PREVIEW
Editor’s Note
Petrus C
Every previous chief editor of Preview has said in their opening statement something along the lines of, ‘politics influences every aspect of our lives’, but as the General Election etches ever so close in the coming few days, it has never been closer to the truth.
Politics has always been the most relevant subject; the course and content evolve year after year due to the incessant change in the political landscape. It is crucial that we understand these changes in the political world, as they will inevitably affect us, this could be in the form of new rights, or even VAT on our school fees. Politics is intertwined with our lives, and we must understand and learn from it.
From in-depth analyses of national policies to explorations of international political trends, to Argentina’s new far-right president, our editorial team has collated intriguing topics that everyone can enjoy. We aim to not only enlighten you with stories that may be overlooked by mainstream media, but also inspire thoughtful discussion and critical thinking among our readers.
Politics is currently at the forefront of everyone’s minds and the timing of the magazine could not be more perfect. With articles on the Rwanda Bill and Starmer’s electoral plan, you are bound to find something relevant to the
current General Election, allowing you, the reader, to see these policies in another light, another perspective.
Furthermore, to add to this year’s excitement, articles on the November Presidential Election in America are also present, providing an international scope of articles for you to browse.
In this year’s magazine, we have an interview with the Conservative candidate running as MP of East Surrey and former Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, Claire Coutinho, who amidst her campaigning session offered us valuable insight into her role as a Minister, her job as the local MP and the general political climate.
Being the chief editor of magazine has allowed me to once again be amazed at the talent and passion within the school. The dedication and creativity of our students have truly made this edition special. Having read the articles myself, I can assure you that it will be an enriching and invigorating experience. I ask that you keep an open mind so that the articles may inspire you as they have for me and to enjoy it
From the bottom of my heart, thank you for reading and supporting Preview Magazine.
The Post Office Scandal
Alisha R
On the 1st of January 2024, ITV aired its first episode of Mr Bates vs the Post Office: The Real Story. A drama series documenting the real-life British Post Office Scandal, it has brought the scandal to the forefront of people’s minds, causing outrage amongst its viewers and the public, who continue to demand redress for the many victims of the miscarriage of justice.
But what is the Post Office Scandal?
In 1999, the Post Office introduced a computer accounting system, Horizon, with the intention to use the software to electronically manage accounting, transactions, and stocktaking. It didn’t take long for problems to start presenting themselves. Indeed, soon after the system was implemented, it began displaying “unexplainable discrepancies and losses” noticed by subpostmasters who began reporting them to the company. However, the Post Office maintained that Horizon was a “robust” system, and turned the blame onto their employees, demanding they pay back the discrepancies or face prosecution. As a result, over 700 sub-postmasters were accused and prosecuted on grounds of theft, fraud, and false accounting over the period from 1999 to 2015.
It is clear that efforts were undertaken to keep the issue with Horizon quiet, as the Post Office must have been aware of the problems with the software, due to the hundreds of reports concerning it. They took steps to cover it up, unwilling to delve into the mess that would be sorting out the issue and fixing things, instead choosing to turn a blind eye and blame the innocent. When the missing money was reported upon, the Post Office allowed the postmasters to be presented as the villains of the situation to their individual communities, painting them as thieves and fraudsters, leading to many of them being ostracised and disliked. The extent of the Post Office’s efforts to cover up that the fault lay with their system, and ultimately them, is shown in how they privately
prosecuted each of the accused, keeping the sub-postmasters from communicating and discovering that what they had experienced was a widespread issue with the system, preventing them from banding together to fight against the Post Office.
The Post Office’s unwillingness to own up to their mistakes led to hundreds of innocent people being burdened with criminal records, time in prison, and heavy debts to pay off.
The tragedy of the Post Office Scandal is that the victims and their families continue to remain uncompensated to this day: for their lost money, the time spent imprisoned, and their entire livelihoods. The false accusations led to many of the sub-postmasters and their families going bankrupt, with the money paid made into a profit for the multi-million-pound company – money that they certainly didn’t need, and hadn’t even lost out on in the first place.
government doing, and why have they, all this time, remained silent?
We have to wonder why the government has taken so long to speak up, and why they have left it to the Post Office – a company in which they are the sole shareholder – to sort the issue by themselves. Perhaps they hoped the problem would simply disappear, vanishing from public eye into the abyss of the unknown. If that is indeed the case, it is safe to say that such would not have come to fruition, as more than ever the media has kept the people well-informed over the issue, meaning almost everyone is aware of the scandal and demanding the Post Office and their lawyers be held accountable.
It has taken over twenty years for the government to begin only the first step in holding the Post Office accountable for their misdeeds and righting the gross miscarriage of justice that was committed continuously for over a decade-and-a-half, and that was defended ardently by a company seeking to save its own behind, concerned only with a profit and not the wellbeing of their employees, or the fact that they were responsible for hundreds of innocents’ needless suffering.
Even now, it is still slow going, as PM Sunak faces the public outcry stirred up in the first week of the new year, considering measures to clear all victims, and yet no clear reparations for all affected have been set out.As of January 2024, the issue is still prevalent and ongoing. Although it is some twenty-five-years on from the first convictions, nothing much has been done to deliver true justice on the issue, which begs the question: what on earth was the
Similarly to the 1980s NHS Blood Transfusion Scandal and the Hillsborough Disaster, the government has dragged their feet all the way throughout the years until public inquiries have forced their hand, ensuring that they can no longer avoid confronting the truth and dealing with the fallout of the misdeeds.
Looking to the future, perhaps hope has begun to shine after all for those affected postmasters and their families, as the metaphorical stirring of the pot by ITV’s series, the media, and the public’s demands seem to be forcing the PM and the government to finally step into the light to address and hopefully resolve the wrongs that should have long ago been righted, and never should’ve occurred in the first place.
However, it is sad to say that there are some who will never see that justice: those who committed suicide as a result of the scandal, those who were affected so badly that they will never again be able to scrape their lives together, and those who have lost so much over the years that any compensation the government and the Post Office hand out will seem pitifully unequal to what they have suffered.
Are ministers really responsible?
The concept of ministerial responsibility has long been a cornerstone in upholding accountability within democratic systems. In the context of the United Kingdom, our nation has had a long-held democratic tradition in which we uphold the principles of ministerial responsibilities of those we choose to represent us. However, as the complexities of governance have evolved in the contemporary era, questions arise regarding the true extent of ministerial responsibility.
Amelia G
Historically, ministerial responsibility has been synonymous with the doctrine of collective responsibility, wherein ministers collectively support government decisions, even if they may personally disagree. However, in recent times, this principle has faced challenges, particularly when ministers distance themselves from controversial policies or decisions, raising concerns about the effectiveness of holding them accountable.
The roots of ministerial responsibility in the United Kingdom date back to the late 17th century, during the Stuart monarchy, when Parliament strategically asserted its authority by holding ministers accountable for any mismanagement. This period marked the solidification of Parliament’s power to reject ministerial nominations in 1714.
The evolution of ministerial responsibility gained prominence in 1841 when Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel formed a government without Queen Victoria’s support, emphasizing the need for a standing government to maintain parliamentary confidence. In this context, adherence to the Rule of Law is integral to maintaining the accountability of ministers, individually and collectively, for their actions and decisions. The challenges faced by the principle of collective responsibility emphasise the importance of upholding the Rule of Law in UK politics, ensuring that government power remains constrained by rules, and ministers are held accountable for their roles within the intricate dynamics of modern governance.
The landscape of governance is undergoing a profound transformation, marked by intricate policy issues and an interconnected global environment, challenging the traditional understanding of ministerial responsibility. In an era where decisions are increasingly collaborative, and accountability is dispersed among various actors, a critical examination is essential to determine whether ministers can genuinely be held responsible for the
actions of their departments. One significant challenge stems from the intricate nature of modern governance. Decision-making often involves multiple stakeholders and departments, making it challenging to pinpoint individual responsibility. The blurred lines between policy formulation, implementation, and oversight further complicate the conventional concept of ministerial responsibility. Moreover, the ubiquity of social media and the 24-hour news cycle heighten the demand for immediate accountability, subjecting ministers to constant scrutiny. The rapid dissemination of information can lead to premature judgments and calls for resignations before a thorough investigation can occur, potentially hindering due process.
A compelling illustration of these challenges unfolded in the case of Priti Patel’s bullying claims in November 2020
The resignation of Sir Phillip Rutman, the most senior Home Office official, citing Patel’s behaviour as having “created fear” within the civil service, highlighted the complex interplay
of power dynamics. Patel faced allegations of bullying civil servants, a breach of the ministerial code of conduct which explicitly prohibits harassing, bullying, or any other inappropriate behaviour. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, however, rejected the findings of an independent investigation into the matter and expressed “full confidence” in Patel, a move that had profound implications for public perception of the Government. Johnson’s dismissal of the claims and his endorsement of Patel’s conduct sent a message that ministerial responsibility could be subject to political discretion rather than adherence to a rule of law. This case serves as a stark reminder that contemporary governance demands a nuanced revaluation of ministerial responsibility in the face of evolving complexities and heightened public expectations.
In confronting the formidable challenges presented by modern governance, a critical revaluation of the framework of ministerial responsibility becomes imperative.
The question arises: should ministers bear individual responsibility for decisions made collectively by the government? In an era defined by intricate policy landscapes and rapid information dissemination, does the traditional concept of collective responsibility remain viable? A potential solution lies in reinforcing the bedrock principles of transparency and accountability.
Moreover, cultivating a culture of accountability within government institutions is essential to ensure that ministers are held responsible for their actions, irrespective of the complexity of the decisions they partake in. As the British government grapples with contemporary challenges, the need to reconcile ministerial responsibility with the Rule of Law becomes increasingly apparent. Striking a delicate balance between collective responsibility, individual accountability, and the dynamic demands of a rapidly evolving governance landscape is paramount for maintaining public trust and upholding the core principles of democracy.
There exists a promising opportunity to steer the course towards a more open and communicative government. Through a thoughtful reassessment and adaptation of these principles, the British government can effectively navigate the complexities of the contemporary era while remaining steadfast in its commitment to the ideals of accountability.
Do the centre parties set or follow the curve?
Trans-rights in party politics
Mathilda O
Amongst the parties there are a multitude of stances taken towards trans-rights yet, it is important to note how drastically they have changed in recent years. From Cameron to Sunak and Corbyn to Starmer opinions on the rights of trans people largely vary. The question I raise is whether these attitudes stem from public opinion, or if public opinion dictates the opinions of party leaders. The issue has come more to the forefront of political debate due to the media attention it is received. Politicians take opposing stances on the issue of trans-rights purely due to its divisiveness.
In 2023/4 leaders of the two main parties both moved to take a far more conservative position on the issue of trans-rights. Rishi Sunak, leader of the Conservative party, publicly announced his attitudes towards the trans community at the recent Conservative party conference when he made transphobic comments that sparked anger amongst LGBTQ+ communities. Sunak stated at the Conservative party conference that “a man is a man, and a woman is a woman, and that’s just common sense”, he has since doubled down and said that making comments like this “shouldn’t be controversial” when it is just “fundamental facts of biology”, and he will not apologise. In the era of progression and forward thinking it pulls into question why both leaders of the two main parties are taking on these more traditional views. It is possible to argue that they are simply following attitudes of the public as YouGov reports that negative attitudes toward the trans community have increased since 2018 as 32% disagreed that a trans man is a man, and a trans woman is a woman however in 2022 40% disagreed over this statement. Sunak and Starmer as current leaders of the UK’s main parties follow these public attitudes in hopes to increase their popularity with the electorate. Starmer too appears to follow these public attitudes as in the summer he shifted the party’s stance on self-identification with 67% supporting this, according to the Guardian. Labour’s stance included making it harder to obtain a gender recognition certificate and barring trans women from public facilities. This shift is surprising from the Labour Party. . Yet, to know if the parties truly follow the curve surrounding trans rights the focus must expand further than Sunak and Starmer.
