The Fate of Foreign Aid: A View of Britain’s International Assistance

Red Cross Workers, in America – just one of the types of organisation which provides international assistance. (via wikimedia commons)

Article Written by Taylor Norris, Political Commentator

Britain’s grip on the international stage as a leader in development and foreign aid is beginning to fade. Departments have been merged, cuts have been made, budgets have been reallocated, and vital programmes have been cut short. In a 2010 report by the Development Assistance Committee, the UK was described ‘as an international development leader in times of global crises’. In 2021, spending on aid was almost 20% lower than in 2020, its lowest since 2013. Britain’s vital supply line of development is dwindling at a time when it is most needed. Whether it’s budget cuts, the Ukrainian war, the pandemic or the merging of the FO (Foreign Office) and DFID (Department For International Development), Britain’s foreign aid has been reprioritised by the government.

What cuts were/will be made?

The original targets for 2021 were to spend 16.1 billion on aid, around 0.7% of GNI (Gross National Income). These targets were announced as part of the spending rounds back in 2013 and made into law in 2015. In 2021, the government ended their 0.7% commitment, instead, spending 11.5 billion, 0.5% of GNI.

The government justified the cuts by referencing a piece of legislation from 2015 that discloses ‘fiscal circumstances’ should the government fail to meet 0.7%. The fiscal circumstances, in this case, were the pandemic. According to an audit report, 11% of the UK’s 2020 aid budget was reprioritised to Covid initiatives. To the government, reducing the budget to 0.5% was a necessary decision to help public finances. However, not all hope is apparently lost, as the government has pledged to get aid back to 0.7% by 2024…

According to a publication from Save the Children, there’s a 2.8 million lump sum likely to be deemed ‘unessential’ and in the firing line for cuts. These will be programs such as education, energy, health, government & civil society, amongst others. It’s difficult to say what the government determines as ‘non-essential’. In fact, even MPs aren’t quite sure what the criteria is, as Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, has also sought clarification on what the department considers non-essential aid.  

Many seemingly essential services appear to have been cut, and according to an audit report, many cuts have been made with little consultation. The UNICEF fund will drop by 60%, UNAIDs is set to lose 80%, Médecins Sans Frontiers stated that programmes were cut overnight, and the WHO have said they’ve lost all UK funding for their Polio Eradication Initiative. By nations, aid was slashed by 69% in Syria, 62% in Bangladesh and 49% in South Sudan. Aid for Yemen went down by 87 million in 2021, and the IRC stated 11,000 girls in rural Pakistan wouldn’t be able to attend school due to cuts.

The Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom: but the Jewel in the Crown of the UK has often been its soft power, which could now be under threat. (via wikimedia commons)

Where does the budget go?

Before even thinking about what can and can’t be cut, much of the FCDOs budget is already allocated. Commitments to multilateral funds such as the World Bank, IMF, and global health initiatives mean cuts will have to hit somewhere else. Reportedly, the treasury has instructed the FCDO to stop ‘non-essential’ payments. Over three-quarters of the £9,200mn budget will likely be allocated to ‘essential’ payments. These will be payments like multilateral core funding, Covid vaccine donations, conflict, stability, security funds, etc. As a result, it looks like bilateral funding will have to bear the brunt of cuts.

Has Ukraine affected Britain’s foreign aid?

The UK has been a firm supporter of Ukraine, providing £2.3 billion in assistance up until now. It’s fair to say that Ukraine sits relatively high on top of the many international crises demanding the UK’s attention. But in a roundabout way, much of the budget allocated to Ukraine is spent domestically.

The UK has taken in around 115,000 Ukrainian refugees since August, and to support those refugees, the government has set up two schemes, the Sponsorship Scheme and the Family Scheme. For both schemes, expenses like accommodation, health, welfare and education are eligible to be counted under ODA (Official Development Assistance), which is a part of the UK’s aid budget. Although allowed, the UK is one of the few countries to count hosting costs under ODA and is the only G7 country that does. Of the £11 billion budget, £4 billion goes to multilateral commitments, with £7 billion for direct aid. Of that 7 billion, an astonishing half will be spent domestically, with 3 billion dedicated to Ukrainian refugees. This means, as Andrew Mitchell, Development minister at the Foreign Office, suggests, a mere 0.3% of GNI is being used for overseas development. The last time foreign aid was that low was in 1997. The foreign aid budget is being pinched from all directions at a time when some of the most pressing humanitarian crises -such as Sudan and Afghanistan, to name two- are just around the corner. You can’t fault the government for prioritising Ukraine, but the lack of transparency on where aid actually goes is concerning.

Recent cuts to foreign aid are a small part of the story when it comes to British foreign aid. 2020 marked the first time since 2013 that the 0.7% of GNI commitment wasn’t met. Undoubtedly, the pandemic affected the governments’ past ability to meet 0.7%, and Ukraine looks like it will affect its prospects. However, it is difficult to determine to what extent cuts made in the name of each crisis are justified.

 If we’re honest, the government’s position on foreign aid and development is nothing new. You can trace the government’s position on foreign aid back to 2020 with the merging of DIFID and the FCO. Amidst opposition and evidence of failure by the ICAI (Independent Commission for Aid Impact), the merging of the departments was never done because of the pandemic.

Although I paint a rather bleak image of the UK’s contribution to humanitarian aid, it’s important not to understate the UK’s international reputation on foreign aid. The UK is the third biggest donor of aid in the world and the fourth largest donor to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Historically, the UK has been a real leader in development and humanitarian aid, but recent cuts threaten to tarnish that reputation. With recent government proposals to restore aid to 0.7% of GNI, there is hope for those who so desperately need British aid right now.

Sources:

Red Cross: Bryan Dahlberg, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Crown Jewels: United Kingdom Government, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

We’re still here, but where are we going to be in the future?

Article Written By Deian Rhys Hughes, Political Commentator and Podcast Contributor

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you would know that this has been Wales’ first world cup since 1958. To put that into perspective, it’s been 64 years, and to put that into context, England’s men’s last international trophy was 58 years ago!

Sorry, had to say it…

As it’s our first world cup for that long, it’s important to note the political changes that have occurred since.

Wales, back then, wasn’t devolved. It was a region of the UK, which had an office in Cardiff, called the Welsh Office, which couldn’t legislate laws for the country. Its main job was to stamp the red dragon onto documents, to solidify them into the Welsh Landscape.

Now, since then, we have the Senedd or the Welsh Parliament, and our culture and identity as a nation have long changed.

By identity, I mean Welsh Identity, or rather, the lack of a singular ‘British Identity, being the main source of the description of those who live in the country.

Since Devolution, Wales has started the journey, of becoming a Self-Governing and confident nation, an aspiration nation, to which many across the world hold us dearly as.  A distinct and unique, small but fiery land, filled with joy and song, and of course, our sports teams, most notably the male and female football teams.

(I won’t say anything about the rugby for now…)

The impact that the Welsh FA has had on us as a nation cannot be underestimated, and is still, in my opinion, not widely discussed.

It has led to the revival of the Welsh identity, in an increasingly dystopian, post-Brexit, patriotic UK. It’s become a massive, progressive, and proud organisation, that’s made an incredible impact on the Welsh football scene and to a massive extent, our political scene, by bringing in Dafydd Iwan, to sing his already famous song within the Welsh Speaking circles, Yma o Hyd.

The song was originally a protest song, against Thatcherism, but it’s most importantly seen as a song that stands out among the Welsh Music world, as it celebrates the survival of Wales and the Welsh language.

The words ‘Yma o Hyd’ translate to ‘We’re still here, and it references the years of hardship the nation, culture, and Language, have faced.

Although the song was written in the 1980s, while the discussion about Wales’ place in the world was ongoing, it is still relevant today.

Even today, I still receive xenophobic or racist remarks about the Welsh language, my language. Of course, I expect to receive them elsewhere, but even in my capital city, I’ve been looked at oddly when speaking it, and heard people make comments about how funny the word ‘coch’ sounds, because it sounds looks like a word for, well, something else…

I’ve had numerous, childish incidents where people have told me that my language reminds them of someone scraping over a keyboard, or that when people realise, I’m a Welsh Speaker; they immediately make jokes about how we sound when we speak Welsh. I’m of course, up for a well-made joke, I’ve even made sheep ones myself. But I’ll just ask one question, it would be assumed to be racist to make fun of the sound of Arabic, Chinese, Indian or any other language in fact, why is it ok to do it for the Welsh Language?

