Golden Apple Awards 2020 – Page 3

COVID-19, Politics and the English Language

Described to me by one academic as “a reaction to the age of political bullsh—”, George Orwell’s classic essay, Politics and the English Language, should be any writers’ gold standard. I personally think that Orwell’s Six Rules should be hung from a wall in the office of every journalist, editor and academic; not to mention, every business consultant and political assistant.

‘Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.’

Alas my wishes will never materialise. But in our current health, economic and political crisis, our ability to transmit ideas has never been more important. Unfortunately, it is Rule 5 that has been trampled on in the government response and has provoked frustrations over clarity.

As I write, I am hands over keyboard, ready for the next COVID-19 briefing, and poised to look out for the customary, rehearsed one liners, deliberate ambiguity and (what Orwell deemed to be) ‘pretentious diction’.

And that confirms that Orwell is as relevant in 1946 as in 2020.

Orwell’s notion that modern prose and speech is moving ‘away from concreteness’ continues to stare us (the laypeople) in the face. Matt Hancock has apparently “upgraded the guidance” on social interaction, with his method of finding this upgrade being “the right thing”. Meanwhile, he has “high degree of confidence” in the supply of oxygen, when asked how he was to improve oxygen supply across the country. Far from the jargon-free utopia that Orwell and I would dream of, these dressed up phrases diminish the clarity necessary in a time of crisis through being a product of ‘slovenliness and vagueness’. Offering little in the way of coherent answers, these jargon-laden answers are the very source of confusion between Government and its examiners.

To cap it all off, in an affront to meaningful words, Hancock described law as an “emphatic requirement” of his own, and called for “perseverance in the face of great challenges”. Where Orwell criticises the use of such meaningless words as an attempt at deception, in 2020, deception has clearly been replaced with deliberate ambiguity. Indeed, there exists a small difference. The former, an attempt to hide or distort the truth. The latter, a coping mechanism of sorts. An attempt at changing the lens on the camera, rather than changing the object being photographed.

Yet regardless of this distinction, one of Orwell’s metaphors comes to mind. Here is Orwell in full flow:

“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts”

Exemplified by Matt Hancock today, our modern prose is full of bad habits. It is often unclear, sometimes intentionally complex and jargon-laden. Never have we needed clarity, simplicity and easy language more than our present circumstance of taking daily directions from central government. In the age of 24/7 news and mass scrutiny of government, I am confident that it will pay dividends for the first brave person/poor soul, to write and speak with honesty and clarity. I do not pretend for one second that this will be popular, easy or even possible, yet it is something, that in a time of crisis we should aim for.

Churchill, speaking before Orwell’s publication, convinces me of the effectiveness that comes with clear language. “We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender”. In this – the most recognisable section of any speech given by Churchill – Churchill uses no jargon-laden words, no ‘long words where a short one will do’ and just one word from a classical derivation. Whilst no politician in our modern era competes for Churchill’s oratory skill, a language following Orwell’s Six Rules is most certainly one that maximises the coherence of the interaction between subjects and their leaders.

I am in no doubt that throughout the course of writing this, I have broken Orwell’s Six Rules multiple times. But surely in the name of good governance at a time of crisis our leaders must turn away from this new ‘age of political bullsh—’.

Written by Joshua Castle

Sources:

George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (London: Penguin, 2013) p.19.

Ibid. p.8

Matt Hancock, Coronavirus Press Conference, BBC: 05/04/2020

George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, p.1

No other way. Biden needs the Left to stop Trump.

Just less than a month ago, on March 17, two things were starting to get clear in the United States. The first of them was the sudden realization of the Trump administration regarding the coronavirus outbreak and its seriousness. By March 17, all 50 states had been hit with more than 100 dead and 6000 infected nationwide, as the BBC reported. Yet, it took all of this to happen for the leader of the nation to shift his rhetoric from “totally under control” to “I’ve felt that it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic”. As of today, according to the Worldometer that tracks all the coronavirus cases worldwide, the situation in the United States looks grim and terrifying. More than 300,000 cases have been confirmed, with the US becoming the world’s most affected country, heavily surpassing both Spain and Italy. And, as if that was not enough, the President warned everyone that the upcoming weeks are going to be the “toughest”, and that the worst is yet to come.

Graph source: Worldometer, last updated: April 05, 2020, 10:48 GMT

All of this, undeniably, leads to a simple conclusion. The United States, and the world, is in a desperate need for steady and strong leadership. And interestingly enough, this has to do with the second event that occurred on that same March 17 Tuesday last month. It was then when it was reported that Joe Biden, who definitely had a poor start in the Democratic primary battle, will win all of the three major states(Florida, Illinois, Arizona) that were at stake that night. What is more, it turned out to be a comfortable, even “easy”, according to The New York Times, victory for the former Vice President. After that night, the math was showing that that Biden had managed to secure a total of 1,217 delegates against 914 for his major opponent Senator Bernie Sanders. And while it was, and still is true, that a majority of 1,991 pledged delegates must be won in order to secure the Democratic presidential nomination, the numbers are a good indicator to illustrate that Bernie Sanders, who unquestionably embodies the Left in America, will most probably not succeed in his march to the White House.