A Stonewall survey found that 41% of trans men and women say they experienced a hate crime due to their gender identity
May and Corbyn despite their critical image of each other and opposition on multiple issues, had similar progressive views on trans-rights. Corbyn became a pioneer and spoke out for trans-rights in 2017 when he urged May to let people self-identify their own gender without medical checks and declared Labour would support any change to law. In 2017, there was a call for protection of trans-rights through protests and surveys; a Stonewall survey found that 41% of trans men and women say they experienced a hate crime due to their gender identity. May also showed her support and desire to protect the trans community through her LGBT Action Plan in 2018. Both May and Corbyn promoted progression of trans-rights with the apparent backing of their parties. But their motives can be questioned as they may well have only been attempting to appease the public and align with the majorities views as in 2018 43% of the UK agreed that a trans man is a man, and a trans woman is a woman. There are obvious links between public and party attitudes towards the transcommunity showing that perhaps leaders do not aim to protect this minority group only appeal to the electorate and their outlook. Despite this obvious link it is important to recognise other factors that sway the opinions of politicians, aside from public opinion. The argument that Corbyn and May were purely attempting to appease the electorate has less weight as, they continue to campaign on the side of trans-rights when this goes against public opinion. Corbyn in 2022 during Trans Awareness Week said, ‘There is no debate: Trans rights are human rights.’ Showing solidarity to the trans community. May too, in 2023 said that the issue of trans-rights must be addressed with a ‘sensitive approach’
and that she is ‘woke and proud’. Corbyn and May’s continued solidarity toward the trans community removes credibility from the argument that parties only follow the curve of public opinion. However, May and Corbyn are both more liberal and progressive in nature than Sunak and Starmer who often adopt more conservative policies. May as a One Nation conservative is often associated with more pragmatic and interventionist policies which is evident in her petition of behalf of trans-rights. Furthermore, Corbyn is know for his more extreme stances on liberal issues particularly in his solidarity to the LGBTQ community. Highlighting that perhaps personal stances and political beliefs of party leaders is more influential in dictating attitudes than a desire to appeal to public opinion. Sunak is more conservative in nature as he has been described by The Economist in 2023 as ‘the most right-wing Conservative prime minister since Margret Thatcher’. This statement is hugely reflected in his policy and his attitude towards the trans community as it appears he aims to remove their legal protections from the 2010 Equality Act. Sunak exemplifies that perhaps the government sets the curve as
they lead by example and provide validation to the more conservative members of the public. Starmer also leans more conservatively in his aims, when it comes to the issue of gender, he is seen to be hugely out of touch with his own party demonstrating that politicians do not necessarily follow the curve. In a YouGov poll 72% of Labour voters said that people should be able to identify as a different gender to the one assigned at birth compared to a 32% for Conservative voters.
The issue of trans-rights has become more prominent in 2023-24 due to debate over transwomen in woman’s sport competitions and trans-women in all female prisons. This has brought the trans community to the forefront of the media and has polarised the issue hugely. With more negativity aimed towards the trans-community, public attitudes toward trans people have been hugely damaged. Politicians often follow the curve set by the public opinion in order to appease the electorate however, ideology appears just as influential of a factor as they appear to set the curve of public opinion. Sunak and Starmer act as enablers to the hate directed towards the trans-community as they set the precedent for treatment.
The strategic similarities of Sunak and Starmer
Petrus C
As the next general election looms just around the corner, the two prominent leaders of the Conservative and Labour Party have put forth their aims and missions, laying the groundwork and blueprint for their electoral campaigns in the following year, without exposing the intricate details to opposing parties. Both Sunak and Starmer are considered to be centrist within their parties, with their positioning underpinned by a similar rationale for both leaders.
Sunak assumed the role of Prime Minister from Liz Truss’ record-breaking 45-day premiership which shattered the already diminishing trust of the Conservatives especially about the handling and management of the economic front, which is the most important factor for the electorate. Trussonomics, characterized by reckless and drastic measures on tax cuts (the largest in 50 years) and unsustainable government borrowing which aimed to initiate a ‘virtuous cycle of growth’, failed miserably drawing condemnation from both Biden and the IMF, leading to soaring bond yields coinciding with the revealment of the minibudget. Truss’ failure in her adoption of Thatcherism forced Sunak to adapt and distance himself from the failure that was Liz Truss, creating a balance between the One Nation and Thatcherite factions within the party, while alleviating the aftermath of the COVID pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis.
In lieu of this and the short premiership he had left before the next general election, Sunak’s strategy was to remove Truss’ radical influence and to enforce quality-of-life policies that would resonate with the general public. Sunak’s 5 pledges albeit unrealized in January 2023 have stuck to this electorate-pleasing agenda.
Recently, I and many may have received a letter from Sunak. The letter outlined the long-term goals of the Conservative Party.
• Lowering inflation further
• Cut taxes
• Reduce debt
• Reaching Net Zero by 2050
• Helping parents balance work and childcare
The subsequent survey, accompanying Sunak’s letter, honed in on the public’s foremost priorities in steering the country. Yet, a notable emphasis was placed on reaffirming support of previous policies such as the 2023 Autumn Statements raising of National Living Wage and NI Tax cuts of 12% to 10%. Sunak’s decision to priorities the approval of the public over the radical nature of drastic changes like the mini budget displays underscores the importance of public support and in establishing a connection directly between the Party and the people, echoing election-centric philosophy.
Similarly, Starmer assumed the position as leader of Labour following a loss of 59 seats in 2019, largely attributed to Corbyn’s radical leftist manifesto and his neutral stance on Brexit, mirroring Foot’s 1983 ‘longest suicide note in history’ which led to the Labour Party losing 60 seats. Corbyn further tarnished the reputation of the party through his failure in mitigating antisemitism claims. Starmer in the hopes of reviving the image of Labour and to unite the divided Labour and present a more cohesive and electable image, arrived at the same conclusion as Sunak did, which was to position himself to the center of the party, reminiscent of Blair’s New Labour days. As soon as Starmer became leader, he swiftly expelled Corbyn and his close allies from the party, while distancing himself from the left-wing faction, Momentum, and also deselecting Sam Terry from the shadow cabinet after appearing at a RMT Strike. The New Labour resemblance is uncanny as he constantly praises Blair and Brown and repeats phrases from the New Labour Era in the hope of recreating the landslide victory of 1997. Fortunately for Starmer, the conditions he has found himself in are similar to that of the 1997 election, with plummeting Conservative support, Starmer has the power to bring forth a new image of the
Labour Party, rebranding it similarly to Blair’s New Labour. Starmer’s 5 Missions were written and outlined by Gordon Brown himself, and has combined both Conservative and Labour ideals, through the Thatcherite ideas of making Britian’s street safer and Blairite ideas such as improve equality of opportunity.
• Highest Economic Growth in the G7
• Building an NHS Fit for the Future
• Make Britain’s Streets Safe
• Make Britain a Clean Energy Superpower
• Breaking Down Barriers to Opportunity at Every Stage
Closely compared, both leaders’ missions reveal striking similarities. Both Starmer and Sunak emphasize economic growth and stability, with Sunak specifying individual measures such as lowering inflation and reducing debt, while Starmer focuses on outgrowing other developed economies. The push for green policies with a commitment to Net Zero by Sunak, while Starmer pushes for the outlook of a clean energy superpower. An emphasis on social support is evident with the focus on helping balance work and childcare through doubling hours of free childcare, while Starmer sought to break down barriers and foster opportunities for all.
In essence, as the next general election unfolds, the apparent lack of ideological differences between the two major parties presents a lack of choice for the electorate. Both Sunak and Starmer position themselves as economic centrists, striving for a greener Britain. Yet, it is too soon to tell if either party will present radical ideas in their manifestos, potentially introducing new dimensions to the electoral landscape.
How Labour will try to win the 2024 election
2024 marks the year of General Elections in 40 countries, notably the United States and Great Britain. That is why it is especially important to take the time now to educate ourselves on how different parties run their campaigns. When you vote for a party, it is important to know why you voted for them. Did you succumb to the psychology of their campaign? Or do you truly support their values? This article aims to explain a few themes on this issue.
Ellie M
Every political party in a two-party system – when two parties are dominant, as they are in Great Britain – has had a term in office. The current leader is likely to try to appear close in values and aims to a previous Prime Minister from that party, especially if they were popular. We can see that now as Sir Keir Starmer tries to appear like Tony Blair who won a landslide election in 1997. The Labour Party has summarised its current manifesto into 5 key missions. They focus on the NHS, energy, and building the economy. In 1997, Tony Blair released a card with 5 pledges that he promised
to deliver on whilst in office. Similar pledges were released in 2001 and again in 2005. Whilst they may have changed over the years, they all focused on the NHS, school, crime, and the economy. Many believe that one of the key reasons Blair won the 1997 election was because of his reformed version of the Labour Party, of which his pledges were a key part. Starmer is emulating the attempt to make the party more central as well as condensing the policies to make them easier to understand.
At the same time, Starmer is trying to distance himself from former versions of the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn was suspended from the Party in 2020 after allegations of anti-Semitic views. When Starmer succeeded him as leader, he immediately tried to separate himself and the Party from Corbyn. To do this, the Party shifted policy from the left to the centre. We can also see a shift towards patriotism in the Labour party. At a recent Party Conference Starmer was seen talking in front of the British flag - this is something that we would not see Corbyn do. The aim is to persuade people that the Labour Party of 2017 and 2019 (the last two elections) is fundamentally different from the Party that could potentially be elected to office this year. The reasons to vote, or not vote, for Labour in those years may no longer be applicable now.
To run a successful campaign for office, party leaders must try to appeal to the voters that would not normally vote for them. Starmer promoted some of his values by speaking on classic FM in December 2023. Classic FM is a radio station where most listeners are in the upper or middle class. As such, it is a good way for Starmer to advertise his party easily, at no great cost and to a large audience. The purpose of the interview was not to persuade viewers on his manifesto, but to instead reassure that at heart he has the same values as the listeners. Starmer talked about playing the flute and violin as well as how his time playing in his school orchestra had given him confidence and life skills. Playing a musical instrument, especially the violin, is typically seen as an upper- or middle-class hobby. Starmer is very cleverly trying to persuade these classes that, by voting for him, these hobbies, and by extension other upper/middle class ‘traditions’, will not be harmed. Something that was not guaranteed by former Labour leaders. This may seem like a small, unimportant thing, but to many, it could give them the peace of mind that would convince them to vote Labour.
The rise of social media has given parties a massive campaigning tool that is not restricted by the rules of campaigning. The recent turmoil of the Conservative Party has been frequently commented on in social media, mainly TikTok. Many young people have made negative remarks or jokes about the recent leaders of the Conservative Party. This is a massive help to the Labour Party as it is effectively others campaigning against the Conservative Party without any prompting from them. Despite this, social media can not always be the most effective as the algorithm will mainly show posts that the viewer will like. This means that those who vote Conservative are less likely to see these posts. Social media is a fickle tool to use as it cannot be controlled by the party. Any mistakes that Labour make is likely to be scrutinised just as hard as the Conservative’s recent turmoil.