After a lifetime of it, it goes from being vaguely humorous, to just boring, and depressing.

Of course, this does not describe all those who aren’t Welsh, as ignorant racists, but it tends to happen, often, sadly, and it’s not an issue that doesn’t seem to be getting attention.

All you have to do is look at the attitude of some on Twitter towards the Welsh mountain, Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon), being called it’s Welsh and native name in law, and you’ll see what I mean…

Back to the identity bit.

My first thought about what nationality I was, came from the London 2012 Olympics, ironically a celebration of the UK and its achievements. I remember distinctively wanting a Team GB tracksuit, and my mum (who grew up during the Welsh Language campaigns in the ’70s, and then the famous Second Home fires) defiantly telling me “No, you’re Welsh”.

Since then, there has been no doubt, about who I am.

The Senedd, standing on Cardiff Bay. (via wikimedia commons)

The song and the Welsh Football team have linked up to provide a clear, robust message – Wales is here, and we’re here to stay.

And through this, the discussion about Wales and the Welsh language has been revived, through people starting to feel Welsh, rather than British. Of course, there are elements from catalysts such as the Scottish Independence movement, and the whole shambles regarding Northern Ireland, adding to the likelihood of Irish Unification. But the situation is rapidly developing, politics change things before we realise what’s happened.

Therefore, I believe we, the Welsh, need to have this discussion now. Who are we?

Are we British? (Well, if you go back enough, we were the original Britons, but now the term has a new meaning).

Possibly one of the most important Welsh Politicians; Gwynfor Evans, stated that” Britishness is a political synonym for Englishness which extends its culture over the Scots, Welsh and the Irish”; and from my own, first-hand personal experience, I would agree with him.

To begin with the obvious, Wales was annexed into this union, which starts things off with a slightly sinister tone.

Everything that is described as British, for me. tends to have no attachment to Wales.

Everything important to me, culturally, such as my language, my music choice, and even my flag is not represented by the over-arching ‘Britishness’. We aren’t even on the Union Jack!

We’re told consistently that the UK is an equal union but how can it be an equal union, when a politician describes the Welsh language in Parliament, as a ‘foreign language’?

Of course, my experience regarding the Welsh Language is most likely different to those who don’t speak it, but my experiences will resonate with thousands, who’ve grown up subscribing themselves as Welsh.

Now, the Welsh football team has sparked the conversion, from a small flame, into a large fire that sits proudly in our national consciousness, about whom do we want to be.

Most Welsh fans will know the Famous ‘Viva Gareth Bale’ chant, which was at one point sung by the whole stadium in one game I went to. The reason this chant is famous is because of its Pro-Welsh identity, as it’s a rejection of the UK or British identity, which is in itself, similar to Yma O hyd.

I was in Wrexham on Saturday, and people came up to me and my dad, joyed with the fact we could speak Welsh, but also on numerous occasions, sad and guilt-ridden they couldn’t.

A couple of years ago, even before 2016, that might have never happened.

There is an emerging spirit of a Welsh National Identity, and that was the point of this article, to demonstrate the fact that we are here, and ever-growing. But it’s also an article to allude to the importance of this debate, and the speed in which we need to have it, after all, the Scots might be choosing to jump ship as soon as 2023, and Ireland unified in the future.

It’s time Wales think, are we jumping to save our nation, and look optimistically to the future with our Celtic cousins and England, as separate distinct nations; or will we stay, and be drowned in the chaos, of the inevitable ending, of the Political Union of the United Kingdom.

Sources:

Jacob Rees-Mogg calls Welsh a ‘foreign language’ and compares it to Latin (nation.cymru)

Images:

Union and Welsh Flags: This file was derived from: Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg: Flag of Wales.svg:, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The Senedd: eNil, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Investigation: How the American Right are Making a Biblical Battle out of the Upcoming Midterms

The Idols of the American Right, as depicted on Mount Rushmore (via wikimedia commons)

Article Written by Lydia Grocott, Political Commentator

‘I firmly believe that we – American Christians – and in truth, Americans of any Traditional faith and convictions – that we are now living in exile’ (Rod Dreher)

The United States of America, continues, to be Christian dominated, unusually so by comparison to other equally developed nations. Every President, and Vice President, has thus far been raised in families with affiliations to a Christian denomination, with only John F. Kennedy and Joe Biden being raised Catholic. A Gallup Poll in 2019 revealed that only 60% of American Citizens would be comfortable voting for an Atheist president[1]. Further studies have also revealed the general belief that candidates belonging to a religion are considered to be more trustworthy.[2]

In early September 2022, leading conservative politicians gathered in Miami, to form a new ideology for the American right wing. The future of which, involves a biblical battle toward the left. This foregrounds a narrative of being unafraid to use state power to thwart progressive goals, not just in government but within the private sphere. It was hosted by the Edmund Burke Foundation, and presented an ideology for a cohesive, nationalist agenda in light of Donald Trumps position in the GOP.[3]

“Without the Bible, there is no Modernity. Without the Bible there is No America” Hawley.

The aforementioned conference, was backed by large proportions of America’s right wing, including the Common-Sense Society, The Heritage Foundation, and the Conservative Partnership institute. Tom Klingenstein, the chairmen of the Claremont Institute, proclaimed buzzwords such as ‘white guilt’ as ‘killing’ conservative momentum. Suggesting former President Donald Trump to have had ‘just the constellation of assets that fit with our particular war’.3

Preacher in Battery Park, Manhattan, via Wikimedia Commons

It’s not unusual, throughout both history, and geography, for religion to be politicized, and particularly within elections, this often creates an air of voting for the ideologized, morally superior, Christian approved party. In response, Biden, the current US President, has issued a rally for support, in preserving fair democratic practices. Suggesting a dark warning that America could face political violence, Biden has aimed his address at the above, religious right and in an attempt to remain relatively neutral insisted:

“make no mistake, democracy is on the ballot for all of us”

The upcoming midterms, will determine control of Congress, and mark the first test of American democracy since the siege to the Capitol:

“I wish I could say the assault on our democracy had ended that Day” Biden Remarked. “But I cannot”[4].

In this speech, Biden hoped to pre-empt potential disinformation, noting that it takes time for votes to be accurately counted and confirmed. Concluding with remarks of a battle between democracy and autocracy, noting that America ought never to take the former for granted.

Pastor Luis Cabrera, who leads a Church in Southern Texas foresees a “godly wave” in the upcoming elections, particularly in his home state, where he has aimed for a flip to congregessional seats with familiar messages of family, faith, and patriotism. They believe that the aforementioned values have been abandoned and lost, in Democrats progressive policies.

“We’re going to take this country back for God and we’re going to fight for our piece of the land, for the American Dream… for our principles, our values, and our morals” Cabera.[5]

The messages that Cabera has chosen to surround, are those commonly felt within America’s Latino minorities, such as the freedom provided by America, family, and traditional religious values. While this all sounds fairly unprovocative on the surface, involving religious belief in politics has proven, time and time again to be dangerous. Not only does the politicization of religion contribute to greater political polarization as shown in the US presently, but it diminishes the ability of religious leaders to speak honestly about their views without risking being sucked into the political tornado. The consequence of increasing secularisation in the American states, is an increased state among the politically religious, that something is being taken from them, playing then on nostalgia and a fear of being left behind as society moves on. Whatever occurs in the upcoming midterms, one thing that the events have proven once again, are that the secular-religious cleavage in society, should seldom be used to motivate political decisions. That is not to say that the inspiriting and motivating nature of religion cannot be used to create good, but to use it to disprove the morality of another political wing, leads only to conflict.