Source: Associated Press, last updated: 3 April 2020, 00:51:26

More disappointing, however, will surely be the prospect that the Left idea might not succeed. Just as it was the case in 2016, the Democratic establishment turned out to be an extremely formidable enemy. This time it showed it when practically all of the centrist, moderate candidates united behind the Biden candidacy in order to turn an election that, otherwise, they would have probably lost against the Sanders base if not united behind one candidate. Endorsement after endorsement helped Joe Biden get a desperately needed boost, especially after an abysmal showing in the first caucuses and primaries. Furthermore, openly promising to pick a woman for the VP spot and securing endorsements from people like Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a perceived Sanders ally, only solidified Biden’s lead. Not to mention the fact that Elizabeth Warren, another person who the logic dictated would endorse the most progressive candidate, Sanders, apparent refusal to do so, felt not only like a shocker, but more like a betrayal to the progressive base. All of this, combined with the increasing media pressure for Sanders to end his presidential campaign, has led the Senator’s team to “assess” his campaign and the potential path forward.

Of course, it is impossible not to spot the little irony behind this situation. Especially now, that the Sanders campaign is all focused on fighting and leading the charge against the coronavirus. And now that, as it was brilliantly put by New Yorker writer Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, it is the reality that has endorsed Sanders. In other words, saying that the Senator’s main policy proposals, such as Medicare for All, are more than critically needed in the current unprecedented crisis the US, and the whole world, is facing. And even though ideas like Medicare for All and tightening the enormous wealth inequality gap that currently exists in the US, seem more than reasonable, and despite Sanders still having mathematical chances of winning the nomination, the opposition he is facing will only get even more vicious from now on.

Here, however, arises the biggest problems for the Democratic establishment. Even if it finally manages to somehow stop Sanders, it will still, again ironically, need the full support of his base in order to accomplish its main objective – beating Trump in November. And it will not be unreasonable to express that the Sanders’ base has little to do with the Biden base when it comes to policy, main causes, and overall ideology and understanding of how politics should be done. Biden might represent the status quo, and the way that the Democratic Party currently operates and wants to operate, but it is Sanders who represents the future. And this future about much more than a single ideolog or a single election. It is a future In which everybody should have the same rights to healthcare, a living wage, affordable housing, and decent life. A future in which billions would be spent on education, healthcare and progress, and not on foreign policy blunders. A future in which politicians would represent and fight for the ordinary people, not for the corporations, the banks, and the ultrawealthy.

And although this is yet to happen in the future, Biden will surely need to compromise with himself now and implement some of Bernie Sanders’ policy ideas and vision. There is no other way Biden can deserve the support of the Left that he really needs to take on Trump. It is not too farfetched to think that Democrats do not want to repeat the 2016 mistakes. Then, rhetoric of the ‘unity’, ‘vote blue no matter what’ type, would not suffice. Not in today’s world of politics. Actions would have to be taken, and Biden would definitely have to do something in order to appeal to the Sanders voters. Otherwise, it will be virtually impossible for him to take on Trump and win. After all, you cannot win if you do not energize such large chunks of the electorate like the young people, the outsider voters and the voters who are anti-establishment. All of whom are Sanders supporters.

Without a doubt, a glimpse at Biden’s record through the years shows that this is very unlikely to happen. The fact of the matter is, that Biden has never been a progressive champion and has not fought on most of the same fronts that Sanders has. And thus, it is understandable that people will be sceptical about such a future prospect. However, given the extreme situation in the world now, and the need for powerful leadership more than ever, compromises will have to be made if Biden wants to win. If not trough direct policy promises, at least, as the progressive political commentators Kyle Kulinski has noted, through offering the VP spot to someone like Senator Nina Turner, a main Sanders surrogate and an honest fighter for progressive change. Someone who will appeal to the Left and will pursue the main ideals of the field.

One thing is certain. A Biden win in November heavily involves the Left. In one way or another. Otherwise, Democrats should prepare for something worse than 2016 in 2020.

Written by Zafir Zafirov

Bibliography:

A New Leader, A New Time for the Labour Party, but Big Challenges Remain

With recent events you may not have been aware, or perhaps you forgot, that the Labour Party was having its long and drawn out Party Leadership Election. The results are in anyway, Keir Starmer is victorious and will succeed Jeremy Corbyn as Party Leader. Starmer’s task is not an easy one, he takes over at a dire time for the Labour party. Like the Tories during 1997-2005, Labour are in their new “wilderness years”, if they are not careful, they will suffer another defeat in 2024 and Tories will be in power for another 5 years. Starmer must rebuild the Labour Party after the recent general election, where the party won 202 seats having lost 60 from 2017, making it their worst performance in an election since 1935.

Starmer needs to decide how he is going to regain trust and support of traditional Labour voters and regain Labour heartlands, the so called “Red Wall”, where the party collapsed in 2019. He will also have to decide what a post Brexit Britain Labour Party will look like, and what it will say on the big issues facing the country. But also, and probably a more difficult task, he must decide where the ideological fate of his party will lie, whether he remains to the left or moves to centre, similar to where New Labour went or perhaps somewhere in between. Whatever he does decide to do, not everyone will be happy in the Labour Party. And of course, he must tackle the evil of anti-Semitism in the party which will be a true test of his leadership early on.