Most of the campaigning that goes on in elections is positive campaigning, but it is also important to understand negative campaigning. This is a common tactic used against the leader. The way the public perceives the party leader is vital to support.
Negative campaigning is designed to work in reverse of this effect. In 2023, the Labour Party have released posters essentially accusing Rishi Sunak of believing adults who sexually assault children should not go to prison. They try to use the shock factor of the statement to grab attention. Some may simply look at the face value and think that this is a good reason to not vote Tory if the leader has questionable views. Some may look deeper and realise that the statistics on the issue given at the bottom of the poster are not good enough and use that as a reason to not vote Tory. Others may simply dismiss it as stupid. The aim of the poster is not to make people think that Sunak is a paedophile, but instead to make people realise that the Tories are not successfully stopping this specific
area of crime, and instead the Labour Party will do a much better job if you vote for them. There is a small concern that tactics like this undermine the professionalism of the person they are targeting. The PM may face backlash on what the posters are insinuating, unfairly diminishing trust. This may make it harder to keep the party unified at a time when any moment of disunity could help another party win the election and diminish trust in the MPs ultimately elected to serve the country.
To sum up, there is no wrong way to go about a campaign. Some methods may appeal more to sentiment than detailed understanding of policy, but all tactics have their place. What is important is to understand these techniques so we can see them for what they are. Hopefully, by knowing how these techniques work, we can look past them to have a deeper understanding of the party, the manifesto and the leader as a whole package, making our decision based upon those factors.
How much is a million pounds worth?
To any normal person, £1 million is a lot of money. With a median salary of £27,756 before tax, it would take the average person 36 years to save up a million pounds. That is without even considering tax and expenditures. Therefore, sensible investing of £1 million could easily be enough for a normal person to retire comfortably. That being said, a million pounds is far less important on a national scale. Across the country, sharing that amount of money equally equates to 1.5 pence per person, or roughly a single paperclip.
Isla M
Successfully running a developed country the size of Britain requires millions of millions of pounds that need to be both collected and spent by the government. So, by the time you need to run a nation, is a million pounds still a magically large number, or is it just a drop in the ocean for government expenses?
National Income
Truly understanding the worth of a million pounds must be contextualised in how difficult it is to raise the money and how quickly it can be spent.
£1 million each), it shows how just a small amount of taxpayers are needed to raise such a big number.
The vast majority of this is sourced from taxation, in particular income tax, VAT, and National Insurance Contributions (NICs), at 25%, 16%, and 15% of total revenue, respectively. While some revenue comes from non-tax sources, this only accounts for £100 billion, or about 10% of national income, and is overall negligible in comparison to taxation sources.
A common technique for comparing how successful a government has been in collecting tax across different countries and/or different time frames is to compare the total national income in comparison to total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of that year. This will help account for inflation of the time and the economic situation of the country. In 2023 to 2024, tax revenue is expected to be 36.9%, the highest it has been since 1949 to 1950 and expected to only get higher in the coming years to pay off government debt, which is over 100% of
Total revenue for the Government term of 2023 to 2024 is expected to raise £1.06 trillion, or about £15,650 per person. In the context of a million pounds, it would take 64 people, or a single train carriage worth of people, to raise this amount of money each year. Although this is just an estimate, as different income brackets will contribute different amounts to tax (the top 0.01% of earners should pay over
This level of tax is undoubtedly high, but not necessarily unprecedented when looking at other developed countries. Out of the 37 countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the UK was ranked 16th for tax to GDP ratio in 2022 and was only 1.3% higher than the OECD average.
The tax to GDP ratio increased for most developed countries after Covid, as is common in international times of uncertainty, and the UK was no different. Nevertheless, it does mean that the value of a million pounds is worth less to the government than ever before.
National spending
National spending has been higher than the government’s revenue for the last 20 years. At an expected £1.14 trillion of expenditures, the government will likely spend an extra £80 billion than what it will receive. Total spending is therefore about £16,800 per person or an average of £1 million for each 59 people.
National spending also comes in categories and can be categorised by two different methods: whether the budget can be fixed and what the money is used for. About half the total government budget is spent on Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) which is money allocated to each department based off predictable costs, such as public services, salaries, building maintenance, e.t.c. The other half of the government budget is spent on Annual Managed Expenditure (AME): demand-led spending which cannot be so easily predicted, such as pensions, or welfare benefits. Both these categories are allocated about £570 billion for 2023.
The other main method of categorising government expenditure is Resource vs Capital spending. Resource spending is day-to-day expenditures that are recurring purchases, needed to maintain public services. Capital spending, on the other hand,
is single-time purchases for investing in the future, like buildings, or better IT in public services. While a much larger proportion of government spending is budgeted to be on resource purchases in 2023 to 2024, this was larger still in 2022 to 2023 and reached 87% of government spending because of postCovid pressures, inflation, and the cost-ofliving crisis.
However, even in 2022, the smallest of the 4 total catagories (Capital AME) still had a total budget of £37.8 billion - tens of thousands of times larger than the mere million pounds we are comparing it to. If you consider the whole government budget, then a million pounds would be used up in less than 30 seconds.
The insignificance of £1 million in today’s world is made even more clear when comparing to other years. During Covid, the increase government spending reached over 50% of GDP. While government spending was lower surrounding the First World War, any time in the recent past and estimations for the near future all show high spending in relation to national GDP, making the importance of a single million pounds even more negligible than it first appeared. If you were to ignore the facts, it could be hard to deny that a million pounds is a lot of money – a life changing amount, even. But while each million is needed to add up to the vast sums of cash used by the government each year, a single million pounds by itself just isn’t enough anymore. Whether you blame inflation, or the growing responsibilities of the state for the depreciation of currency value in national terms, it is undeniable that a million pounds is now just pocket change when trying to run a country.
How Sport today shapes the future.
Sport impacts the world in so many brilliant ways. Competitions like the World Cup and the Olympics have the power to unite nations and resolve conflict. Due to this unique ability, as we look back throughout history, you can often see sport used as a chess piece and manipulated by the world’s most powerful people.
Alex S
Sportsmen and women all over the world in recent years have become the ultimate celebrities, with millions of fans and some even becoming a brand. They have amassed such a global following that their influence is almost unrivalled. So much so that one action can change an entire city’s behaviour. Indeed, researchers at Stanford University conducted a study that found that since the arrival of Liverpool FC and Egyptian superstar Mohammad Salah, hate crimes towards Muslims in Liverpool have dropped by 18.9% and Islamophobic tweets from supporters of the club have halved. The head of England’s first mosque Mumin Khan said, “[Salah] has broken the barriers of negative perceptions that the fans and general public hold about the Muslim community”. Mumin Khan credited Salah’s goal celebration as a part of this incredible achievement, saying that, “the very humble act of worship that he does on the pitch when he scores a goal has led people to ask, ‘what is he doing and what is it about?’” He managed to change the perception and challenged people’s beliefs around Islamic culture in such a short space of time.
Rashford drew upon his experience of going hungry as a child and the hardships that his mother went through to put food on the table during his youth. Following Rashford’s campaign, and his ability to galvanise public opinion, on 16 June 2020 the government announced plans for a Covid Summer Food Fund for children who usually receive benefitsrelated free school meals.
After seeing what one person can do for a city, we can now look at how a national rugby Union side was able to change a nation for the better as well. Following the end of the Apartheid in 1990 South Africa chose to host the 1995 Rugby World Cup. The tournament was of huge significance to South Africa even before it kicked off. It was a chance to put on such a spectacle for the first time since apartheid ended, and to banish South Africa’s accompanying status as a global pariah.
Individuals who are aware of their influence have begun to use it for political change. A very recent example of this was Marcus Rashford during the COVID 19 crisis, who campaigned for free school meals. Rashford began by sharing posts to his Twitter feed from local businesses across England pledging free meals to vulnerable children during the May 2020 halfterm holidays. In each tweet, Rashford placed a location marker highlighting where people could get help. The government subsequently extended the provision of free school meals to cover these half term holidays. In the campaign,
Rugby was not seen as an option for the 76% of the black population, with only 1 black player in the entire South Africa squad. The side went deep into the competition, reaching the final at the National Stadium in Cape Town with a record attendance of 59,000 people. The whole team was aware the nation was watching. South Africa won the game in overtime and, when it came to lift the trophy, the Captain number 6 Francois Pienaar and recently freed Nelson Mandela - wearing a Springboks jersey with number 6 on the back - shared that honour. It demonstrated how far the country had come and showed their hopes for the future. Since then, there has been significant progress, with many black athletes inspired by this story. In 2019, South Africa won the World Cup with their first ever black captain and another 11 black players in the squad. This change in demographic of sport in South Africa
is also a representation of South Africa’s growth since that moment in 1995. Francois Pienaar commented recently saying, “We didn’t have a clue what that victory was going to do for the country and I’m glad we didn’t, because it might have worked against us.” Pienaar later said of the outpouring of emotion that followed the final, “This Springbok team won a world cup but for South Africa they did so much more.”
I cannot just continue to explain the great side of sports for the world without explaining the negatives. Sportswashing is a new term to used to describe the practice of nations, individuals, groups, corporations, or governments using sports to improve reputations usually tarnished by wrongdoing. It has always been used throughout history, but in recent times, it seems extremely prevalent from sheikhs in Saudi Arabia to entire governments who continue to throw money at sport aiming to improve their image. This summer with the Saudi pro league, over 1 billion dollars was spent on player transfer fees alone, not including the incredibly high wages. The highest paid was to Christiano Ronaldo, the most followed sports person in the world with 696 million followers on his Instagram. He is paid 4.1 million dollars a week. By bringing the most followed players in the most followed sport in the world into their league, the Saudi Pro league hope to show fans how great their country and infrastructure is because they have one of the “best leagues in the world”.
Then we had the Qatar World Cup, held by a country with one of the worst human rights records in the world. While Qatari citizens
are among the wealthiest in the world, the vast majority of the population consists of non-citizens with no political rights, few civil liberties, and limited access to economic opportunity. This country hosted the most watched tournament in the world with over 5 billion viewers. Many nations argued against them hosting the tournament, but they paid the most by a landslide, spending 220 billion dollars on preparations for this tournament - 15 times more than Russia, the previous hosts. They paid superstars such as David Beckham millions to endorse the tournament and, in the end, this investment may have worked well for Qatar. It has improved their infrastructure and global awareness of Qatar, as its demonstration of wealth and luxury with extraordinary stadiums will impact how people view the nation.
But when you understand that it was under-paid migrant workers that built those stadiums, with 6,500 workers dying in the process, you get a greater sense for what the country was really doing by hosting the World Cup.
Finally, we will look at how politicians throughout history have used athletes to improve the image of their nations and its citizens. The Berlin Olympics in 1936 was used by Hitler to demonstrate to the world the power and strength of the Aryan race. Although this was somewhat ruined for Hitler by the success of Jesse Owens, it gave Hitler and the Nazi Party a global platform to portray their views. Another example of something similar is the Russian doping scandals for the last two most recent Olympic games. It is believed by many that Russian President Vladimir Putin authorised and encouraged the drug enhancement of the athletes to improve the perception of the Russia and its people and put forward a strong image to the rest of the world at the Olympic games. Here we can see that, whilst tournament such as the Olympic games can give us great moments, its brilliance can also be its downfall giving the wrong people a platform at the wrong time.