---

[1] McCarthy, J. (2019) Less than half in the US would vote for a Socialist for President. https://news.gallup.com/poll/254120/less-half-vote-socialist-president.aspxn

[2] Clifford, S., & Gaskins, B. (2016). Trust Me, I Believe in God: Candidate Religiousness as a Signal of Trustworthiness. American Politics Research, 44(6), 1066–1097. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X15608939

[3] NBC News (2022) “The American Rights future involves waging a ‘religious battle’ against the left. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/american-rights-future-involves-waging-religious-battle-left-leaders-s-rcna48961

[4] The Guardian (2022) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/02/joe-biden-speech-political-violence-preserve-democracy-midterm-election

[5] Molina. Religion News Service. (2022) https://religionnews.com/2022/10/31/ahead-of-midterms-faith-plays-central-role-in-republican-efforts-to-win-latino-votes/

Mount Rushmore Photo – Dean Franklin, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Preacher Photo – National Archives at College Park, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Brazil: Why Lula’s Victory (And Bolsonaro’s Response) Is So Important

Article Written By Rhys Wallis, Political Commentator and
Editor-in-Chief,
Politics Unboxed

Christ the Redeemer towers over Rio de Janeiro, a symbol of faith, hope, and redemption: for many in the international community, the re-election of Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva is something of a redemption moment for a country that has, for the past four years, been governed by the eminently Trumpian, decidedly populist, Jair Bolsonaro.

Not all of Brazil, however, not to mention those outside of the South American Nation, feels the same way about the election of Lula, who doesn’t exactly have the most blemish-free of records, and whose open and unapologetic left-wing past doesn’t particularly ingratiate him with those who supported the former-army-captain-turned-right-wing-populist, Bolsonaro.

The Whole Messy Story, Warts and All

With enough of the votes cast now to have little doubt over the result, it is clear that the former President will become the next President, and the current President will soon become the former President. Following? Luiz Inacio da Silva (Lula, for short) had previously held the office of the Presidency from 2003-2010, and in yesterday’s Presidential runoff election, he won 50.9% of the vote. Comparing to his competitor, Jair Bolsonaro, who won the election in 2018 to become President, his 49.1 represents a clear victory for the Worker’s Party Leader in a staggering return to the top job.

Few would have believed this turn of events just four years ago, when Lula was imprisoned on a corruption charge, accused of taking money from a construction company in return for contracts with Petrobras. The former metal worker, union organiser, and left-wing firebrand was in the middle of a 580-day stint in prison, a stint only brought to an end by the annulment of his conviction, and Bolsonaro was seemingly on top of the world. Over the intervening four years, Lula has been released from prison (on an annulment which Bolsonaro fans claim doesn’t make him innocent, just that the legal processes weren’t followed, and that Lula supporters cite as the justice he deserved after an unfair conviction) and Bolsonaro has been busy creating an image of him, and of his nation, after a whiplash-inducing swing from socialism to right-wing populism after he succeeded Michel Termer as President. This article’s narrative paints a confusing picture, but it is likely the case that for you reading this, that is nothing new about Brazilian politics – so often, it is out of the usual range of BBC, Sky, ITV, and other sources. So let’s move aside from the whirlwind of the last 4 years, and go through the two main characters in this story, plus some side-parts, as they fulfil their duties as antagonist and protagonist (in whichsoever order you place them, I seek to place no such labels, but it is unlikely you are neutral about both candidates…).

Lula

Some facts. 35th President of Brazil 2003-2010, and now set to be the 39th President from 2023 until… well that’s to be decided. A key member of the left-wing furniture in Brazil, he is considered by some to be one of the most, if not the most, popular President ever elected in Brazil. Formerly a metal worker, then a Union Organiser, then a founder of the Workers’ Party, Lula has never been far from the socialist front lines since he entered the political fray. You’ve heard about his public trial and conviction (since annulled) but likely not about his chemotherapy for throat cancer, a symptom of his 40-year smoking habit. You may have heard the allegations of establishment figure thrown around him, but might not know that his successor as President, and former Chief of Staff, was later impeached. Now whilst Guilty by Association doesn’t really stand up in a court of law on this issue, his close ties to Dilma Rousseff make Lula a target for those who disagreed with her actions. A man who never seems to shy away from a fight, Lula has been compared in recent days and weeks to Jeremy Corbyn, but in truth, he is far more than Corbyn ever could be: he won an election after all, and now seems to have won three. He also managed to unite an entire wing of Brazilian Politics, inviting Geraldo Alckmin, a former direct challenger to Lula for the Brazilian Presidency, onto the Lula ticket as his Vice Presidential Nominee. Yet another thing that no one would have seen coming in 2018, but then again, to Lula and Alckmin, the threat of Bolsonaro was too great to let partisan difficulties stand in the way of an alliance. Speaking of Jair…..

Bolsonaro

You couldn’t have found a more different figure than Bolsonaro to oppose Lula (or vice versa, depending on how you see it). A former army captain, with a taste for the extravagant, and a Trumpian flair, Bolsonaro struck a chord with voters who wanted a break from the corruption scandals which so dogged the successors of Lula (and of course, Lula at the time), and took that disruptor message to heart in his time as President. An international bedfellow of the Trump administration in America (and Trump has been quite friendly with Bolsonaro in recent days as well) and with other similar figures around the globe, the most notable thing about Bolsonaro’s Presidency from an international scale was clearly his Amazon rainforest policy, which seemed to many to boil down to a simple refrain: “it’s our Amazon, and we will do precisely what we want to it”. Much like his northern ally, the criticisms of Bolsonaro from Leonardo DiCaprio and others seemed to roll off the President like water off the back of a particularly hydrophobic eider, if anything, they emboldened his actions and base. Bolsonaro was elected on a “Social Liberal Party” ticket, but his beliefs can be centred more around his former life in the position as Chair of the Social Christian Party; indeed, Bolsonaro would leave the SLP in 2019, to form Alliance for Brazil, before it folded earlier this year and he moved on to the “Liberal Party”, which has now become his base. That constitutes quite a few parties in not so many years, somewhat evident of the polarising nature of Bolsonaro. He has a base which is energised to the extreme, he has a platform which was good enough to win him an election just 4 years ago, and he is a controversial figure: the Trump comparisons continue to write themselves (the major difference being that whilst Trump didn’t complete military service, but Bolsonaro did). One final similarity between the former President of the United States and the outgoing President of Brazil: they both refuse to concede their elections, and bring into doubt the voting systems of their respective countries. This needs a little more discovery.

Bolsonaro’s Response, Voting Machines, and More

Lula was quick out of the blocks to proclaim victory in this election, and whilst the certified results prove him validated in his comments, Jair Bolsonaro may have something to say about whether or not the nation will get to move on from his Presidency. Bolsonaro hasn’t conceded (even though world leaders have already called Mr da Silva to express their congratulations) and his base seems set to follow him to the end of the Earth, and follow in the footsteps of those now labelled believers in “The Big Lie” in the United States of America. Public faith in elections across both the continents of North and South America seems to be at an all-time low, and this action from Bolsonaro seems set to keep that doubt in the minds of those who hang upon his every word, and with doubt, comes a lack of acceptance, and with a lack of acceptance, comes public discontent.

Calling into question the integrity of an election has to be something that individuals embark upon the journey of in full view of the facts. It seems that Bolsonaro has taken this doctrine, and decided to callously ignore it, in favour of political expedience. Whether or not the Bolsonaro crowd will follow their leader into a pitched battle to keep the former Captain in place as Commander in Chief is yet to be seen. Still, it is decidedly dangerous to be dangling off of the cliff of public disquiet, when we have all seen what can happen when elections are said to be stolen and people are angry enough to act…

Let’s end this article on some points for the future though. However Bolsonaro squirms, it looks certain that Lula will walk into the Presidential Palace in 2023, as no substantiated allegations of election rigging have been found, and the highest court in Brazil has been keen to make sure this election is entirely above board. Whether or not Bolsonaro concedes is yet to be determined, but the international community seem to have Lula down as the winner, and his unity ticket has a lot of work to do in picking up the pieces of a disgruntled and disquieted nation, more divided than ever, as 2022 becomes 2023.

As a reward for making it to the end of this article, here’s a picture of a cute inquisitive little puppy having a bath in a bucket: you’ve earned it.