This article will aim to show just how big a task is facing Keir Starmer, and what those problems are. Labour have until 2024 to prepare for the next general election, and as Harold Wilson once said “a week is a long time in politics” so there is plenty that could go wrong for the Conservatives and plenty that could go right for the Labour Party in that time. Only three men have won elections for Labour since 1945, Attlee, Wilson and Blair. Time will tell if Starmer joins them or whether he joins the ranks of Kinnock, Miliband and Corbyn.

The 2019 Election marked another turbulent time in British politics. This was the third general election in four years and the ninth major electoral contest in the decade. The Labour Party and the UK were going into this election against the backdrop of Brexit, a Parliament that was unable to agree a Withdrawal Agreement or anything in fact and a mood of great anger in the country. The Tories had been in power for nine years and the government saw the lowest satisfaction scores for the way in which it was running the country for any administration since John Major’s (Ipsos MORI, 2019). Normally, after the “cost of governance” and satisfaction levels like that, this should have been an easy win for the Labour Party. Far from it.

One reason for their defeat was that Labour faced an electoral dilemma, how to hold onto their collation of voters from the 2017 election? At the time, the party on the one hand had a majority of Labour MPs (61%) represented constituencies that had a majority leave vote in 2016, whilst on the other a clear majority of Labour voters (68%) supported Remain in 2016 (BES, 2019). Labour was doomed from the start, there was no way the party could hold onto both of these very different and distinct groups at the same time. And what we saw at the 2019 election was exactly that, Labour losing in many leave voting areas. The Conservatives captured ‘fifty-seven seats, all but three from Labour. These included traditional Labour heartlands in the so-called ‘red wall’: Great Grimsby (Labour since 1945); Bishop Auckland (1935); Basset-law (1935); Wakeﬁeld (1932); Leigh (1922); Don Valley (1922); and Bolsover (a seat Labour had never lost when contesting) (Cutts, et al., 2020). So, the challenge for Starmer and the Labour Party going forward is: how to win these voters and seats back? How to build a more permanent and united coalition of support for the Labour Party? Unfortunately, for the Labour Party the loss of support amongst their traditional working-class base, known as the “falling ladder”, has been a long time coming, as Figure 1 shows:

Figure 1: The difference between Labour and Conservative vote share by class composition of English and Welsh constituencies, 2010–2019

(Cutts, et al., 2020, p. 17)

Figure 1 shows the enormous task facing Starmer, he must pick the ladder back up and prevent this election from becoming a realigning moment. Many in Labour will be hoping that 2019 was a one off, that people lent their votes to the Conservatives because of Brexit and will return to the Labour Party after. Of course, Labour will have to earn their vote back but there is a logic to that idea. Now that Britain has left the EU but is in the transition period as it negotiates a future trade deal with our European neighbours, perhaps this dividing line in our politics will weaken. In a recent poll there was 46-54 split in favour of staying out indicated a small swing in favour of Brexit since January (Woodcock, 2020). So perhaps once, excuse me here, “we get Brexit done” there will be a focus on other issues in a post Brexit Britain. Issues that the Labour Party can be stronger on, and issues that enable them to start winning back the support of the voters it lost in 2019.

So, what drove former Labour voters to other parties? Understanding why these voters left might help the party in winning them back. As you can see in Figure 2, Jeremy Corbyn/leadership was the main reason voters did not support Labour in the 2019 election according to this poll. The Labour Party will now hope that the election of Starmer as leader will settle this issue and his name will not be as toxic for the party on the doorsteps. However, Figure 1 also shows that there was much to Labour’s failings in 2019 than just leadership.

Figure 2: What drove former Labour voters back to other parties?

(YouGov, 2019)

Brexit, as mentioned above, played a significant role. Perhaps, like leadership, this will now be settled, and voters will not be turned off by Labour. But the other telling issue raised by Figure 2, is that people did not trust Labour on policy and economic competence. There was a feeling this time around that the Labour manifesto and policies were undeliverable and would cost too much. This was consistent with polling before the election, which showed that the majority (63%) thought that Labour’s policies are not realistically deliverable, and that the party would not deliver on its promises. Former Labour voters said in their own words that they: “did not trust the manifesto, you cannot keep borrowing to pay for services”, that “the socialist policies were frightening” and “the sums didn’t add up for all the things they promised if they got in” (YouGov, 2019). This represents a significant challenge for Starmer now coming into the top job in the Labour Party. He and his party need to convince voters that Labour can be trusted on the economy and the public finances if they have any hope of becoming a credible option for the voters.

Finally, I would like to talk about another major problem for the Labour Party. Scotland does not get raised enough in terms of Labours problems as much as it should; Scotland is another once traditional heartlands that they have lost. In 2010, even right in the dying days of New Labour, the party manged to have forty-one seats out of fifty-nine in Scotland (BBC News, 2010). At the 2019 election the Labour Party lost six seats and was left with just one seat (BBC News, 2019). The massive decline in Scotland creates a big problem for Labour. For the Labour Party to win a majority, the party must start winning seats back off the SNP and other parties. Otherwise Labour will have to win more seats in England and Wales. This requires an even bigger swing, as the party will need to take seats of the Conservatives, where there are majorities of over 10,000, no easy task. Labour must re-find its political place in Scotland amongst the Nationalist versus Unionist debate or risks remaining in the side-lines of Scottish politics and out of government in the UK.