Current state of socialism
Henry C
On the 21st of February 1848 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published one of the most important and influential books of all time, ‘The communist manifesto.’ This theorised that eventually the proletariat (working class) would be tired of being taken advantage of by the Bourgeoisie (upper class), leading to a full-scale revolt in which the means of production would be in the hands of the workers and collective ownership would be at the forefront of society.
Marxism today is represented by a very small handful of countries showing that Marx’s theory has not come entirely to fruition. Cuba for example is one of the very few traditional socialist countries in the world, led by the communist party of Cuba and Miguel Díaz-Canel. Currently 65% Cubans work in a state-owned sector, relatively low for traditional socialism, meaning they have allowed for small businesses to grow in their economy. Despite the average salary of workers being just over 30$ per month food and other goods are so heavily subsidised by the government that in real terms this is not low as an income. An average citizen in Cuba has access to free Healthcare, free education at all levels and a top 10 house ownership rate in the world, meaning for the typical citizen Cuba has plenty of methods that will benefit them which should lead to a strong educated developed economy and society. However, Cuba suffers from relatively low wealth due to the socialist regime meaning money is hard to save and pass through generations. Cuba lacks high end housing and high end luxuries to enjoy meaning it can appear somewhat dull from the outside. Overall however Cuba is a relatively strong example for the benefits of socialism, as it has progressed far on from what Fulgencio Batista and the U.S had done to the island. Cuba boasts a preventative health care system with regular checkups allowing for lower deaths to cancer per year than America. Socialism has become incredibly beneficial for the working class in Cuba and has sustained a far superior regime to what before was essentially a U.S island as their constitution stated the United States could invade them at any time.
Socialism has also helped to inspire social democracies such as Sweden in creating a mixed economy that uses elements both of capitalism and socialism. This has helped Sweden to create a welfare state which has helped to provide universal healthcare, Strong labour market policies directed at strengthening the power of the worker over the owner and a progressive taxation system aimed at redistributing wealth across the country. This has led to it being the 6th happiest country in the world and a flourishing economy
that is largely innovative and is a top place in the world to live for any class of person. However arguably Sweden has been far more influenced by capitalism. In the 1970s Sweden has the most advanced welfare system the world has ever seen such as a strong safety net allowing those unable to work for various reasons to be able to live as any other citizens, but this of course meant that Sweden needed to raise large funds for this having a high tax rate. This peaked at the top rate of 87% income tax. This taxation was so high it made workers in Sweden tired of not having free access to their earned income and a low GDP and overall happiness rating. This therefore led to gradual capitalist reforms, such as a far lower tax rate implemented by prime minister Ingvar Carlsson following a financial crisis and a lower safety net for unemployed workers incentivising people to work and keep a greater percentage of their earnings.
Overall, Socialism is of course not an ideologically perfect idea, it tends to be far more effective in less economically developed countries after overthrowing self-interested leaders such as Batista and the Tsar family in Russia. Arguably socialism can bring a low wealth country a level of good living standards and welfare across the country, but for an economy and a country’s wealth to pass a certain point capitalist reforms must be in place to allow for greater economic growth leading to a greater real GDP per capita this has be seen in countries such as the aforementioned Cuba allowing small businesses to operate leading to greater long term growth. However economic growth could be argued not to be the key government goal but instead to improve welfare and living standards equally among citizens, which socialism will do, but at an arguably slower rate. This shows that despite Marx and Engels exact theory not quite holding up it has encouraged and influenced worker rights throughout the world and led to reforms which can lead to more welfare for those who are vulnerable in society compared to capitalism.
Chiang Kai-Shek Villain or Hero?
Jeffery L
Chiang Kai-Shek once said, “the rise and fall of Shanghai means the birth or death of the whole nation.” After committing the best troops in China to the Battle of Shanghai, making a grand stand against the imperialism of the Empire of Japan.
Leading China during the Second World War, he is widely regarded as a hero for his actions in preserving the country’s integrity and unifying it under one flag. However, the underlying corruption and authoritarianism plagued his government, and for many, he ruined the dreams of democracy and was a ruthless dictator under the false pretence of democracy.
During the interwar years, China was fractured into factions and warlords. The de jure government only exerted power around the capital, and the country was underdeveloped and poor. He successfully led the northern expedition in 1928 and reunited the country under the KMT, and formed the Republic of China. He proceeded to form the country on Sun Yat-Sen’s Three Principles of the People (Nationalism, Democracy and people’s livelihood).
The following decade was prosperous of the newfound republic, and multiple reforms were carried about by Chiang’s government. He established the Academia Sinica to promote education and literacy within the country, while the Central Bank of China was formed to regulate currency and the economy. These reforms meant that Chinese citizens were able to receive education that otherwise would have never had access to. His government also supported women’s
rights and education. Chiang’s government enacted policies that reserved a number of seats in Parliament for women, and sought to end polygamy traditions and foot-binding practices in China. Moreover, reforms were also introduced to reform the penal system, improve infrastructure such as roads and railways, improve public health facilities, and augment industrial and agricultural production to make them more efficient. His heavily centralized oneparty government and personal concentration of power meant that these reforms were hardly opposed by internal opposition, and they were often carried out efficiently. Reforming the military with help of foreign support from the Soviets and the Germans, he remade the National Revolutionary Army from a combination of scrap regional militias into a proper fighting force that was able to defend the country from external threats. Chiang KaiShek’s leadership unified a fractured nation and introduced initiatives that sought stability and progress in a war-torn country. His efforts to construct a modern China makes him a hero to many.
However, internal and external threats casted shadows on his progress in constructing the nation. Chiang was a staunch nationalists, he grew up during the fall of the Qing Dynasty and watched his country being carved up by foreign powers. His goal was to form an independent Oriental state, free from foreign powers. His studies in the Soviet Union made him conclude that Communism was not the way to work in China, and he detested the ideas of “global revolution” as he believed it was an immense danger towards the independence of the Chinese people. As the main threat against his position in his party were from Soviet-backed sources, this
made them an easy target for Chiang, and this would be the foundation of his endless power struggles both within the party and externally across the country with the Communists. He led his personal vendetta against the Communists by purging leftists in the April 12 incident, and furthermore led troops to fight them in five separate campaigns that spanned half a decade. His opposition with the Communists shackled him throughout his rule and will eventually come back to bite when the Japanese invaded in 1937. Chiang also faced the problem of corruption within his government. His wife Soong Mei-ling was part of the Soong family, and their family embezzled millions of dollars from both government revenues and foreign aid. However, Chiang required support from the wealthy and tolerated corruption within high ranking ministers and officials. He attempted to take a harsh stance against corruption on
lower ranking officials and officers in the army, in a few instances ordering them to be shot for embezzling government property. Yet these efforts were mostly in vain, and he failed to completely eradicate corruption from the army and the government. Chiang was also deemed a fascist for his nationalistic and authoritative ideology that he promoted. He sponsored the creation of the Blue Shirts Society, mirroring the Blackshirts of the Italian Fascist Party and the Sturmabteilung of the Nazi Party, with the ideology of expelling foreign imperialism within China and to crush Communism.
Close ties with Germany in the 1930s also enabled China to access German economic and military assistance, with advisors such as Seeckt and Faulkenhausen arriving in China to affirm the commitments of Nazi Germany in the country. Chiang’s centralization of power, cult of personality, anti-communist and nationalistic ideologies cemented his position as a near-fascist by contemporary studies. Chiang Kai-Shek might have led China through a decade of prosperity, yet his authoritative rule and oppression against dissent made him unpopular and a villain to many.
To conclude, Chiang is an interesting character to analyse. His unique politics that were shaped around a specific set of circumstances caused views against him to be completely divided. China in the 1920s and 1930s was in an infancy stage of a republic. It removed itself from its monarchical past and attempted to transition to a modern democracy based on western values. In hindsight, it is easy to argue against Chiang and the demerits of his actions, such as his addiction to power and meaningless power struggles that ultimately weakened the country which caused his demise in 1949. However, it is also too harsh to call him a villain.
China was at an extreme disadvantage when Chiang was in power. It had an illiterate population, was underdeveloped, lacked technology, and at the same time was at risk
of being carved up by foreign powers. Chiang did what he thought was best for his country, and according to Sun Yat-Sen’s Three Stages of Revolution, he had to first educate the people on the ideas of democracy and western values, before implementing a democracy in the state. He did this by centralizing power and passing reforms as efficiently as possible. However, he ignored the unintended consequences of corruption and power struggles that resulted from his actions. Moreover, there were simply too many factors at play which were uncontrollable by Chiang. Chiang pursued the policy of “First internal pacification, then external resistance” during his governance, and sought to defeat the Communists before dealing with the external threat of the Japanese. Yet the Communist insurgency proved harder than expected to defeat. Coupled with the Japanese invasion in 1937, Chiang simply had too many
“First internal pacification, then external resistance”
problems to deal with, and he did not have sufficient resources to fight both fronts at the same time. We can argue in hindsight that he should have been more rational and cooperate with the Communists in the first place, but his ideology and staunch anti-communist stance simply prevents such a move being made in context. Is he a hero? Not necessarily. He famously said that he would rather mistakenly kill 1,000 innocent people than allow one communist to escape. Millions have died during his rule and oppression, his campaigns and purges against communism and power struggles costed millions of innocent lives which had nothing to do with his aims. To them, Chiang would be the villain that was a ruthless dictator who oppressed dissent under his rule, yet it cannot be denied that he contributed greatly to the founding of a modern China, and what it is today.
Liberalism
Luke O
Liberalism as an idea emerged during the enlightenment in the 17th and 18th Century, and was the result of a period of thinking, where traditional views were questioned heavily. Notably, ideals such as the divine right to rule, churches and traditional rulers and authority, as epitomised during the French revolution. This saw the monarchy overthrown and a new constitution established based around ideas of freedom, and the rights of the people.
Both modern and classical liberals hold fundamentally similar views about many issues, such as humans being rational and deserving rights, that the state is something which should be as minimal as possible, that individualism should be pivotal within society, and that the economy should be free. Since then liberalism has adapted and developed heavily, and this article will be examining the views that 5 key liberals (John Locke, John Stewart Mill, Mary Wollstonecraft, Betty Friedan and John Rawls) would hold on three different yet key aspects of political life: the state, the economy and human nature.
John Locke
John Locke was one of the first and most influential liberal thinkers. His views about all the aforementioned matters still hold weight today.
Firstly, his view that life, liberty and property were natural rights that everyone is born with, and subsequently believed these rights should be both protected and un-interfered with. He developed the idea of a social contract when thinking about the state, arguing that the state’s political legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed rather than any ideas of divine right to rule or inherited authority. Furthermore, he argued that people within this contract had
given up some of their rights in exchange for protection from the state. Whilst being opposed to the idea of a state, he deemed it a “necessary evil” in regards to the fact that humans being selfish guarantees disputes to arise, therefore, a social contract with the state would help settle these disputes. On top of this, Locke found meaning and importance in the right to revolt. This would be the case if a limited government began to interfere with citizens private and personal lives. Furthermore, Locke argued for the tolerance of religion, with his work “a letter concerning toleration” advocating for religious freedom and the separation of church and the state, coinciding with his belief that individuals should be free to practice their faith without coercion.
Mary Wollstonecraft
Wollstonecraft’s ideas were around the time of the French revolution and she was heavily influenced by the revolution itself. Her ideologies were centred around her assertion that supposed rights for individuals only were seemingly being applied to men, and she believed rights should also be applied to women. Adapting one of liberalisms key ideas of rationality, she argued that women similarly were rational to men, and therefore saw ideas such as education for women as vital. She believed that given access to education, women could be alongside men as valued members of society. Furthermore, Wollstonecraft argued for a society and state based of republicanism rather than monarchy.