Sources:

Brazil’s Lula to reclaim presidency after beating Bolsonaro (msn.com)

Brazil elections: Lula da Silva will return to Brazil’s presidency in stunning comeback | CNN

Lula stages astonishing comeback to beat far-right Bolsonaro in Brazil election | Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva | The Guardian

Brazil election: Bolsonaro defeated as Lula makes comeback – BBC News

Lula da Silva wins Brazilian election narrowly beating Jair Bolsonaro | World News | Sky News

‘Stop the Steal’ leader Ali Alexander calls for a military coup in Brazil to intervene in its presidential election after Jair Bolsonaro’s defeat (yahoo.com)

Images:

Christ the Redeemer – Mucio Scorzelli, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Lula Image – Ricardo Stuckert/PR, CC BY 3.0 BR https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.en, via Wikimedia Commons

Bolsonaro Image – Fabio Rodrigues Pozzebom/Agência Brasil, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Doggo Reward – karlee ladyk, CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Third Time Lucky? How the Tories, and the Country, Move Forward from Here

Liz Truss, walking away from Downing Street, via Wikimedia Commons.

Article Written by Paul Tomlinson, Political Commentator

Writing about politics is important. Writing about politics is also difficult, not least due to its incendiary contents- but due to constant changing circumstances.

I first drafted an article for Politics Unboxed in June, following Boris Johnson’s less than stellar reception at Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee. It was a piece exploring Johnson’s plummet in popularity; an almost Breaking Bad metamorphosis from a feel-good politician in a gloomy austerity party, to a toxic figure booed at the most patriotic of ceremonies. The piece was written with the context of letters of no confidence in Johnson’s leadership flooding in, and his resignation looking inevitable. 

Just three months later- the Queen is now dead, Boris has resigned, his successor Liz Truss selected, his successor Liz Truss has resigned, and Boris Johnson (at time of writing) looked set to stand to become Prime Minister again. See what I mean about changing circumstances?

Following Liz Truss becoming one of the final candidates alongside former Chancellor Rishi Sunak, I penned a second piece drawing a comparison between the careers and ascendancies of Johnson and Truss. Two highly ambitious figures, propelled by amusing viral moments (the infamous cheese speech, for example) and boosted by their ability to make people not take them seriously. On these parallels and Truss’ sudden ascendancy, I’d like to say I got it pretty spot on. What I didn’t foresee however, was the even quicker political demise. It’d be easy to say we’re now we’re back to square one, but in these disastruss 45 days we now have a severely diminished pound, mortgage rates skyrocketing and the markets in turmoil. I had a whole article ready about Liz Truss, and many more are flying in to offer post-mortems on Truss’ ‘premiership.’ Given her government’s laughable short tenure, I’d posit that these are not worth the paper they’re printed on.

So we’re not back to square one, we’re at sub-zero. Its leadership election time for Conservative Party MPs and members once again. Third time lucky. The dismembered, refrigerated remains of previous Tory leadership hopefuls are once again positing themselves as the solutions to the issues they have caused. As of time of writing (a fairly meaningless statement given the current political climate- things could be different by the time I’ve finished writing this sentence), two of the previous failed candidates have thrown their hat in the ring. Leader of the House of Commons Penny Mourdant, and former Chancellor Rishi Sunak. But there is another. His spectre haunted the last leadership election akin to a PartyGate poltergeist, but in this latest round of Tory psychodrama he offers to resurrect from the afterlife and haunt it front and centre.

Boris is back.

Those three words are not only a powerful contender for the shortest horror story ever written, but also three words that have divided a Tory party that is already tearing apart at the seams. Over one hundred MP’s have already thrown their weight behind Sunak. A smaller number (to the fury of his aides) have come out in support of Boris, most citing his triumphant 2019 General Election mandate as justification. The fact that Boris Johnson is the only presumptive candidate to possess a democratic mandate from the British people is undeniable. What is more pressing however, is why a man who achieved such a thumping mandate has found himself out of office and seeking a return through the backdoor only 3 years later.

Its not a question that one has to strain to find the answer to, but any of these MPs need a reminder, they can be found in the 179 resignation letters from government ministers, parliamentary secretaries and party chairmen Johnson received back in July. Lack of moral integrity. Scandal. Dishonesty. Incompetence. These are the words that would stand out in a word-cloud of these letters. A man guided by little more than naked ambition. No wonder his party is still so infatuated with him.

A list of the original endorsements from the October 2022 Leadership Campaign, via Wikimedia Commons

Some of the MPs backing Johnson yet again may be surprised to spot their own names at the bottom of these letters. Indeed, a significant number of Conservative MPs who called on Johnson to go in July- Lee Anderson, Dr Caroline Johnson, Jonathan Gullis just to name a few- are now willing to put all of that behind them. These numerous MPs seem to have some form of collective amnesia. I’m hopeful their constituents will not be so forgetful at the next election.

Conservative Party history repeating itself before past events can even be considered history is appalling, but shouldn’t be surprising. This emblematic of a party bereft of ideas and held hostage to personalities. The only three consistent ideologies that have shaped Conservative government since its return in 2010 is austerity, Brexit, and leadership psychodrama. Its no surprise the two front-running candidates tussling for the poisoned chalice- Sunak and Johnson- are perfect figureheads for all three. Two prominent Brexiteers, with the latter being ‘Mr Brexit.’ Johnson’s main pitch is his personality, his election-winning charisma. Sunak’s is his ‘economic credibility’- a trendy rebrand of Cameron’s austerity. Whilst last leadership election we made do with Sunak versus Johnson’s seat-warmer, we now get the main event: Sunak versus Johnson. The finale. The last great Tory psychodrama, the last battle for Number 10 for what could be the Tories last Prime Minister- given recent polls.

The fact that spending cuts in a country already cut to the bone, Eurosceptic divisions when the continent must remain strong against Putin’s Russia, and the clown-show of leadership elections is all the Conservative party has left is damning. For all the world changes, the more the Conservative Party stays the same. Three times now I have attempted an article around the Conservative Party’s leadership drama, and although circumstances have changed- the chaos has remained the same. Hopefully this will be third time lucky. For Conservative Party members, it will need to be third time lucky picking a Prime Minister to last longer than the last.

For the Labour Party, and for a country sick of this nonsense and on its knees for change, if an election is to come soon then this will be attempt number three to unseat this government since it secured a majority in 2015. From their point of view, we can hope it will be third time lucky.

Image Sources:

Liz Truss – Office of U.S. Ambassador to U.K., Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Graphic of Endorsements – 沁水湾, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Tory Trauma: Temporary turmoil or terminal tailspin?

The famous black door of Number 10, which needs a new occupant, via Wikimedia Commons

Article Written by
James Ford, Political Commentator and Former Advisor to Boris Johnson

Liz Truss’s tortured tenure at Number 10 was brief, unedifying and uncomfortable to watch. It set records for all the wrong reasons – shortest serving Prime Minister (falling far short of even George Canning’s 118 days in 1827), shortest serving Home Secretary and second-shortest serving Chancellor.   Prince Charles was probably not expecting to welcome a second Prime Minister so quickly after his accession. For the past week The Daily Mirror has been asking which will last longer, a lettuce or Liz Truss. Turns out, the lettuce wins.

Truss’s victory in the Tory leadership contest was supposed to be a fresh start for a government that had been tested by the pandemic beset by a series of scandals and crises (Partygate, Patersongate, Pinchergate) and suffering from a succession of by-election defeats. Instead, Truss’s premiership sparked a financial crisis, a chaotic party conference, poll numbers in freefall, and backbenchers in open revolt. The Mirror’s lettuce probably would have done a better job.

The lettuce, however, will not be a candidate in the contest to succeed Liz Truss. Graham Brady, Chair of the powerful 1922 Committee of backbench MPs has already indicated that there must be a greatly shortened contest with a new PM installed by Friday 28 October. This leaves little time for party members to get a say in the choice but, given they overwhelmingly chose Liz Truss, that could be a good thing.

So, who will be the next Prime Minister?