If the Labour Party is to start winning elections and return to government, then it must address the issues listed in this article. It is currently facing a significant moment in the party’s history, whether it chooses to return to power and credibility, or whether it continues deeper into the political wilderness. It will not be easy, but the path back to having a Labour Prime Minister and a Labour government can start now. We will see if they, and Starmer take it.

Written by Lewis Virgo

Bibliograpy

BBC News (2010) Election 2010 [Online] BBC.
Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/7.stm
[Accessed 4 4 2020].

BBC News, (2019) Election 2019 [Online] BBC.
Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2019/results/scotland
[Accessed 4 4 2020].

BES, 2019. Labour’s electoral dilemma [Online] BES.
Available from: https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/labours-electoral-dilemma/#.Xoc-UIhKhEY
[Accessed 3 April 2020].

Cutts, D. Goodwin, M. Heath, O. & Surridge, P. (2020) ‘Brexit, the 2019 General Election and the Realignment of British Politics’. The Political Quarterly, 91 (1), pp. 7-23.

Ipsos MORI, (2019) Worst public satisfaction ratings for any government since John Major [Online] Ipsos MORI.
Available from: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/worst-public-satisfaction-ratings-any-government-john-major
[Accessed 3 April 2020].

Woodcock, A. (2020) UK still divided over Brexit with almost half country wanting to rejoin EU, poll finds [Online] The Independent.
Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-brexit-latest-poll-rejoin-eu-younger-older-divide-a9384661.html
[Accessed 3 April 2020].

YouGov, (2019) YouGov In their Own Words: Why Voters Abandonded Labour [Online] YouGov.
Available from: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/23/their-own-words-why-voters-abandoned-labour
[Accessed 4 April 2020 ].

How the ‘Washington Consensus’ allowed the global core to exploit the global periphery though unfair exchange from a World Systems Theory lens.

What is ‘The Washington Consensus”?

A neoliberal economic plan to introduce the free market to periphery states in the form of Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) which made less economically developed states (LEDS) increase funding in their industrial and manufacturing sector. This was done while state recipients of Structural Adjustment Loans (SALs) had to cut their health spending by 25% and education by 50% for some of the poorest citizens on earth. This was masked as a form of ‘development’ but saw the devaluing of developing states currencies and a lower standard of living.

How did “The Washington Consensus” affect trade?

One of the prerequisites of SALs was for periphery states to embrace free trade thus opening their economy to the world, SAPs would mean that their economy was suddenly transformed into one like their western counterparts. This in turn made recipient states reliant on Western trade in order to stay afloat. Periphery states that received SALs had to take on SAPs such as reducing their tariffs to 10-20% which allowed other states to export goods to them at very low rates. This is while developed states such as the United States (US) kept their tariffs high on agricultural products and continued to subsidies their agriculture sector.

Through these means developed states have made periphery states dependent on agricultural imports which are cheaper than produce grown in those less developed states due to western agricultural subsidies. This has lead to the top ten agricultural exporters being core states, the majority of which are Western. This partnered with other SAPs such as the introduction of foreign direct investment (FDI), privatisation and deregulation allows for periphery states domestic economies to be taken over by core states.

What affects of “The Washington Consensus” can we see today?

Since SAPs brought their recipient periphery states into the free market dependency has only grown, both in terms of food and aid. Since the implementation of SALs the states that inhabit the core, semi-periphery and periphery have changed, as they do depending on power and economic influence. One of these changes has been China’s move to the core. Since then China has gained a massive amount of influence in Africa and now holds a monopoly on most of the African Union’s (AU) economy. This level of economic control has given China, now a core state, a huge amount of fiscal power over the AU. The AU now have no choice but to back China on the international stage in exchange for their continued ‘support’.

In exchange for this ‘support’ China not only has a fiscal monopoly but exploits AU states open economies. Through FDI China has opened mines in a variety of African states, for example Zambia. FDI from China has been shown to have a negative effect on the standard of living on Zambians as well as the erosion of trading regulations and working conditions. This is further highlighted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where China have purchased both the rights to copper and cobalt mining. Cobalt being a highly sought after material, as it is used in virtually all rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, China takes it from the DRC at a very low price, this shows the amount of unequal exchange that can be brought about by a lack of FDI regulation, via The Washington Consensus, as the cobalt market “will hold an aggregate global market value of $12.93 billion between 2019 and 2025”. Despite being the top global producer of cobalt the DRC only sees roughly 15 per cent of the revenue as their revenue from cobalt is $1.9 billion, the rest goes to technological manufacturers after being distributed by China, a clear example of unfair exchange.

A similar situation can be seen in Haiti, but not so blatantly. Haiti has a very high rate of food dependency with a huge 36.12 per cent of their imports being food, agriculture or animal products, and the US being their single biggest importer. Conversely, a huge 83 per cent of Haiti’s exports go to the US, 89 per cent of which are textiles.