John
Stewart Mill
Mill was one of the most influential thinkers in British history, being pivotal in both Philosophical and Political thinking, and in regards to Liberalism, his main input was the harm principle. Epitomised in the following quote –“your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”. Which essentially states how you have the freedom and autonomy to do as you please, however this freedom and autonomy will end should you be causing someone else harm. Furthermore, he bridged the gap between classical and modern liberalism with his ideas of developmental individualism, in which he argued that state intervention at a moderated level can be beneficial to the individual and their freedom. He favoured a representative democracy, however had the controversial solution to the issue of tyranny of the majority being an electoral system which saw educated voters be held in a higher regard. He supported Laissez-Faire capitalism and believed that tolerance was essential.
that world and be held as equals. She created NOW to advocate for women’s rights in America, mainly in regards to issues such as abortion and equal pay. Her views were similar to that of Wollstonecraft, believing that individuals are of equal worth and are therefore entitled to equal rights. In regard to the state, she believed in a more interventionalist model which could help to ensure equality of opportunity, and believed the state had a key role to play in this.
Rawls
Rawls is the most modern out of the 5 examined within this article, and his main input was the Veil of Ignorance, where he argued that if we had no idea where we would end up in society would want to design an equal society. He believes it is rational to want to create an equal society. In regard to the state, he believes it is pivotal to have redistribution of income and argues that there should not be such an extreme gap in pay for the rich and the poor, believing that the state should step in to aid in this matter.
Friedan was a liberal feminist and was influential to both of those issues, being a renowned liberal and a renowned feminist. She focused on work, education and politics, and wanted women to enter
Overall, liberalism and its ideas centre around the ideas of liberty, freedom, individualism and equality, and these ideas – brought from the period of thinking and evaluating the traditional societal structures of the 17th and 18th century – still live on today, and therefore one must acknowledge how key the ideas of liberalism and these five key thinkers really are, both historically and within society today.
Betty Friedan
John
Does Europe still dominate global sports?
Theo B
Europe is the birthplace of many of the world’s most popular sports, but does Europe still dominate these sports at both a competitive and non-competitive level? These two questions bring about very different answers especially in the new modern era of sports globalisation.
At a competitive level, Europe is the birthplace of the most popular sports such as: football, cricket, cycling and Formula 1. It is not the fact that European countries invented these sports which gives them the advantage, instead it is their affluence.
There have been 22 FIFA world cups since the competition began with the final of the 2022 World Cup having 5 billion viewers. Only 10/22 world cups have been won by a team outside of Europe and only two of the World Cup finals have not contained a nation from Europe.
This shows that at least in the case of football, Europe is still very dominant. As I said this ability to compete year after year on the global stage is due to their affluence. This affluence allows the European nations to develop academies to develop home-grown talent but also house the most competitive leagues in the world. England, France, Germany, Spain and Italy were seen to be the most competitive nations to win the 2022 World Cup before it began, and it is no coincidence that these
countries host the world’s top 5 domestic leagues. These leagues not only allow their own players to develop but they also attract coaches from across the five continents which bring ideas and new playing styles, such as ‘tiki-taka’ from Spain under Pep Guardiola who brought this idea to Manchester City in 2016.
The Tour de France is another example of European dominance at a competitive level.
Of the 22 teams in the 2024 Tour de France only 6 of them are from outside of Europe and only 32 of the 218 riders in the 2024 Tour de France are from outside of Europe. These figures are staggering considering the Tour de France has had 3.5 billion viewers at its peak which is only second to the 2022 FIFA World Cup.
The European dominance is greatly highlighted by the fact that of the 109 Tour de France competitions held there has only been 12 winners from outside of Europe. Therefore, at the moment there is still a strong argument for the fact that Europe still dominates many of the world’s most popular sports.
However, due to the increased globalisation of world sporting events, Europe seems to be losing its control over the competitions themselves. This is due to the fact that more and more countries around the world are becoming more developed and therefore have the money to host the international competitions but also to develop their own domestic competitions.
The Saudi Pro League is a great example, due to the massive income Saudi Arabia receives from its oil exports it has allowed them to develop an extremely affluent domestic league. This league in recent years, due to its huge cash investment and improved reputation, has been able to poach players from the top leagues in Europe.
There have been significant signings such as: Neymar for $102 million, Karim Benzema for over $200 million, Roberto Firmino on a $17 million salary and Cristiano Ronaldo on a contract worth over $200 million a year. These signings attract more viewers to the Saudi league and with viewers come more sponsors. Although, the league is yet to take off fully and the top 5 domestic leagues remain in Europe, in the future this league will be able to become more competitive and if these teams
manage to break into the UCL then Europe will truly be losing its gasp on the monopoly of domestic league football.
Another key example of globalisation of sports has been happening in Formula 1. Despite six of the ten teams being based in England and the other four in Europe the actual Grand Prix have become more and more globalised. In 2000 6/17 Grand Prix’s were held in Europe whilst in 2024 only 9/24 are going to be held in Europe. This shows a blatant move away from European influence and control over the venues and income of global sports and a much more globalised approach to the world sporting stage.
Therefore, although there is strong evidence that Europe, due mainly to its affluence, is able to maintain its successful competitiveness in the most popular sports, its control over the events themselves is dissipating and is making way for non-European countries to take control, or share control, which in the end could result in a more competitive and therefore more interesting global sporting stage.
The UK-Rwanda Asylum Scheme
The plan stated that some asylum seekers arriving in the UK would be sent to Rwanda instead. The details of this plan have also been set out in the form of a treaty that was signed in December along with the safety of Rwanda Bill that was published shortly after the treaty.
Weston W
It was first announced by the Government in April 2022 that a fraction of asylum seekers arriving in the UK would be sent to Rwanda afterwards. This idea was then extended to anyone entering the UK illegally being sent to Rwanda, with no limit on numbers. With the plan in place, the first flight was scheduled to go in June 2022 but was cancelled after facing legal challenges.
Two legal challenges were first issued in June 2022, where these judicial review cases were heard by the High Court. The High Court examined individual-focused claims which challenged the lawfulness of removing individuals from the UK to Rwanda and also examined the lawfulness of the government’s rapid process for sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. In December 2022, the High Court found the scheme to be lawful but stated that the government must review each individual case overall - 8 individual cases needed to be reviewed, but the High Court found the Home Secretary didn’t properly review each of them. The claimants then requested for an appeal to the Court of Appeal after the initial verdict at the High Court and this was granted to 6 of 8 claimants. In June 2023, the Court of Appeal ruled that the plan was unlawful, and that the High Court’s decision to deem Rwanda a safe country should be reversed. However, it is interesting to note that the ruling by the Court of Appeal was found by a majority, and that it wasn’t a unanimous decision. It’s also important to note that the claimants appealed on other grounds as well, such as:
• Whether the agreement between the UK and Rwanda governments provided sufficient protection against refoulement and other article 3 European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) ill treatment
• Whether the Rwanda policy constituted a penalty under article 31 of the Refugee Convention
• Whether the policy breached retained EU law
• Whether the policy was systematically unfair
Yet all these grounds of appeal were unanimously dismissed.
The government then went on to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, and in November 2023, the asylum plan was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court as well. It’s important to note that the Supreme Court ruling was a unanimous decision. But why did the Supreme Court rule in favour of the claimants?
The Supreme Court found sufficient evidence that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would face a risk of being returned to their country of origin, which would result in ill-treatment. This risk is also known as ‘refoulement’ and is prohibited by numerous international law instruments such as:
• The European Convention on Human Rights
• The UN Refugee Convention
• The UN Convention against Torture
• The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The instruments stated above have also directly affected UK national law IN:
• The Human Rights Act. 1998
• The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993
• The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
We also know that the Supreme Court have stated its reasons for concluding that Rwanda is not a safe place for asylum seekers and these reasons include:
• Rwanda’s poor human rights record
• Serious defects in its procedures and institutions for processing asylum claims
• Rwanda’s own practice of refoulement and large numbers of claimants forced to return to conflict zones
• The Rwandan government’s poor understanding of its obligations under international asylum law
• Rwanda’s failure to comply with an obligation of non-refoulement in a previous agreement with Israel.
Thus, this case wasn’t dependent on only the ECHR or the Human Rights Act but rather all of the law bodies stated above. This led to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision of the asylum seeking scheme as unlawful.
While this decision is a big loss for Sunak’s government, the government’s response has been ‘respectful’ of the ruling, yet the response says otherwise. The government plans to create a revised treaty with Rwanda and also an emergency bill which will declare Rwanda as safe to prevent further court challenges under UK domestic law. But what will this mean for the future?
Due to the Supreme Court’s evidence of why Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers, the government will have to prove that Rwanda is safe, somehow. And while
this can be achieved through a parliamentary assessment of Rwanda, the primary legislation would only affect domestic law and not the international law which the UK is also subject to. As claimants can ultimately make their way to the European Court in Strasbourg, this is still a risk to the UK government as the European Court can rule against the UK if it believes Rwanda isn’t safe.
All in all, it’s quite uncertain whether this plan will go into action. It’s unknown how long it will take the government to produce its new treaty and the emergency bill, while the new treaty bill will also have to pass through Parliament and the House of Lords, adding even more time to the process. This uncertainty along with the upcoming general election makes it hard to believe the plan will ever come into place.
Hong Kong Handover 1997
For many years, long negotiations had been ongoing between Britain and China about the rule of the territory, Hong Kong. Britain had ruled for 156 years, until finally in 1997, the region was returned to Chinese sovereignty. China promised Britain that in exchange for rule over Hong Kong, they would formulate a one country, two system model, which would be overseen by the Chinese Communist government.
Will L
The Basic Law in Hong Kong states that policies regarding Hong Kong will remain unchanged for 50 years after the handover. The political system within the region has designated governance led by a Chief Executive and an Executive Council, an independent judiciary, and a two-tiered system of representative democracy. For a Chief Executive to be elected, they must receive 188 votes or more from the Election Committee. Hong Kong’s governance of its own people means all the tax paid goes back into the region of Hong Kong; however, as it was taken over by China, there was a lot of speculation about the overall rights within the special administrative region of Hong Kong itself, and many thought they would lose parts of their freedom and be under stricter wider government rules. While this ended up not being the case, many people emigrated from Hong Kong to various places, a very common one being the region’s former ruler, Britain. Mass migration out of Hong Kong was on the rise before 1984, the year that the handover was confirmed, but in those 13 years, over one million
people left the region, due to their worrying nature and scepticism about how the handover would work. As a result, the region lost huge amounts of financial and human capital. In more recent years, Beijing, China’s capital city, has begun to expand its influence and control of the region. Some of these moves were abruptly hastened by mass pro-democracy protests in 2014 and 2019. Dozens of people were arrested in these protests. An example is when schools began to teach lessons on patriotism and how Hong Kong has always belonged to China, with some textbooks denying that the region was ever a British colony. Electoral reforms created by the Chinese government have made sure no opposition lawmakers, only those deemed to be ‘patriots’, are in the city’s legislature, which muted various debates on how Hong Kong should be run. Beijing has introduced more laws, increasing national security and limiting freedom upon the people of Hong Kong. Beijing now influences the selection of judges that oversee national security cases, most likely to influence decisions in their favour.