Some past contenders have already ruled themselves out: current Chancellor Jeremy Hunt (who lost to Boris Johnson in 2019), former Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove (who ran in 2016) and Security Minister Tom Tugendhat (who was knocked out in the early stages of this summer’s contest). That still leaves a crowded field of possible contenders duking it out to get the 100 MP nominations required to enter the contest:

Boris Johnson – It might feel like ‘Groundhog Day politics’ but Truss’s predecessor could just as easily be her successor. The Conservatives’ most popular and electorally successful leader since Thatcher, Johnson retains the affection of many party members and a significant cohort of MPs. Within hours of Truss’s resignation no fewer than 50 MPs had already called for Boris’s return. It would also answer Opposition calls for the government to seek a fresh mandate via a general election. However, the Standards Committee inquiry into Partygate is still pending and if, as expected, it finds against Boris then he could face renewed calls to resign (again).

Boris Johnson, the once and future(?) Prime Minister, via Wikimedia Commons

Rishi Sunak – The popular choice amongst Tory MPs (more of whom backed him than Truss in the leadership contest) and the candidate that can claim to have been vindicated by recent events. Given his tenure as Chancellor, he may also be well-placed to reassure the financial markets. However, he is less popular amongst party members (who overwhelming chose Truss over him not 50 days ago) and is still blamed by Johnson supporters for stabbing the last PM in the back and precipitating the coup that bought him down.

Penny Mordaunt – Came third in the last leadership contest and considered a strong Parliamentary performer, and she is thought to be more popular with the party grassroots than Sunak. However, she is less experienced than other options (having briefly held Cabinet jobs under Theresa May and Liz Truss) and could be considered untested. She would be a risky choice in a time of crisis.

Kemi Badenoch – Very popular with the right wing of the Tory party, but young and inexperienced (she has only been a cabinet minister since September). Known to be a staunch ‘culture warrior’, she may be too radical a choice for the Conservatives at this time.

Ben Wallace – The Defence Secretary declined to run in the last contest in order to focus on his job and the war in Ukraine. A former soldier, he is well regarded amongst both Tory MPs and the grassroots, he is a solid (but not spectacular) performer at the despatch box and as a cabinet minister. Could be seen as a safe pair of hands to weather the current crisis, but does he have the charisma to win a tough General Election? *

Whilst we will quickly know the outcome of this curtailed leadership contest, it will be some time before we know if the next Prime Minister can unite the Conservative Party and address both the economic and political crises that are engulfing the country. Conservative MPs are acutely aware that the party faces a potential rout greater than that suffered in 1997 and that many will not only loose their red boxes but could loose their seats too. The selection of a new leader is the party’s last chance to stave off electoral oblivion – they cannot afford to pick another dud.

*Note from the Editor: 10 minutes before this article went live, Ben Wallace ruled himself out of the leadership race, tentatively saying he would lean towards Boris Johnson as his choice of the next Prime Minister.

Sources:

Image of Number 10 – Sergeant Tom Robinson RLC, OGL v1.0OGL v1.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Boris Johnson from 2019 – David Sedlecký, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The Game Is Up, Mr Putin: A Look At Recent Events in Ukraine

Vladimir Putin, via Wikimedia Commons

Article Written by Josiah Cadman, Political Commentator

Sham referendums in Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine have invaded the collective consciousness of the western world in recent days and weeks. Leaders of the G7 countries have condemned this move by Putin as a breach of international law, so it’s time to have a look at what took place, why and what might happen next.

Why is this happening?

Arguably, these sham referendums are a way for Russia to formally annexed controlled parts of Ukraine and arguably for Putin to ‘save face’ domestically in the continued failed attempt to successfully invade Ukraine. It’s safe to say these referendums are wholly undemocratic with results in Luhansk showing 98 percent support for joining Russia and in Donetsk 99 percent approval. As a response to the Kremlin’s rather heavy-handed approach to incorporating Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Donetsk, Kyiv has vowed to further its counteroffensive and eventually liberate these parts of Russian-controlled Ukraine.

In the background of these sham referendums, Putin recently attempted to mobilize around 300,000 reservists to bolster the weakening frontlines in Ukraine. This has been met with protests and pushback from Russian citizens. Not only is this conscription hugely unpopular among Russian men, but it is also making them flee to nearby countries such as Georgia. Georgia allows visa-free travel so has been an attractive place to escape the Kremlin’s army conscription law.

What is Ukraine’s and other countries’ response?

Ukraine and many other countries including G7 countries have vehemently condemned not only the sham referenda but also the reservist conscriptions. Hall and Ivanova from the Financial Times highlighted the response by Anthony Blinken, US Secretary of State stating that ‘Washington would act quickly to sanction Russia should it follow through with any annexation of occupied areas.

Protester against the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine, via Wikimedia Commons

How is the overall invasion going for Putin?

It is safe to say that Putin’s initial aim to invade and take over Ukraine is dead in the water. Despite his rhetoric suggesting everything is going to plan it is a whole other picture. Take, for example, Russia’s Anton Barbashin speaking to the BBC has stated that ‘He’s in a blind Zone. It seems he’s not seeing what’s happening’. This failure of his leadership has only been compounded by the reluctance of his citizens to join the war. Horror stories of ill-equipped Russian soldiers can’t be helping this. Social media posts have been especially effective in lifting the veil on conditions for the Russian Army, Sarah Rainsford highlights ‘some of their posts-and videos by the men themselves-reveal grim conditions: poor food, old weapons and a lack of basic medical supplies’. The kremlin’s propaganda and censorship machine are faltering also, with pro-kremlin circles stating that the ‘special operation’ is, in fact, a war.MP Andrei Kartapolov has said to the defence ministry to ‘stop lying’ as ‘our people are far from stupid’. It appears that cracks are beginning to show in Putin’s domestic support base for the Ukrainian invasion.

Has Putin created what he sought to destroy?

Post-WW2 institutions that Putin has vehemently condemned as being out ‘to get Russia’ have only strengthened their resolve and cooperation in the face of the invasion of Ukraine. NATO, the EU, and the UN are flexing their muscles in response to Russia’s blatant disregard for international law and the sovereignty of Ukraine. Zelensky has commented that this, essentially, forced conscription is ‘criminal’ and ‘another element of Russia’s policy of genocide’. Western powers such as France, Germany, the US, and the UK have shown their support throughout. With the supply of cutting-edge weapons, Russia is now seeming to be on the back foot.

What are Putin’s allies saying?

China seems to be distancing itself somewhat from the Kremlin and Putin’s sporadic behaviors. China has traditionally called for international political stability and to ‘follow the rules’. The invasion of Ukraine and subsequent conscription of Russian citizens have only alienated Putin from Asia as well as more western ‘friends’ such as Hungary which was seen to be cosying up to Putin before the Ukraine Invasion earlier this year. Over the past few weeks, China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin has stated ‘We call on the relevant parties to realise a ceasefire through dialogue and consultation, and find a solution that accommodates the legitimate security concerns of all parties as soon as possible’

Links

https://www.politico.eu/article/g7-leaders-condemn-referendums-occupied-ukraine-russia-war-international-law-donetsk-lugansk-kherson-zaporizhzhia/

https://www.ft.com/content/87a4bd52-2d82-48ac-a842-cdca3ba742dd

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/27/conscription-fears-young-ukrainian-men-stopped-leaving-occupied-areas-russian-soldiers-crossing-point

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63160354

https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/china/china-calls-for-ceasefire-through-dialogue-and-consultation-in-response-to-russias-announcement-of-a-partial-mobilisation/news-story/a4e0a308937dc1bade703b81e29d26b3

Images:

Putin – https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%9F%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%2820-06-2021%29_%28cropped%29.jpg

Protestor – Silar, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Has the Compulsory-Veil law (I)ran its course?

A political piece on the death of Masha Amini and the protests which followed.

Protest for the rights of women – via Wikimedia Commons

Article Written by Lydia Grocott, Political Commentator

Iran, (pronounced E-Ran), is bordered by Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.[1] Geographically, Iran is in a fortunate position, given its access to the Persian Gulf, however in terms of politics, it is growing more volatile with each passing day. For context in the early 1980’s, post the Islamic Revolution of 1979, several attitudes towards women changed most notably the legal requirement to wear both loose-fitting clothing and the Hijab (pronounced Hee-jab). The Hijab is a traditional Muslim garment intended for the purpose of modesty but has recently been cause for political unrest in Iran. It is typically recognised by a headscarf, that conceals the hair and neck, with an opening for full face visibility.

Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, via Wikimedia Commons.

It is important to note, that for many of these women, the protests themselves are not targeted toward the initial religious intentions of the Hijab as found in the Qur’an interpreted to promote privacy and modesty. Instead, the protests are directed toward the turning of this once religious symbol into something far more political, now having been manipulated into a way of the Iranian government utilising women’s visibility to demonstrate the strength of their regime.

In early September (2022), it was announced that the Iranian government planned to use facial recognition technology to further enforce this rule, which if broken, could result in fines, or sentences.[2] However most recently, Iranian Hijab laws have made global news, following the death of Masha Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish woman killed while in custody due to the incorrect wearing of the Hijab. According to Aljazeera this occurred while she was visiting the capital of Iran, Tehran. She was exiting a station where the morality police (Gasht-e-Ershad[3]) tasked with enforcing dress-code rules, confronted her for dressing inappropriately. It was reported that she was in custody for re-education purposes and suffered heart attacks while in-prisoned however, her family disagree, and insist that she was tortured by the police who took her.[4]  Following her brutal treatment, women of Iran and across the globe have expressed their discontent surrounding both the existence and enforcement of these laws. Not only has Amini’s death evoked pre-existing anger amongst the women of Iran, but also provoked response regarding ethnic and social discrimination, given Amini’s background from an economically weak Kurdish area. This event has sent shockwaves across the globe, and resulted in huge movements both in person, and online. On the 28^th of September (2022), Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British – Iranian previously jailed in Iran following accusations of spying, has cut her hair in solidarity with both Amini and the women of Iran. She publicised this act in the form of a video, in which she according to The Guardian concluded with:

“For my mother, for my daughter, for the fear of solitary confinement, for the women of my country, for freedom”[5]

Women of Iran have followed suit and mirrored her actions both by the cutting of their hair and also by burning their Hijabs as an act of rebellion against these laws. There have also been reports of protestors chanting “death to the dictator”, and calling for the abolishing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the current supreme leader.[6] The protests themselves began on the 16^th of September (2022), in line with Masha Amini’s death and are set to continue for the foreseeable future. Not only does the current Islamic regime present in Iran bar women from high office, but also prevents their access to passports and surgery without male consent[7]. Hence, these protests weigh far larger than the removal of one law but pose a greater message regarding the treatment of women as a whole. As I write this, the protests have been going on for 12 days, the risks behind these protests involve death and injury, but the determination to illustrate women’s freedom rights or lack thereof prevails.

The compulsory-veil law has been at the epicentre of the cleric-led state for several years, and hence overturning these laws is a seemingly difficult task. Particularly, given the regime’s distaste for change, leaving Iran in a state of political deadlock. The future for both Iran and those in protest, is impossible to predict and something which unfortunately, only time will tell. However, what is clear, is that these protests represent more than the simple act of wearing the Hijab itself but represent a desire to overturn the controlling aspect to which the Iranian state has placed upon it, and the potential revoking of these laws promise a change to the state itself.

---

Sources:

[1] https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/geography/countries/article/iran

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/sep/05/iran-government-facial-recognition-technology-hijab-law-crackdown

[3] https://www.dw.com/en/irans-morality-police-what-do-they-enforce/a-63200711

[4] https://news.stanford.edu/2022/09/26/understanding-protests-iran/

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/28/nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-cuts-her-hair-in-protest-over-death-of-mahsa-amini

[6] https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/security-forces-clash-protestors-anti-hijab-protests-intensify-iran-2005635-2022-09-28

[7] https://news.stanford.edu/2022/09/26/understanding-protests-iran/

Images:

Cover Image – Women’s Protest: Taymaz Valley from Ottawa, Canada, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Ali Khamenei Image – Khamenei.ir, CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The Commonwealth in the Dawn of the Carolean Age

King Charles III, when he was the Prince of Wales, via Wikimedia Commons.

Article Written by Taylor Norris, Political Commentator

As the 2nd Elizabethan age comes to an end after the death of the Queen, now more than ever, the legacy, role, and relevance of the Monarchy is beginning to be questioned amongst countries in the Commonwealth. Becoming Queen at the age of just 25, her reign spanned 70 years, seeing her as the head of state of 32 countries in that time. When she was crowned, Britain still controlled some 70 overseas territories many of which being colonies and protectorates whose independence established the beginnings of the Commonwealth. At the time of her death, 56 nations remain members of the Commonwealth, and she was head of state of 16 of them, a significant decline from previous years with many nations recently becoming republics and many looking to become a republic. Formed in a very different era, under very different circumstances, how will the Commonwealth fair in the Carolean age?

A historical context of the Commonwealth

Earliest notions of the Commonwealth date back to the Imperial Conferences. It was in the 1926 Conference that Australia, Canada, India, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and South Africa became equal members of the British Empire owing allegiance to the Queen but not controlled by the UK. The birth of the modern Commonwealth, as we know it now, really begins with the dismantling of Britain’s empire after World War 2 when British territories became independent. By 1947 India and Pakistan looked to become republics but remain within the Commonwealth. After the London declaration in 1949, the term ‘Commonwealth’ was officially adopted from the formerly ‘British Commonwealth of Nations’. Don’t be fooled though, as British ties aren’t a prerequisite to becoming a member, just this June Togo became the most recent member of the Commonwealth having had no historical ties to Britain. In 2012, a charter was created to which all 52 member nations are signatories to. No doubt, an impressive feat to pin down all 52 members to a ‘not legally binding’ charter on all sorts of vague notions of equality, promotion of democracy, and human rights….

Royal Cypher of King Charles III, in Scotland, via Wikimedia Commons.

Commonwealth vs the Commonwealth Realm

With King Charles’s ascension to the throne, he becomes the new head of state of the 15 countries in the Commonwealth realm. But in recent years several nations have stripped the British Monarchy as their head of state. As of 2020, 8 nations have held referendums with three being successful. Following the death of the Queen, it was announced by the governments of Jamaica, the Bahamas and Antigua and Barbuda, of their intentions to hold referendums in the near future. When questioned about the future of a republican New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Arden said, ‘I believe it’s likely to occur in my lifetime.’ At face value, it would seem as though Commonwealth countries are becoming weary of a foreign king whose legacy is rooted within colonialism. But it would be a misconception to assume that removing the head of state weakens or disrespects the Commonwealth. Only a quarter of Commonwealth nations actually have the King as their head of state and Barbados, the most recent country to become a republic is still a keen member of the Commonwealth. It’s important to distinguish that the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Realm, although an antiquated organisation rooted in colonialism is still seen as a great asset to many member nations.

What’s it like to be a part of the Commonwealth today?

The role of the Commonwealth has changed significantly in its lifetime and it’s difficult to say if it carries the same political weight as it used to. In the past, the Commonwealth had a diplomatic presence; it refused a white minority-ruled government in Southern Rhodesia and played a role in placing bans on travel, investment, agricultural imports, and tourism promotion during Apartheid South Africa. Such hard-line stances seem so distant to the Commonwealth we know today, especially considering recent leaks from the Commonwealth Secretariat detailing the Commonwealth had abandoned commitments to human rights.

When asked about the efficacy of the Commonwealth Julius Mucunguzi, former Commonwealth head of comms described it as a ‘’platform within which the exchange of experiences is best demonstrated in a manner of countries operating as equals’’ and he’s right to an extent. Much has been said about the Commonwealth as a talk shop for nations with shared issues such as climate change or environmentalism. Likewise, the Commonwealth is unlike other international organisations, and its smaller members have had greater success in bringing their issues to the forefront of discussions. Many African nations are at risk of drought or desertification and smaller Commonwealth Island nations such as Tuvalu and Nauru are particularly susceptible to changes in sea level. At the Maltese Commonwealth summit, leading governments endorsed proposals that helped open the way for the UN’s Paris Agreement. No doubt, the ability to network within the Commonwealth and the ability for smaller nations to platform their issues on the Commonwealth stage is a big factor behind Somaliland’s Commonwealth application, which looks to be on course to experience its worst drought in decades.