Before SAPs Haiti was virtually self sufficient when it came to rice, this was until they were encouraged to liberalize their economy by The Washington Consensus. By 2010 Haiti was importing 80 per cent of their rice, which has had an overwhelmingly negative impact on rural Haitians. Because of this effect Haitians have been forced to produce textiles, in order to survive in their own states now free market economy, which are in demand in core states like the US.

Both the examples of the AU, and Haiti, on a smaller level show how states that have received SALs in accordance with The Washington Consensus have been pushed to the periphery due to mounting economic pressure form core states.

Despite Bill Clinton, former US President and later the United Nations’ (UN) Envoy to Haiti, saying that the US supply of rice to Haiti was “a mistake” the US has continued its export of the product. In 2015 Haiti is receiving its largest imports of rice from the US, supplying 90 per cent of their rice. This costs Haiti almost two thirds of the aid sent to them by the US, and once all other imports from the US are taken into account the US has made a profit out of this periphery state, this exploitation has stemmed entirely from the SAPs imposed by The Washington Consensus causing an unfair exchange.

What does it all mean?

Without major international trade reform such as debt forgiveness regarding the $15 billion structural adjustment lending in sub-Saharan Africa alone, and help from core states, self sufficiently for the periphery states will not be achievable.

What little action has been taken since the Doha 2001 round table we have seen as well as international inaction towards the US and China’s FDI in Haiti the AU, respectively can be expected to continue as the demand for fast fashion and minerals such as cobalt grows.

Written by Josh Trood

Why Trump isn’t talking Turkey: His Largest Foreign Policy Blunder

While the world has quite justifiably been in a manic panic about the rapid spread and global shutdown which has been caused by the Covid-19 (aka coronavirus) epidemic, and Trump’s seemingly lack-luster response to the situation, many have overlooked one of the larger blunders in his presidency. The blank cheque he has essentially given Turkish President Erdogan when it comes to the Middle East.

Last year, as part of Trump’s plan to pull-out American service members and military officials, and reduce the American presence in the Middle East, he decided to withdraw troops that were stationed in key chokepoints in Northern Syria. This came with a massive upset, particularly from the Kurdish population who have been crucial allies in the fight against the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations who have been operating in that region for the last half decade. The vacuum that was created by this preemptive withdrawal meant that Turkish Forces had the opportunity to invade Northern Syria, which they ended up doing in the latter part of 2019, resulting in massive casualties on the Syrian and Kurdish fronts.

Trump responded to this development by sending the Turkish President a letter, promising economic sanctions and crashing the Turkish economy if he wasn’t willing to negotiate a ceasefire. This request, evidently, was ignored as Turkey has continued its operations in Northern Syria and has scaled up its military presence in the region. This has further added to the chaos and disorder which has long been a part of the region during the Syrian Civil War, and it has created a myriad of other issues for all parties involved. It forced the Kurdish forces in an uneasy alliance with the Syrian Arab Army and the Assad government to push back the Turkish invasion in October, devastating American relations with one of their most trusted allies in the region. It has bolstered Russia’s influence over the region, with Ankara effectively ignoring any deals proposed by Washington in favor of Moscow. And, most devastatingly of all, it has led to the deaths of thousands of people and displaced even more Syrians and Kurds. This has led to the continued strain of the refugee crisis in the Middle East and has forced tens of thousands of people to make their way to the Greek-Turkish border, further adding strain to relations with traditional NATO allies. Erdogan openly allowed a wave of refugees and migrants to move towards Greece, with the intent of putting pressure on NATO and the EU to get their support. Suffice to say, the situation is getting to be even more chaotic, with Turkey’s scaled-up involvement, and potentially causing conflicts on two-fronts.

And Trump has remained silent… why?

Well, being an election year, and being a year which has already been wrought with disasters for the current occupants of the White House (such as their original laissez-faire response to the Covid-19 outbreak), it would be a massive disadvantage to draw attention to one of the largest blunders that the Trump administration has made with their foreign policy.

Trump has unfortunately boxed himself into a horrendous situation; he’s tried to reduce military presence overseas, at the cost of the stability and reassurance that American forces bring to unstable parts of the world. He has seemingly been far too trusting that other powers in the region, such as Erdogan’s Turkey, will not have any greater vested interest in getting involved with the conflict, and will somehow fall in line with the NATO mission, instead of acting within their own best political and economic interests. Not even the Democrats, apart from Tulsi Gabbard, have touched on the issue, creating the atmosphere that there is no sense of responsibility coming from Washington that they have contributed to this mess with a massive lack of foresight.

Unfortunately, the situation in Syria, like so many other things in 2020, is likely to get worse before it gets better. Trump’s lack of any words or action further cements that the conflict, and the resulting effect it has on ordinary people; both in the Middle East and across the globe, is not going to subside anytime soon.

Written by Ilija Dokmanovic

The Politics Behind the Coronavirus

With 319 confirmed cases in the UK at the time of writing, it is easy to forget that this is only 0.0005% of the population of the United Kingdom, but with the domination of headlines, depleting stocks and self-isolation on the rise comes a new set of challenges for the still relatively fledgling UK government.

This is a pivotal time for the government to decide it’s course of action, up until now the response has been relatively measured compared to other European countries, with the NHS suggesting the washing of hands for forty seconds and not touching our faces. All while France bans gatherings of over 1,000 people and Ireland introduces a €3 billion aid package to combat the virus, despite only having 24 confirmed cases. But with panic rising here in the UK, should the government do more? And how will it affect the politics surrounding it?