As a result of the mass emigration that occurred, the country suffered a financial crash for around five to six years, from 1997 to 2002. Within just one year, the GDP of the country had shrunk by 5.1%. At this time, parts of Asia also suffered from financial crashes due to various reasons; however, China didn’t suffer very badly at all, as its financial system was relatively closed. China did not provide direct financial assistance to Hong Kong; however, as China was still suffering to some extent, the policies that China implemented affected Hong Kong as well, aiding its economic recovery. Finally, the cultures of China and Hong Kong actually differ more than people may realize. The two main differences being the economic handling of the country and region and cultural differences. The language spoken is different, so there is not as much continuity among the residents as you’d think. Furthermore, Hong Kong runs a positive non-interventionist economic
policy, believing in little involvement in the economy, similar to a Thatcher government, although not as extreme. Whereas China has a socialist market economy where there is dominance in public ownership and stateowned enterprises, much like what left-wing Labour wants to achieve.
In conclusion, the handover initially seemed sceptical as many people emigrated from the country in fear that China would not live up to its promises. Five years later, things seemed to be in a steady state; the country had recovered from its own financial crash with some help from China, and the political system seemed to be running smoothly. However, in the past ten years, China has been going against what they promised back in 1997, as they made some very controversial law changes, judges elected by China, and crackdowns on crime and order, with many more arrests being made. So, it is highly debatable whether the handover was worth it for the people of Hong Kong.
Why Biden must win the 2024 US presidential election
2024 is shaping up to be a blockbuster of a political year, with elections in the UK and the US as well as January’s elections in Taiwan.
Dante B
Recent primaries (which determine the US Presidential candidate for each of the main parties) in Nevada, where Biden won with an unassailable 90% of the vote, and Iowa, where Trump won a record 51% are pretty demonstrative that it will be a rematch between the two in November. A US election always has huge ramifications for the world, and this one is looking like it could have the biggest impact of all, on democracy in the US and around the world, the environment, and foreign affairs. Former President Trump currently faces 91 felony charges, has detailed limited support for international agreements, and prides himself on the negative impact he has had on rights in the States. This and Biden’s successful first term, which was marked by bipartisan agreement on legislation, protection for Ukraine, and funding for the environment is why he must win the coming election.
Policy issues
Trump’s fascist tendencies when it comes to immigration were well documented during his first term - detaining children at the border with Mexico and banning entrants from Muslim countries were just the tip of the iceberg. This year he intends to run on the policy of closing the border entirely. Since then, he has called illegal immigrants “vermin”, and said that they are “poisoning the blood” of the United States. This dangerous rhetoric has been linked to that used by Hitler about the Jews during his genocidal reign. This stokes fear in his ‘Base’ (his followers) leading to the persecution of these already marginalised groups. In comparison, Biden has been shaky on the border with daily entrants rising to nearly 10,000 a day at the end of last year but he has been humane. He ended Trump’s policy of detaining children at the border and used an
Executive Order to remove the Muslim Travel Ban. This is far more sympathetic and leads to less antagonism, which Trump whips up every time he runs on this issue. Whether you agree with his ideas or not, Trump is using the state at the US-Mexico border to boost his own popularity. In February Trump forced his Republican peers to kill a law that they had drawn up that would have given more hardline power to border security. He did this so that the situation would not change and so that he would have enough statistics to use for his campaign later in the year.
Immigration is not the only policy issue in which the two candidates largely differ. Trump continues to deny the climate crisis, saying that he will extend the drilling of oil and gas across the United States. In 2016, he pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement (an international pledge to limit global warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels) another extremely damaging policy area. This has led to a decrease in trust in the environmental agenda and could pose a long-term risk to humanity at large if Trump returns to office. He will likely reopen talks about expanding the Keystone oil plant and not delegating an envoy to future COP summits. On the other hand, Biden reinstated the Paris Agreement and is campaigning for a brighter future. During his 2020 campaign, he pledged to cut US carbon emissions 50% below 2005 levels by 2030 and initiated important climate talks with the world’s biggest polluter, China.
Trump also used his presidency to decrease women’s reproductive rights. As President he appointed three conservative justices to the Supreme Court (the highest court in the US), causing there to be a conservative majority on
the bench. This led to a rise in conservative rulings such as the Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health case of 2022, which decided that abortion was not a constitutional right. Many conservative states then passed restrictive abortion rulings, making it incredibly difficult for many women to have an abortion. Trump hailed this ruling as a victory and claimed the credit. Claiming the credit for eroding the ability for women to choose is shocking and is not what the general population support. According to a Gallup Poll of 2022 62% of the United States population support the availability of abortion. In stark contrast, Biden wants to enshrine a nationwide abortion right if he is re-elected. He aims to codify the original verdict in the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe vs Wade which detailed that the “right to a private life” in the US Constitution included the right to an abortion.
Foreign Affairs
Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Biden has pledged unequivocal support to Ukraine and maintained the importance of defending democracy around the world. The US has given the most aid of any country in the world with Biden repeatedly using his media presence to urge legislators (Republican and Democrat) to pass aid resolutions. Biden has also pledged support towards Taiwan and rejected the One China Policy (that Taiwan and Hong Kong rightfully belong to the central Chinese government). In stark contrast, Trump is deeply protectionist, campaigning for “America First”. He has shown no desire to support democracy against the authoritarianism of Putin stating that he can “do whatever the hell [he] wants” if NATO allies do not reach the spending guidelines. Trump would stand by and watch China invade Taiwan, having expressed support for his “good friend” Xi Jinping and his One China Policy. Trump cannot be allowed to lead America and the world in another term, destroying international alliances and supporting authoritarian genocide.
Trump is a selfish man, who is not running for President out of the kindness of his heart, for the good of the American people. He is willing to break the rules, to go against the US’s democratic principles to be on top. Despite losing the popular vote in the 2020 Presidential Election by over 7 million, Trump fraudulently claimed that he had won the election. Stoking conspiracies, he alleged that Biden had added dead people to the ballot to claim victory despite the staggering margin. This ultimately led to an insurrection at the United States Capitol building on the 6th January 2021, in which Trump attempted to take control by military means after failing successively to force results to be overturned in key states such as Georgia. The cornerstone of any liberal democracy is the idea of free and fair elections, Trump has completely undermined this. He attempted to warp the election result, making it something that the people did not vote for and undermined trust in the democratic process. For elections to be successful, people must believe that even if they lose, the result is fair and representative. Upset about not being as popular as he had assumed, Trump threw his toys out of the pram and cried ‘cheat’ in a childish ploy to appeal to his extremist voters and unfairly win the White House.
Since the ‘Capitol Riots’ Trump has remained a threat to democracy. He has threatened to rule in an authoritarian manner, suggesting that he “will be a dictator…on day one”. Having already reduced the rights of women, immigrants
and the LGBTQ+ it seems he is threatening to go even further, something completely unrepresentative of the people. Although there are many constitutional checks and balances in place to prevent him from acting in this manner, with his strong supporter ‘base’ Trump could wield considerable influence over the rule book if elected a second time.
Trump’s crimes
Perhaps the most compelling evidence that Trump is simply not fit to govern is the fact that he currently faces 91 felony charges in four separate indictments. These range from the 13 charges in the state of Georgia for attempting to overthrow the result of the 2020 election to the 34 charges in the falsifying business records case. It could be argued weakly that these are just charges, he has not been found guilty of anything yet. However, this is not the case. In a civil case regarding the sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll he was found liable for assault and defamation. Moreover, in September 2023 a New York judge issued a summary judgement finding Trump and his two adult sons liable for fraud. Surely no one that has broken the law should be allowed to make or govern the law. Although it is not clear whether these charges will prevent him from running, either way, he should not be the next President.
Biden positivity
Passing new legislation is particularly difficult in the US due to how the legislative branch (Congress) is designed. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that there must be broad (preferably cross-party) support in Congress for a bill to pass into law. For a bill to pass, it must garner a majority of votes in both chambers of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate. As Congress is usually very slimly divided between the two main parties –the Republicans and Democrats, the President must appeal to both sides to get their legislation passed. Biden has been quietly very successful at gaining bipartisan support for impactful legislation for both the future and for the present. He passed the first meaningful gun legislation for over 20 years in the form of the Safer Communities Act, increasing background checks on those who want to buy weapons, succeeding where other Presidents (Obama, Trump) have failed. Additionally, he boosted the long-term productivity of the US economy with the CHIPS Act which increased the production of microchips. His long career, age and experience stand him in good stead to understand the inner workings of Congress and how to achieve the change that the public desire which is why he should continue as President.
Conclusion
It is fair to say that the American people are not completely thrilled at the choice they potentially face in November – ABC News polls suggest that 43% approve of Trump whilst only 40% approve of President Biden. However, it is the choice that they are most likely to face and it is an incredibly important one for the long and short term. It is not simply that Trump would be and has been a disaster, Biden has been a successful and persuasive President who has subtly provided America with a more positive future. In order for democracy, rights and the future of America to be secured Biden must be the President-elect ahead of the unstable, egocentric Trump.
AI seemed to spring upon us, but for how long has the development been hidden in plain sight?
The 1950s saw the first use of AI with Alan Turing discovering the use of machines showing intelligence. Since that moment, we have seen a vast increase in its development. The rapid increase in computer technology in the early 2000s has enabled innovators such as Sam Altman (Current CEO of ChatGPT) to rapidly develop AI as we view it today.
Fraser R
Many are quick to shut down the benefits of AI, displaying the dangers it could cause. While that may be true, the list of how AI can be used to benefit the world is almost endless. AI has the potential to aid with: healthcare, education, administrative tasks, public safety, research, innovation, and countless other fields. This development in technology will undeniably boost efficiency and innovation within their respective fields. However, this comes at a cost.
The further dependence on AI will inevitably cause many to lose jobs. Employees will be phased out by more efficient and inexpensive AI and so therefore begs the question:how will the development of AI affect the economy? For this question, we can ask the AI itself.
the introduction of AI will demand a skill shift. Those replaced by AI will need to adapt and that may come at a price. This leaves the potential for income inequality to grow exponentially, which provides ethical questions surrounding our further use of AI.
People will lose jobs. That is clear.
I asked ChatGPT, “how will AI affect the economy in the next 10 years?”, and within seconds, it came up with 10 points, including income inequality, skill shift, and job displacement. People will lose jobs. That is clear.
Businesses will simply gain so much by using AI and not having to spend money on a salary. Furthermore, it is also true income inequality will drastically increase because
Is it morally ethical for a government to allow technology that will cause a serious financial disruption to so many peoples’ lives? The development of AI will inevitably need to be met with regulations to protect the millions of jobs it may replace.
It will become a key talking point in upcoming elections, with parties shaping their party manifestos around how they will aim to protect vulnerable jobs. This should not be seen a s a problem. The development of AI should be met with open arms because it has so much potential to better our everyday lives. Yet it should simply be taken with a pinch of salt. Like all things, it comes at a cost, and it is how the public and the government deal with these costs that will determine the success of AI.
A blessing or a curse to the American political landscape?
Emilia C
Twitter (x) is one of the largest and most influential social media sites in the world, with 528.3 million users globally causing 500 million tweets to be sent each day.
The USA lead with 95.4 million users spending an average of 34 minutes on the app a day. They use the site to share their thoughts and opinions on things that are important to them, with subjects ranging from Taylor Swift to Rishi Sunak.
Astudy conducted in 2021 found that one third of US tweets are of a political nature, resulting in them having a large impact on US politics for a multitude of reasons.