Flags flying at Parliament Square to mark Commonwealth Day 2017, via Wikimedia Commons.

What’s the future of the Commonwealth?

Cynics will say that the Commonwealth remains an organisation which lacks effectiveness, that has no presence on the international stage when compared to say, the European Union. It’s not the all-encompassing commanding international organisation with a legally binding treaty, and multilateral trade union agreements nor is it the bastion against human rights atrocities that places sanctions on out-of-line nations. Critics will say it’s the leftovers of an antiquated out of date monarchical structure.

But to criticise the Commonwealth through its monarchical heritage would be a disservice to it. Just like the Monarchy itself, the Commonwealth isn’t a shadow of its former colonial self and has evolved over time carving out a different role on the international stage. Although much of the media has focused on the removal of the Monarch as a slap in the face to the Commonwealth, quite clearly many members see beyond its monarchical history. The removing the Monarch as the head of state is representative only, of the relevance of a Monarchy in 2022 and to be a member of The Commonwealth and The Commonwealth Realm are two separate things. Besides, if the Commonwealth lacks efficacy, why are there 11 prospective nations looking to become a member of such a useless club.

Sources:

Our History the Commonwealth: https://thecommonwealth.org/history

South Africa apartheid: https://thecommonwealth.org/news/archive-sanctions-agreed-against-apartheid-era-south-africa

History: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1554175.stm#facts

Charter of the Commonwealth: https://production-new-commonwealth-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/migrated/page/documents/CharteroftheCommonwealth.pdf

Former Head of Comms for the commonwealth: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172ydvpk3f716h

Somalia: https://africanarguments.org/2018/04/somaliland-we-should-be-at-the-commonwealth-summit-chogm/

New Zealand Prime minister: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/new-zealand-may-become-republic-not-anytime-soon-ardern-says-2022-09-12/

Tuvalu climate change : https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/may/16/one-day-disappear-tuvalu-sinking-islands-rising-seas-climate-change

Will Charles III keep the commonwealth going?:

https://www.economist.com/international/2022/09/09/the-commonwealth-will-miss-queen-elizabeth

Antigua Barbuda Independence: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/11/antigua-and-barbuda-republic-referendum-within-three-years-pm-queen-death

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/10/king-charles-ascension-ignites-debate-over-role-across-commonwealth-death-queen-elizabeth-ii

Barbados becomes a republic: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/barbados-becomes-a-republic/ General commonwealth realm info: https://www.royal.uk/commonwealth-and-overseas

Image Sources:

Prince Charles, as Prince of Wales – The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The Royal Cypher of King Charles III (in Scotland) – Sodacan, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Flags Flying in Parliament Square – Foreign and Commonwealth Office, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The Generation Game: The Young, The Old, and The Politicians

Photo by Element5 Digital on Pexels.com

Article Written by Sol-Enrique Perez, Political Commentator

As I, a recent university graduate, was waiting in my kitchen for the next order to come through on a Friday night, I listened anxiously to a debate underway on LBC. This time the talk radio station was discussing the generational divide in the UK, and why the Conservative government seems to have little to no interest in youth-oriented policy proposals. The typical back-and-forth took place: 20-somethings complained about housing and university costs, 50-somethings complained that foolish students have it far better than they did, 20-somethings reminded the older generation that their education was free, 50-somethings retorted that they shouldn’t have gone to university in the first place. There were kernels of truth in them all. But one aspect of this debate found its way to centre-stage, egged on by the 60-something presenter: young people can’t expect governments and political parties to care for their interests if they don’t turn out to vote.

It would be fair to say that as more and more callers harped on about this observation, in the heat of the kitchen my blood pressure jumped a few decades to their levels. Now my obstinate thinking hat was on. I can see where they’re coming from – indeed that might be the worst part. In 2019 only 47% of people aged 18-24[1] voted in the general election. The graph below demonstrates just how measly a turnout that is compared to the older people in the country:

Figure 1: Voting Turnout by Age Groups 2015-2019 |Source: British Election Study (https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/age-and-voting-behaviour-at-the-2019-general-election/#.YvUcD-nMJsM)

Clearly, a winning tactic for either party needs to focus on the interests of the voting generation, as evidenced by the drastic failure of Corbyn’s appeal to the young in 2019. Whilst the young turned out overwhelmingly in favour of Corbyn’s manifesto, it didn’t change the fact that they barely turned out at all. ‘If you don’t participate in our democracy,’ the presenter said, ‘then you can’t expect to be a political priority.’ The problem of course is that, in spite of the poor turnout compared to other age groups, over time younger people are participating in higher numbers than they have for the past 25 years, as shown in this study[2]. An older caller brought up another harsh reality: regardless of how many of us vote, we youngsters are becoming increasingly outnumbered by older people, as the graph below indicates:

Figure 2: Projected Age Structure of the UK Population 2009 v. 2033 | Source: The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/oct/21/uk-population-data-ons)

Now, when I speak of ‘gerontocracy’ here, I don’t mean the simple concept of rule by elders. This, to some extent, has been a functional fact of most political systems around the world. What I mean by ‘gerontocracy’ is rather something wholly unique to the modern age, perhaps better defined as ‘Mass Gerontocracy’. It is not simply that the bureaucracy are a minority elder class that has a monopoly on governance, but that political parties and their governments purposefully pursue the interests of an older generation instead of that of the nation, as they know it will get them votes. The expense is paid by a youth increasingly alienated by the failures of democracy and increasingly outcast by gerontocratic policy.

This is by no means a trend unique to the United Kingdom[3], and much work has yet to be done on how and why these demographic changes are taking place across the world. The least I can to do is highlight how, as a young man, I perceive this general move towards mass gerontocracy perpetuating a cycle of neglect for youth, reduced (democratic) political investment from this youth, and ultimately lack of incentives for this youth to raise families and contribute to the native population, creating a deeper ageing problem for this country. As issues with housing, education and work continue to befall the millennial and Gen Z population, one wonders what impact this will have on British politics going forward. What kind of country can we expect to inherit when the TikTok generation reach their 60s, and what kind of governors will we be? My considerations of the topic have lead to fairly glum expectations. 

Housing Insecurity

The UK housing crisis is hardly news. Indeed it’s one of many examples of repeated mistakes, mismanagement, and shortsightedness that have made ‘crisis’ a political norm in this country. It is a remarkable thing for a country that prides itself on its democratic systems, and looks down on those who refuse to participate, to demonstrate such poor planning on provision of housing. Lip service is often paid to house-building programs and quality of housing improvements, with some minor success in the third term of the last Labour government, but over the course of nearly 30 years scarcity prices have skyrocketed and housing insecurity has become an embedded, bureaucratic mess – and it is the youth who are facing the brunt of it.

It is estimated that young people on average are expected to pay 30% of their monthly income towards rent[4], for homes that are often unsatisfactory (23% of privately rented homes are deemed ‘non-decent[5]’). This income bite is more than double the cost paid by current 60-year-olds when they were in their youth. Consequently, more young people aged between 18-34 – including myself – live with their parents than has been true since 1940, with no clear pathways onto the housing ladder[6]. Renting, let alone home-ownership, is practically out of the question for most young people. For those who can’t rely on parental support, the situation is drastically worse.

Policymakers have consistently failed to live up to their own housing targets, and indeed it is questionable that whether without substantial political effort (in particular land reform) these targets will ever be met. Change most certainly will come, however. Homeownership is perhaps one of the most fundamental cornerstones of the history of political participation, the same history that led to the current state of British democracy. It is a history of struggle between centralized executive authority and the ambitions of property-owning aristocrats, landlords and capitalists to participate in the legislative process. Eventually, as the leading property-owners became comfortable in their political positions, further pressure from the outside incorporated more people into the political process – in most recent times, the property-less.