The government’s chief medical advisor, Prof Chris Whitty, has said in a recent press conference “We are now very close to the time, probably within the next 10 to 14 days, when the modelling would imply we should move to a situation where everybody with even minor respiratory tract infections or a fever should be self-isolating for a period of seven days”. This will have major repercussions across the country and likely lead to the isolation of those unnecessarily. Economically, this will have major impacts, already we can see stocks across the world plummeting, this will only add fuel to the fire and could put a halt to basic services such as bin collection. Depending on the scale of economic impact and how much the government does to cushion the economic impact on everyday people we could see a disastrous performance for the conservatives at the upcoming local election. At current the May local elections are set to go ahead as planned, but with Prof Whitty admitting that the virus is likely to spread “really quite fast”, it is unlikely that the turnout for the May local elections will be on par with the usual levels of turnout, raising the question of their democratic legitimacy.

While some worried of the financial implications of self-isolation, by the government announcement of statutory sick pay from day one from those self-isolating, this does not extend to those on zero hours contracts, all 883,000 people. They have been advised to claim universal credit, which takes a minimum of one calendar month since the date an application is submitted. For people living pay check to pay check this could have disastrous repercussions for them as they self-isolate without the funds to remain above the breadline, especially in light of the recent panic buying which has seen prices of basic house hold items such as toilet paper, skyrocket.

The coronavirus will have major implications on the global stock market with the FTSE100 expected to fall 6.3%. Stock markets in the US and Europe are expected to see their biggest falls since the 2008 financial crisis following huge loses in the Asian market in Monday. This could have effects on both domestic politics and international relations across the world. If we do see a global recession, as many fear we will, this could see a major turn in the US general election and create similar circumstances to the 2008 US general election which saw Obama’s ascension to the white house and the democrats winning the senate. Trump is currently riding the wave of a good economy, if this is to change, we could see a want in the US for change. So much so that it could sway the democratic primaries in Bernie Sanders’ favour if the US public see a need, such as an economic downturn, to move away from the status quo. The same could be seen in the UK in the May local elections. On an international level, production could be brought into the fray as states that would not usually be able to compete but are not as effected by corona virus are suddenly able to bode a challenge to states such as China, Russia and the US. For example, Saudi Arabia have made the decision to increase their crude oil production in an attempt to drive the US and Russia out of the market. We have also seen a major drop in production on china as workers remain in isolation. This has caused a major decrease in the region’s CO2 emissions amid the economic downturn.

One of the biggest side effects of the coronavirus has been the rise in racists attacks and abuse against people of Asian heritage in the UK and across the western world. While there is not yet a national number in relation to the coronavirus, there are at least six reports of attacks to Devon and Cornwall police, with other reports in London, Birmingham and across the UK. The UK Government has given little to no response on the rise in these attacks, whilst charity Tell MAMA, which records and measures anti-Muslim incidents in the United Kingdom, steps up to bring these cases to a national level alongside Asian student groups to campaign for support and stronger police presence to protect Asian communities in the UK.

Written by Josh Trood

UCU Strikes, we have been here before- but what next?

On Monday 24^th February, it happened, again. The UCU launched fourteen days of strike action. Last term from Monday 25^th November- Wednesday 4^th December, round one of strike action commenced, with a vote held by the Students Union concluding ‘70% of eligible voters, voted to support UCU’s strike action and its stance in its entirety’. This forms a consensus that the student body is on the side of the UCU, which means our anger is turned to Paul Layzell and the college.

Striking lecturers do not enjoy, I assume, missing work to stand outside in the cold and rain, moping about with no students to pester, losing their income- so what provokes this action? The strikes are protesting on issues regarding contributors to pension schemes, with the UCU calling for the university (employer) and not the lecturers (employees), to cover the deficit. The second disagreement is on pay and working conditions, the UCU believes pay has dropped for academic staff by 17% in real wages since 2009, based on findings from the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA). The working conditions element of the dispute focus on gender and BAME pay gap, increased casualisation of staff contracts and increased workloads. These are the exact same reasons lecturers walked out in November 2019, according to the UCU ‘the employers only agreed to properly discuss casualisation, workload and inequality arising from our decision to strike in November 2019. While their offer does represent progress, it is not enough, and they have now said their latest proposal is final – just as they did last May!’

Now, for a university which boasts of its history entrenched in women’s liberation, proclaiming through a very expensive four floor library, that Emily Wilding Davison herself attended the college (for one term until she could no longer afford the fees), the issues surrounding pay disparity is surely a huge embarrassment for this institution. Paul Layzell, what is going on? Well, we all know of Paul’s comments made back in November 2017 in a staff meeting, stating women have a “natural tendency to not have a go and put themselves in for promotion”. Furthermore, his comments came after figures released by Times Higher Education (THE) revealed the university has a 10% gender pay gap for full-time professors, making it the seventh worst in the country.