Globally, the USA is seen as an outlier in terms of political impact. The global pattern is that it helps increase democracy, yet Americans are most likely to say that social media has negative impacts on democracy. This is ironic given it is utilised as a political tool by many of their leading officials, with Republicans likely to be more critical than Democrats. The American public are also consistently negative about how social media has affected politics and society.
For example, 79% of Americans believe access to the internet and social media has made people more divided in their political opinions. Republicans have previously had a more negative view of Twitter; however, since Elon Musk’s takeover, their views have become more positive whilst Democrat’s views are more negative now. About three quarters of Republicans say social media has been a bad thing for US democracy, compared to 57% of Democrats expressing this view.
presidential victory. He treated the site like a personal diary, creating a multitude of headlines after every tweet. Trump tweeted 8,000 times during his campaign and 26,000 whilst in office, and when blocked from the app, he left behind 88 million followers. But was his strategy an effective one for increasing political interest, or did it just gain him momentary fame?
Trump tweeted 8,000 times during his ca mpaig n and 26,000 whilst in office
Social media acts as a double-edged sword for politicians. Whilst sites offer the opportunity to engage and connect with those giving them influence, it can also cause their downfall. The most famous example of this would be Donald Trump. America’s 45th president was well known for his use of Twitter to spread information. During his 2016 presidential campaign, he relied heavily on social media rather than the more conventional television strategy for communication with the publica strategy which turned heads but did lead to a
Of his 10 most popular tweets, 4 contained false claims regarding the 2020 election results, and of his 100 most popular, 36 contained false election related claims. Trump’s impact has clear effects on US democracy as it has led to a decrease in public trust alongside a visible outcome as a mob of Trump supports interrupting the Congressional session confirming Joe Biden’s victory. Social media was present in every step of that event, serving to heighten tensions and physically organise the riot. This shows the power of Trump’s internet presence, but is this helped by the social media sites themselves and those complex algorithms?
As Twitter and other social media sites become more and more influential on politics, there is a growing number of claims - both from politicians and the electorate they hope to represent - that the algorithm is amplifying opponent’s voices whilst simultaneously silencing theirs .But is there any truth to this? An analysis of political parties in 7 countries discovered that in 6 out of 7 countries, the mainstream political right has higher algorithmic amplification than the mainstream political left, and that more specifically in the US, right-leaning news sources receive a preference.
Twitter has had such a large impact on politics in recent years, leading to one significant question: what would politics look like without it?
Very different. Whilst the app has become a hub of misinformation and fake news, it has become a normalised tool for politicians worldwide. It has become unusual for a politician to not have an account that they use to connect. This means its role has evolved and it is now the source of many political stories.
In short, Twitter is both a blessing and a curse to American politics. It enables politicians to connect with the electorate, but many see it as ruining democracy as the site is weighed down by accusations of bias and negative public opinion.
88 million followers
when Donald Trump left Twitter
Of his 100 most popular Tweets
36✗ contained false election related claims
79% of Americans believe access to the internet and social media has made people more divided in their political opinions
In 6 out of 7 countries, the mainstream political right has higher algorithmic amplification than the mainstream political left
Swinging the vote
Uncovering the pivotal power of swing states in shaping elections
Swing states are states which could sway to either side in an election. In elections of the past, swing states have proved to be extremely influential in determining the outcome of an election. Trump’s key wins in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, and Biden’s wins similarly in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in 2020, proved to be the finishing blow to the opposition party. Candidates put their parties’ finances, time, and focus into these swing states so they are able to tally up as many Electoral College Votes they can, so they reach the 270 they need to become victorious.
George K
Swing states have carried a lot of weight in previous elections. Most recently, in 2020, 7 states were identified as swing states before the election began, those being: North Carolina (carrying 15 electoral votes), Florida (carrying 29 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (carrying 20 electoral votes), Michigan (carrying 16 electoral votes), Arizona (carrying 11 electoral votes), Wisconsin (carrying 10 electoral votes), and Ohio (carrying 18 electoral votes). All in all, these swing states together accounted for 119 electoral college votes. The large number of these votes attracts Presidential Candidates. It is widely regarded as whoever wins the most votes out of these 119 will go on to win the election. Indeed, Biden’s wins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Wisconsin put him at an advantage over Trump and the Democrat shock win in Georgia (which had been devoutly Republican for the past 28 years) put him over the line to win the election in 2020.
2020 swing states:
North Carolina
Michigan Arizona
In an interview with CNN, Trump stressed the importance of his party winning swing states, perhaps more than the Democrats, saying “The Republicans have a disadvantage. They lose New York, Illinois, and California before it even starts”, describing these states as “automatic” Democrat states. The winning of California especially, as well as New York and Illinois, before the election even really starts proves a massive advantage to Biden and the Democrats, as California is the largest state in terms of population and carries 55 electoral votes, 17 more than any other state. New York is also big, carrying 29 votes, and Illinois has 20. Although the Republicans don’t have any “automatic” states as such, they are always heavily favoured to win Texas, the second
Wisconsin
Ohio
largest state in terms of electoral votes, with 38. Although the Republicans win many central, rural states, such as Wyoming, Idaho, or the Dakotas, they do not carry nearly as much weight, with most of them carrying 3 electoral votes. In a climate where elections are “decided by the coasts” as Trump describes it, he stressed the importance of claiming those swing states, to help them chip away at the Democrat advantage. It’s clear that both parties pour their focus and time into issues facing swing states. By coming up with a resolution to fix their state’s issues, the respective parties hope that they can woo the hearts of their residents, leading them to win. In 2016, 94% of all election campaigning for both parties took place in just 12 states and two-thirds of the events took place in just six states, all swing states. More than half the states in the nation did not have one campaign event in 2016 after the national party conventions and no candidate even stepped foot in any state with just 3 electoral votes (such as Wyoming, Montana, Delaware, and Vermont), proving the focus of the parties is entirely devoted to that of the swing states. This same pattern was repeated in 2020.In August of that year, 70% of all campaign events were held in just six states, and all those statesexcept Minnesota which borders 2 swing states - were held in swing states. The fact that so much time is spent solely on these states shows that this is where the election is won and lost. This also shows the sheer power the swing states have in shaping the outcomes of elections. The money spent also visualises this point. In 2020, political spending totalled $14.4 billion, double the amount that was spent in 2016. A large sum of this money was spent in the swing states to improve their election
campaign. For example, almost $9 out of every $10 spent on TV in the 2020 campaigns was concentrated in 6 states, all of which were swing states. This sheer amount of spending from the parties creates almost an arms race of money and time to win the states, a race that the winner of would become the president of the United States.
Preparations have already begun for the 2024 election later this year. Although the final candidates have yet to be formally confirmed as of January 2024, - it will most likely be a rematch of the previous election, with Trump and Biden going head-to-head once more. Swing states do vary, however, which gives the parties limited time to campaign for their elections.
Seventy-six years ago, in the 1948 elections, New York, Illinois, and California were seen as swing states and their victories were crucial to the election of Harry Truman. Now devoutly “automatic” blue states, New York and California were considered swing states up until 1988.
Although we aren’t entirely sure what the swing states will be yet, predictions can be made to
help the parties begin preparing their election campaigns. Through recent polls, we can see that the swing states that might determine the outcome of the election so far include: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Georgia is now turned into a swing state after Biden’s shock win of 0.3% there in 2020. Similarly with the other states, we can gather that those that were flipped in 2016 and 2020 - Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, for example - will be competitive.
All in all, the race to becoming president of the United States is one characterised by time, money, and focus. With the help of “automatic” states on their side, both parties will look to the swing states for their campaigns to be won and lost, and accordingly it is there where they will devote all their time, money, and focus.
The swing states are the key pieces on a chess board designed for election victory, driven by the Democrats and Republicans. They battle to win the swing states of America, with hopes of delivering the opposition the checkmate that is presidency of the nation.
Ireland, immigration and unrest
Recently, the stabbing of three primary school children and a carer outside a school in central Dublin transformed the capital into a war zone in less than 24 hours. A “lunatic, hooligan faction driven by a far-right ideology” destroyed 11 police vehicles and badly damaged 13 shops with widespread looting across the city, resulting in condemnation from both sides and the largest deployment of riot police in the Republic of Ireland’s history.
Luke D
But the motives and backdrop for this sudden outburst of violence are complicated and still somewhat unknown. However, the issue revolves around immigration. Migration in Ireland has been a part of life for hundreds of years, in the form of emigration after famine and economic collapse, with it often joked that the biggest export of the country was people. Because of this, the Irish historically empathise with the plight of the immigrant; after all, many still remember the racist signs ,“No blacks, No dogs, No Irish”, on boarding houses and job sites seen throughout England and the US. Because of this, immigration has never been a political talking point and in the history of the Republic of Ireland, a far-right politician or party has never been elected at the national or local level.
So, when rumours began to circulate that the man who stabbed the school children was Algerian, many on social media urged people to “make your feelings heard” and people started to gather around the site of the attack. This new horrific stabbing followed the sentencing of a Slovak immigrant for the murder of Ashling Murphy six days earlier. Furthermore, tension has also recently risen due to the housing crisis, with 1 in 5 in the Republic being born outside of the country and a longlasting housing crisis giving rise to slogans such as “Ireland’s full”, which a small group yelled at Gardaí (police) during the riot. It is also important to understand that there is no Nigel Farage or Marine Le Pen-like figure for these beliefs to coalesce round, nor is there any party with clear policy on immigration giving the
riots a more anti-government sentiment. All members of the government, particularly the Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar, condemned the riots, saying that the rioters acted out of a “love” for “violence” and brought “shame” on Dublin. Furthermore, Justice Minister Helen McEntee said that a “thuggish and manipulative element must not be allowed to use an appalling tragedy to wreak havoc”. Irish President Michael D. Higgins said, “that it would be used or abused by groups with an agenda that attacks the principle of social inclusion is reprehensible and deserves condemnation by all those who believe in the rule of law and democracy.”
“Rioters acted out of a love for violence and brought shame on Dublin”
Leo Varadkar
While no members of the Daíl (Irish Parliament) supported the rioters, many criticised members of the Government. The Government is currently comprised of a historic coalition led by Fine Gael along with there rivals Fine Fáil as well as the Green Party. The Leader of Sinn Féin and TD (consistency representative) for the area of Dublin worst affected, Mary Lou McDonald led the criticism of McEntee with many anonymous ministers and TD’s from both Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil saying her position was “untenable”. This culminated in a motion of no confidence in McEntee as minister for justice tabled by Sinn Feín on the 1st of December; however, the government won the vote: 83 to 63.
Further criticism came from celebrities, including Elon Musk who said that Taoiseach Leo Varadkar “hates the Irish people”, as well as Connor McGregor, who accused the government
Graffiti saying “Irish Lives Matter” is being treated as a hate incident
of shifting focus away from the stabbing. Even prior to the riots he said “Ireland we are at war” in response to foreign nationals being allowed to vote.
To further add to the confusion, a Brazilian-born Irish citizen helped to defend the children from the attacker. The Irish government pushed this fact, trying to ensure that a racist narrative didn’t emerge. However, in doing do, they ignored the other people who helped which led to even more anger as supposedly four other people helped fight the attacker but none of them were reported in the papers or commended by the government. The political tension has also risen in Northern Ireland where graffiti
saying “Irish Lives Matter” is being treated as a hate incident. Sinn Féin, the leading party in Northern Ireland called the graffiti “disgraceful”. On the other hand, while many disagree with the rioters, some
“Ireland, we are at war”
Conor McGreggor
of the public have questioned how Irish nationalism can be a hate crime in Ireland.