Whilst this history may seem antiquated and distant from memory, it speaks truth to the way homeownership and its increasing exclusivity is affecting those on the outside, primarily young people, and particularly those without stable families to rely upon. Failure to expand homeownership increases the ‘outsider’ perspective held by those without, and threatens the premise of national participation and faith in institutional authority. The subject of housing insecurity is confined to a non-space, a state of non-belonging, and as such perceives political participation differently[7]. Disenfranchised youth are more likely to be bored, frustrated or even radicalised by politics – and unlike their boomer predecessors, they seem to be taking these attitudes with them as they grow up[8]. The inability to confidently settle within a community of one’s own and provide living space for a potential family leads to atomization and detaches young people from any commitment to the ‘common good’. The graph below paints a grim picture of youth confidence in the current settlement:

Figure 3: ‘How well, if at all, do you think democracy in Britain as a whole addresses the interests of people like you?’ | Source: The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/10/young-adults-loss-of-faith-in-uk-democracy-survey)

Whilst a consistent majority of people aged between 18 and 64 are unhappy with democratic representation, far fewer between 18 and 49 are willing to assert that they are. Fewer than 20% of 18-24 year olds say they think British democracy addresses their interests, with only a slim percentage more saying so between the ages of 25 and 49. We have yet to see what the implications of this mindset will be on real politics as ‘Generation Rent’ begins to find a new home in the Houses of Parliament, but the political psychology of self-perceived ‘outsider’ groups typically don’t bode well for healthy democracies. Indeed, how can one be expected to feel, believe and act as part of civil society if one is not granted the security, stability and investment that civil society supposedly offers? Worse still, what can be said of a country that is led by such ‘outsiders’?

The Education-to-Work Pipeline

Difficulty finding homes is of course intimately tied to difficulties finding meaningful work. The culture of education and work in the UK is proving toxic to the psychological wellbeing of young people. The mass proliferation of university degrees has reduced them to glorified work-entry passes, with more students pursuing undergraduate programs than in the country’s history. It has reached the point where they are even losing purchase on the job market, with Masters programs slowly becoming essential experience for many well-paid jobs.  In one way this works, albeit cynically, as a remedy to the non-belonging problem brought about by housing scarcity: instead of investing the next generation in the national project via property or place, the state develops their intellectual capital and extract economic commitment as a return. From another perspective this is a post-agricultural and post-industrial form of serfdom.

As part of this investment-based approach to education, curriculums have been flattened, with extreme compartmentalisation between subject areas. Students aren’t taught to consider applied mathematics in the context of history or literature (or vice versa), but are instead taught to consider ‘STEM’ and ‘humanities’ as diametrically opposed concepts with very little bearing on each other. Education in classics, art and intellectual history is increasingly considered a frivolous waste of public resources that could be better spent on ‘productive’ STEM learning. The almost obsessive turn in education policy towards STEM over the years has been the response to evident failure to deliver an innovative and high-output graduate workforce, in spite of the high level of education they have undertaken. In short, the government’s investments are not making profitable returns. However, failure to integrate learning in both STEM and the humanities is only going to intensify the disconnectedness felt by young people towards the national project, and withhold from them the tools to consider problem-solving and policymaking within a larger philosophical and historical context. Generations characterised by a lack of commitment and capacity to consider a wider horizon of ideas are unlikely to be the ticket to productivity that our government seems to think they will be.

Whilst not aiming mischaracterise the intentions of the New Labour ‘education, education, education’ policy, its objective consequences ought to be highlighted. Rather than transforming the country into an academic powerhouse, we have become an overly educated, under-skilled, and financially anxious generation, provided with only rudimentary mechanisms to understand our situation. To complete the tragedy, we are then leaving universities for a deflated, meaningless job market to manage managers, or manage the managers managing the managers, referring all difficult questions and problems to our managers.

Lack of meaningful work has a direct impact on both productivity and psychology. According to Indeed[9], only a third of British workers are happy at work. Standout CV found[10] that 1 in 2 millennials find their work negatively impacts on their mental health, and that 72% of millennials class ‘having a job with meaning’ as the most important factor in their work. The high-intensity work lives of post-industrial countries is furthermore negatively impacting the reproductive lives of young people, who are having less and less children, again compounding the root ageing problem. It is furthermore demonstrable that by relying on immigrant workers to fill vacancies, the labour market maintain low wages and innovative productive investment and improved work conditions for young nationals is cast to one side, partly explaining why 45% of junior doctors are considering leaving[11], domestic recruitment has dropped by around 10% since 2015[12], and around 15% of the NHS workforce is recruited from abroad[13]. The graph below brings light to the extent Figure 2, and our national economy,is weighted by youthful immigration:

Figure 4: Age structure of the migrant population in the UK, Q4 2016 | Source: House of Commons Library (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8070/)

Alternatives to the education-to-work pipeline are hardly attractive for British youth. Young people divide themselves socially along lines of education, with the uneducated (typically males) less likely to hold the social views held by the educated, and considered unattractive by increasingly educated young women. This means fewer families, greater reluctance to consider ‘insider’ perspectives, and as a result greater hostility to the national project. Whilst the government’s new attempt at normalising vocational training as part of the education-to-work pipeline – the so-called ‘T-Levels’– is welcome, it is clear that much investment is still required in vocational markets (and marketing) before skills-based labour sheds its negative perception. There is a clear difference between offering alternative courses, and fostering a sense of meaningful commitment to a specific line of work from a young age. Again, little effort has been made to blur the lines between disciplines to produce an education that is both more conducive to wider horizons of thinking, incorporating the practical skills and personal development necessary for a flourishing society.

This Won’t Last

Without a space of belonging, or a meaning to participation, extreme cynicism is the natural response to political demands. Whilst the population may be ageing, the ‘boomer’ generation can only cling on to power for so long. We might look to perhaps the most infamous gerontocracy in modern memory – the USSR – for pointers on our own future. As the old guard generation of Stalinists slowly began to die out (with a messy succession of centenarians occupying the top spot), eventually the system was forced to give way to younger blood. This came in the shape of Mikhail Gorbachev, whose long-awaited ambitious reforms blew apart the entire political apparatus, like new wine into old wineskins.

It is not unreasonable to foresee a similar crisis enveloping Britain in the near future. Whilst we may not be bound to the same problems that befall bureaucratic empires, we will certainly be undertaking a tremendous political shift, as a disenfranchised, radical, and entirely cynical generation find themselves occupying the seats of power from which they were shafted. Gen Z is defined psychologically by an inherent scepticism towards the national project, a sense of non-belonging, and a profound disinterest in maintaining the status quo. It is also the highest-educated generation in British history by quantity, but by quality is perhaps one of the least philosophically literate, topically diverse and historically trained generations in modern times. That our experience of governance growing up has been of slow, seemingly purposeful decline, dictated by a mass gerontocracy of charlatans completely disinterested in the national future (if such an interest may ever contradict their personal gain), will become a tremorous reality to face when we become the majority voting population (if we decide to stick to the age-based turnout trends, that is). The generation game our country is playing is a dangerous one to say the least, not only for the wellbeing of its youth, but also for long-term national stability going forward. But hey, what do I know? I’m only a 20-something chef.

---

Sources:

[1] https://89initiative.com/youth-turnout-uk-europe/

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/6734cdde-550b-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f

[3] https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WorldPopulationAgeing2019-Highlights.pdf

[4] https://centrepoint.org.uk/about-us/blog/homes-for-the-future-why-young-people-s-housing-needs-should-be-taken-seriously-this-election/

[5] https://www.generationrent.org/about_renting

[6] https://time.com/4108515/millennials-live-at-home-parents/

[7] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/changing-senses-of-place/place-detachment-and-the-psychology-of-nonbelonging/C33DBBB7FD8C82058E2573E5FFF43DEB

[8] https://www.insidehook.com/article/politics/millennials-voting-patterns

[9] https://www.2irecruit.co.uk/only-a-third-of-uk-workers-are-happy-in-their-jobs/

[10] https://standout-cv.com/job-satisfaction-statistics

[11] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220808005334/en/Nearly-1-in-2-Junior-Doctors-Are-Considering-Leaving-Their-Profession-Medscape-UK-Report-Finds

[12] https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/nhs-staff-shortages-worst-ever-24765094

[13] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7783/#:~:text=Around%20190%2C000%20out%20of%201.35,hold%20over%20200%20different%20nationalities.