This questions the integrity of Mr Layzell to effectively address the strike action, how can we trust Layzell to support the rights of women and BAME academics if he can make these claims? As stated by the UCU, the universities had deemed their latest proposal their final after the November batch of strikes, however on the 5^th March the UCU realised their latest update stating ‘It’s clear that most employers have changed their position since our last dispute over USS. They are now willing to agree with us on a range of issues. The two reports of the Joint Expert Panel have vindicated our position.’ This is a glimmer of hope for students and striking staff, with more talks taking place on the 6^th March, could this be the last we see of the strikes?

As we prepare for the last five days of strikes, the progress of negotiations are imperative to how the next academic year will look. As a third year student who lost most of first year and now third year to strikes, based on the findings by the UCU and many conversations with striking lecturers, there is no short term fix. If the college and the UCU do not reach agreement by the end of this strike period, there can certainly be expectations that next academic year will look the same. The issues raised by lecturers and the UCU are not to be overlooked, and shake to the core the integrity of many high ranking universities, including Royal Holloway. What message is a university giving to its students if it cannot facilitate an environment of equality within its staff? How am I expected to trust the university on matters such as sexual harassment and discrimination if the university does not address pay disparity between its staff, and the structural, institutionalized, inequality at the centre of this disparity? Paul Layzell, it is time for change; and no matter the individual stances on strike action, the calls for change being made by the UCU are valid, and do deserve student support. Students and lecturers make this institution what it is, and we can shape it to how we see fit.

Everyone hopes there is an end to this strike action, but if conditions are not met, there must be student outcry against the injustices faced by academics at this institution, and the lack of reparations by the university to students missing an invaluable, expensive, education.

Written by Sarah Tennent

Sources:

https://www.su.rhul.ac.uk/news/article/surhul/UCU-Referendum-Result/https:/

/www.ucu.org.uk/media/10714/Pre-strike-negotiators-briefing-for-members–four-fights-11-Feb-20/pdf/ucu_fourfights_pre-strike-briefing_11feb20-.pdf

https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/10667/Negotiations-update-more-USS-talks-on-Friday

Non-EU states held to double standards, despite internal deficiencies

On the 18^th of February, the European Union increased the membership of its list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions to include the Cayman Islands, Palau, Panama, and the Seychelles following a meeting of the bloc’s finance ministers. This membership formally blacklists the aforementioned nations alongside several others, resulting in potential reputational damage, greater scrutiny in their financial transactions and the loss of EU funding, disadvantaging nations outside of the European economic powerhouse.

The Cayman Islands is the first UK territory to be added to the blacklist, only weeks after the formal departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union on January 31^st 2020, following a nearly four year withdrawal period. Since 2018, Cayman has adopted more than 15 legislative changes in line with EU criteria to satisfy the EU’s finance ministers, but it was determined regardless that the efforts made were not enough to avoid being demoted from the “grey list” – the list outlining nations to maintain an eye on – to the “blacklist”. Premier Alden McLaughlin, who is the head of the government, expressed his disappointment at the EU’s decision to move the Cayman Islands to the blacklist, noting that over the past two years, Cayman had cooperated with the EU to deliver on its commitment to enhance tax good governance.

This list, which was started in 2017, attempts to put pressure on countries to crack down on tax havens and unfair financial competition, and forcefully encourage legislative changes in order to be delisted. As of the conclusion of the last meeting, a total of twelve states are now listed as non-cooperative tax jurisdictions. As well as the four states added in February, Guam, Oman, Fiji, American Samoa, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago, the US Virgin Islands, and Vanuatu have also been blacklisted.

Controversially, the EU blacklist currently only screens non-EU states and has previously stated that its own member states were already applying high standards against tax avoidance. However, a bloc of EU states, led by the Danish government and backed by Germany, Spain, Austria and France, have prepared a document which urges a discussion on whether or not the European Union had sufficient internal safeguards against tax avoidance and evasion.

Three Member States of the EU, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Ireland, widely use low tax and other incentives to host the EU headquarters of foreign firms, which undermines many of the tax safeguards instilled by other EU states. Ireland, for example, hosts the headquarters of Google, Apple, Facebook, PayPal, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay, AOL, Twitter and Intel, who all enjoy the significantly lower corporation tax rate of 12.5%, as opposed to the 21% corporation tax currently in place in the United States. These three states were listed in a report by the International Monetary Fund researchers in September 2019 as world-leading tax havens, together with many of the nations currently o the blacklist.

It waits to be seen on whether or not the EU Blacklist will prevail as this situation develops, and whether or not the European Union will blacklist its own members in an effort to standardise their expectations of the global world. As it stands, the European Union’s duplicity and hypocrisy threatens to undermine this list, and the smaller nations look on in anticipation and hope that the European Union will come to a beneficial conclusion for their sake, and the sake of itself.

Written by Milo Dack

The decision on HS2, and the future implications for British infrastructure projects

On Tuesday 11^th February 2020, 5 months after Boris Johnson announced the Oakervee review into High Speed 2 and 11 years after the project was even proposed, the government finally declared that the project would indeed go ahead. Despite growing reservations in recent years over the mounting delays and the increase in the estimated cost from a budget of £56bn to a gargantuan £106bn, preparatory works will continue with the aim to complete the first phase and have trains running by 2028. The first phase will consist of a direct line from London Euston to Birmingham Curzon Street, with additional stops at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange. The second phase, broken into two sections with the first extending from Birmingham to Crewe, and the latter branching off to service the East Midlands, Leeds and York, has yet to receive Parliamentary approval. It will be sure to draw further fire from both opponents to the scheme in Parliament, and from public pressure groups and lobbyists.

