hope for the days when our moral integrity is brought to the knees, and the intensive monitoring carried out by out governments is providing the foundations for such an outcome.

With such a large number of those aware of Tory plans for current and increase surveillance tactics disapproving, something is wrong. This is not just a UK disease, but one taking the whole globe by storm. With the justification of crime levels rising and extremism prevailing, harsher surveillance will continue to become implemented. Vocal opponents have shown to be the only way to discourage the ethos of paranoia which is sweeping society. Only internal revolution can dissuade our leaders now. For the vast majority of citizens, invasive monitoring is wholly unnecessary. Until our MPs, courts, parliaments and leaders largely realise that society will only become more fragmented, timid and fearful, one of our greatest and most important rights will be further forgotten.

Standard