In summary, the lack of discussion of immigration in formal politics combined with the trigger of a horrific stabbing of primary school children resulted in the worst riots in modern Irish history, raising questions in the Daíl and from the Government as to the efficacy of policing in Ireland and drawing huge attention to the issue of immigration in a country with a long history of emigration. While no public figure supports the riots, a large amount of the public understand the “frustrations” (to use the words of Connor McGregor) and their source.
Javier Milei Is his victory really that shocking?
After an economic crisis, the election of an extremist right-wing leader is highly common. This is due to the need of a change from the status quo, as people have lost confidence in the current governing body and therefore require a major change to regain trust and to believe in a boom within the economy, which is essential for lowering inflation and ending poverty.
Mary B
One of the most recent cases of a rightwing leader being elected and entrusted to recover the country from a recession was Javier Milei’s victory, installing him as Argentina’s president. He became leader in the middle of an economic crisis, as Argentina’s annual inflation rose to 143% and 40% of the population was living in poverty. The recession was caused by multiple contributing factors from the country’s past, as Argentina had predominantly left-wing policies, including excessive taxes, excessive regulations, protectionist policies which discouraged trade. A corrupt government was another key factor.
on the economy. This resulted in waves of hyperinflation, leaving the country in a spiraling cycle of inflation, which devalued the peso and damaged the trust of the people. Consequently, many felt the need of a change to escape starvation, improve living standards, and break away from corrupt politicians.
“Argentina is in a critical situation. There is no room for gradualism”.
Over the past two decades, left-wing Peronist governments doubled spending in the public sector and introduced expensive subsidies alongside tight regulations
This social attitude towards changes was highly beneficial to Milei, as he is a radical libertarian economist, who is also a self-labelled anarcho-capitalist, and who promised “drastic changes”. Milei was raised in Buenos Aires, and he grew up during the 1980s, during a period of hyperinflation, similar to Argentina’s current issues. The damaged economy influenced him to study economics at the University of Belgrano, where he learned about libertarian economics and was first introduced to the
political and economic theory of anarchocapitalism, which minimizes state intervention within the economy.
He managed to emphasize with citizens by publicly announcing that “Argentina is in a critical situation” and he campaigned with a sense of urgency for radical reforms as “there is no room for gradualism”. Although he was seen as controversial due to his ideas such as legalizing the sale of human organs and eliminating all gun laws, he managed to gain the media coverage that later allowed him to elaborate his aims. One of the most covered topics within media was Milei holding a chainsaw during campaigning to symbolize his plans to cut spending. Other aims, which left him dubbed as “El Loco” (the madman), consisted of ditching the peso for the dollar and “blowing up” the central bank, which in his perspective, was causing inflation due to excessive money printing. He also proposed cutting welfare payments and slashing bureaucracy by closing the ministries of culture, women, health, and education. Milei’s aims contrasted with the prior left-wing policies, which left many with hope. This hope was clearly visible when, after his victory was announced, thousands of supporters filled the area surrounding Buenos Aires’ Obelisk monument.
“You will turn your Country around and truly Make Argentina Great Again!” [sic]
A 57-year-old man marching mentioned: “I’ve been waiting for this all my life: no more Peronists, no more thieving, no more lies”. This supports the idea that the public felt the need for a change in power so the “children will
get to live in a free country”. Further support was shown from the former US president Donald Trump: “you will turn your Country around and truly Make Argentina Great Again!” [sic]. Additionally, support was also gained from Fernando Marull, the director of Buenos Aires-based economics consultancy FMyA, who said that “for sovereign bonds and stocks, Milei’s win will be positive” and that “Argentina has just voted for a big change”. It is a strong point to say that media coverage undoubtedly helped Milei increase his support. However, it is more important to note the perspective of the average Argentinian, who felt robbed by the government and in desperate need of an alternative that had the initiative to radically reform the unpopular policies. In summation, Javier Milei’s victory is far from shocking. This is due to the desperate population which was robbed by the people they trusted with decisions, the politicians. The lack of confidence in politicians damaged the economy further after it was already ruined by unsuccessful policies, leaving many Argentinians to experience starvation. This then caused the population to support a rebellious spirit towards the political establishment, Milei, to help them escape the agony. Even if Milei will be unable to push through all of his reforms, given that his party has a small number of seats in the Parliament, it is important to note that he was elected by the people. Therefore, this shows that Argentinians believe in the potential of the free market economic theory.
Claire Coutinho Interview
Recently, we were lucky to have the chance to interview Claire Coutinho, the Conservative candidate running to MP for East Surrey (since Parliament has dissolved) and the former Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Ms Coutinho explained what her job was like as both an MP and a Minister and provided substantial insight into the Conservative strategy for the upcoming General Election.
Petrus C & Weston W
Firstly, when asked about the East Surrey healthcare system, Ms Coutinho pointed towards a new diagnostic centre which has drastically reduced the strain on the NHS within the area, allowing for a more fluid transferral of patients from the primary care unit to hospital or social care units, and more people getting the care and support that they need.
The effects of the diagnostics centre are clearly seen as there is relatively more satisfaction towards the NHS within East Surrey, compared to other regions further north, showing that these medical plans have come into fruition. Furthermore, in a bid to combat loneliness and the subsequent clogging of the medical system because people are going to GPs to talk, Ms Coutinho started a new charity centre known as the Friendship Project which has raised ten thousand pounds. This money is then distributed to local charities that host coffee mornings and allow for further connections within the community. This has reduced the strain on the healthcare system and improved the mental wellbeing of the public, thereby reducing their chance of needing the healthcare system in the first place, effectively killing two birds with one stone.
She talked about the necessity of defence spending, and this can be reflected through the released Conservative manifesto which aimed to commit 2.5% of GDP to defence. She believed that there is a noticeable contrast between the Conservatives and Labour, who promised to meet the 2.5% target only when economic circumstances allow.
This can be seen as a strong stance from Ms Coutinho and the Conservatives in showing that they are devoted to keeping Britain safe, as opposed to a more uncertain Starmer. Ms Coutinho also stated the goal of bringing down the tax burden on the British population, which corresponds to the popular idea that the economic situation of the country is what brings support for a party. The commitment of this goal can be shown through the Conservatives’ promise of £17 billion per year of tax cuts.
Conservatives promise £17 billion per year of tax cuts
The upcoming 2024 General Election in July which was only recently announced has been a hot topic for debate. Labour is predicted to be the favourites of this election, with the Conservatives having stayed in power for nearly 15 years leading the UK through controversial events like COVID and Brexit. As we know, the Conservative Party are forecasted to lose to Labour in the soon to come election and Ms Coutinho was extremely helpful in providing insight on what she thinks the Conservatives need to do in order to stay in power and gain support.
Net Zero is a one-of-a-kind policy which the Conservatives are aiming for. When addressed with the idea that Net Zero by 2050 seems unrealistic, Ms Coutinho provided a series of affirmations including how England has halved its emissions since 1990 and is the best at reducing emissions in the top 20 economically developed countries. A strong point was also made that, while the environment should be the main focus, the economy must still be strong to ensure further future investments into energy and help the whole world decarbonise.
As a reflection of this goal, steps taken to further reduce carbon emission in the UK include no longer using coal in the energy system and the use of clean energy such as offshore wind. In addition, regarding the focus on global carbon emissions, Ms Coutinho helpfully outlined a few steps which the Conservatives hope to
encourage Net Zero globally. One of which includes the technological aspect of solving the carbon problem. Furthermore, carbon capture units and nuclear power stations are on the to-do list of the Conservatives. All in all, whilst some may think that the aim of Net Zero by 2050 seems too idealistic, it is a great goal to strive towards and sets an example for other economic powerhouses, which ultimately benefits everyone on a global scale.
Moreover, Ms Coutinho was critical of Labour’s energy strategy labelling them as ‘mad, bad and dangerous’. She singled out the proposed ban on oil and gas licences which out of the major economies, only New Zealand has gone through with. Here the policy led to the skyrocketing of household energy bills and was recently U-turned.
Also, when asked about Starmer’s proposal of simplifying the UK legal system, Ms Coutinho
pointed at the natural edge the UK has, which is the current legal system allowing firms to operate in a safe environment, incentivising foreign investment. Labour’s plan of deregulation will only take out the inherent advantages that the UK already has, thus leading to her conclusion that Labour’s idealistic approach in policies put the UK in unnecessary risk during dire times of economic free-fall, we simply cannot afford the extra damage that it could lead to.
Overall, Coutinho has enlightened us in terms of the intricacies within politics that as ordinary students we would not be exposed to. By directly conversing with her, we understood her passion and willingness to support her own nation and constituency and has propelled us to be more involved into politics. We cannot thank her and her team enough for giving up her time to speak with us and we wish them the best in the coming election.
Eli Barrot Inteview
Petrus C
Recently, I had the opportunity to interview Eli Barrot, the external affairs officer of the Royal Opera House, who provided valuable insights into the intersection of politics and performing arts in Britain.
Elidiscussed how performing arts, a significant part of Britain’s cultural heritage, have become politically salient and at times controversial. Britain’s influence in the world of the performing arts is seen through the West End which rivals that of America’s Broadway. Thus, surely the government would desire to preserve this natural edge Britain already has going for itself?
Sadly this is not the case, the performing arts are an extension of British society which relies heavily on public and government spending, however, since Cameron’s austerity measures in 2010, there has been a strong neglection in the field. The government’s prioritization of public funding slashes has led to the performing arts being one of the forerunners for budget cuts as they are seen as nonessential in the wake of the economic crash, leading to a gradual decline in support for the arts within the nation.
This was exacerbated under Johnson’s ministry and his ‘Levelling Up’ Plan which redirected from the arts in the south to the infrastructure projects of the north such as HS2. The combined efforts of the two Conservative Prime Ministers have, for different reasons, created a downward trend of influence for the arts and opera.
Furthermore, the wider cultural debate on whether we should the arts as it has connotations with nobility and higher social status, remains contentious to this day.
As recently as 2022, Shadow Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner was attacked by Dominic Raab for attending opera events during rail strikes and labelling her as a ‘champagne socialist’, which incited comments by former opera director John Berry. He countered by point out the blatant double standards in reactions to MPs attending other events like Wimbledon or pop concerts, arguing that art events should not be singled out.
Eli emphasized show how art and culture can bring people together and bring opera back into the public spotlight. He had the opportunity to do so in a recent collaboration
with the Ukrainian Embassy. The Royal Opera House founded the Songs of Ukraine Chorus, a choral group consisting of Ukrainians based in the UK, a majority of whom have been displaced by the war.
In February 2024, the chorus performed for the First Lady of Ukraine, Olena Zelensky and Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty at 10 Downing Street. Eli expressed his enthusiasm in the ability for the higher arts to work in solidarity with Britain’s foreign interests, with his job involving the liaison with both the communications team in 10 Downing Street and the Ukrainian Embassy. The event was a success and enhanced the media profile and
societal role of the higher arts. The choir is set to perform at the historic St. Paul’s Cathedral in London alongside the Ukrainian Freedom Orchestra in July and we wish for the very best for their success.
The arts can work in solidarity with Britain’s foreign interests
Eli’s career demonstrates how politics students can be involved in politics. He pointed current politics students towards lobbying which offer a wide range of opportunities in various areas such as finance, sports or television, enabling students to fine tune what specific expertise they would like to get involved in. Allowing students the opportunity to cooperate with government and Westminster in a politically adjacent and impartial manner.