Despite announcing the review barely a month after taking office as PM, it never appeared likely that Johnson would ultimately take the proposal behind the metaphorical barn and shoot it – instead the review has given Johnson a way of dodging some of the criticism that was sure to come from giving the proposal the green light. Despite endorsing the project, the review made clear that the endorsement came due to the lack of “shovel ready alternative investments” that would expand UK rail capacity between the north and south, in addition to the £9bn already sunk into the project. Partially insulated from criticism Johnson has been free to approve the project, albeit with changes designed to reign in costs and delays. These include a new ministerial position, which will be responsible for the project and its management on a full-time basis, non-executive directors have been overhauled and the development of the London Euston terminal has been spun out to a new management team.

There has also been a recent fresh twist with the revelation that China Railway Construction Corporation, a part-state-owned Chinese contracting giant, has been in talks with HS2 Ltd regarding a deal for the company to potentially step in and build the line. Such a deal would, according to CRCC, see the UK save billions in construction costs, with the firm aiming to complete the work within 5 years. Despite these claims however, the government has so far had no part in the talks. It also seems unlikely that CRCC will be able to take over all work on the line, given the advanced stage of preparatory work – instead a “joint venture” seems a more likely option.

In addition to this, there would be the added political difficulties of the UK government allowing a Chinese firm to build a major piece of UK infrastructure, particularly given the recent decision by the government to allow Huawei, a Chinese telecom firm, to “continue to be used” in the UK’s 5G networks. The decision was said to provoke dismay from the US intelligence services, which have lobbied extensively for European countries to ban Huawei from working on their networks, and ““apoplectic” fury” from Trump himself in a call to Johnson.

Written by Andrew Harris

You can’t consent to being killed: A call for the end of the consensual violence defence

On the 20^th February 2020, Grace Millane’s murderer was sentenced to life in prison for killing Grace, a 22 year old woman from Essex who was travelling the world. Her case made headlines, as Grace’s killer was a man she met on Tinder, and who she had agreed to have consensual rough sex with. While it was clear the evidence against this man was extremely vast, he was still allowed to use the argument that Grace had been accidentally killed during consensual rough sex as a key part of his defence. As the case high profile case has come to an end, many people are calling for an end to ‘consensual violence’ being a legitimate defence, saying that the current law does not do enough to protect the victim and the victims’ families, and allows for further victim blaming and shame.

Tabloid papers across the word jumped on the fact that the case focused on Grace’s sex life, jumping on the fact that suddenly it was seemed acceptable to share intimate details of her life and sexual history. An example of this is the New York Post, who ran the headline “Killed backpacker Grace Millane was into choking, BDSM“, simply repeating what her killer claimed she consented to, publishing it for everyone to read about. There was no tact when it came to the tabloids stories about the case, no thought for Grace’s friends and family who had to listen to people defend her killer and place blame on a young woman for having a sex life. Furthermore, it creates a worrying trend where yet again a women’s sexuality can be used to blame her for violence carried out against her.

‘We can’t consent to this’ is an advocacy group that was set up as a response to the increasing number of women being killed or hurt by men who have claimed that it was simply ‘sex gone wrong’, and that the violence they were subjected to was consensual. This defence is on the rise in recent years and simply just another form of victim blaming – one that the victim is often not around to defend. The group has found that 60 women in the UK have been killed by men who defended their actions by saying it was simply a sex act that had gone wrong, and that this line of defence was successful in 7 of the 17 killings that had reached trial. The result being that the men were found not guilty or not did not receive a manslaughter conviction.

While UK Law does state that no one can consent to their own death, it is clear that this does not go far enough and does not do enough in protecting the victim, who is not around to defend themselves. Due to the fact that in the last 5 years, the ‘consensual violence’ defence has been successful in nearly half of the killings that went to trial, people, especially women, are calling for a change in UK law. At the moment, advocacy groups have created petitions arguing that while the law should be clear, at the moment “consensual activity ‘gone wrong’ gives too good a chance of a lesser charge, lighter sentence, or a death not being investigated as a crime at all.”[1] The amendments purposed to the Domestic Abuse Bill call for there to be no defence for domestic abuse crimes by saying that it was consensual, something that has been a long time coming. However, due to the recent general election, passing the amendment into law has been slowed down, showing how there still needs to be a fight and a push to get it finalized and to stop men revictimizing the women that they killed. Without this amendment, violent men will continue to re-victimize the women that they chose to injure and even kill, more than likely be able to get away with it.

Written by Georgie Day

You can sign the petition to change UK Law here: https://www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-let-s-end-the-rough-sex-defence-604fb426-47ae-4d92-ad5a-75135fd020ff

Sources used:

https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-the-news/men-rough-sex-defence/

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0422/amend/domestic_rm_pbc_1007.1-3.html

https://wecantconsenttothis.uk/actnow

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/24/rough-sex-defence-murder-grace-millane

[1] https://wecantconsenttothis.uk/actnow