Apologies

Apologies, but there is no post this week. 

While I have a half-completed draft in the works, time pressures mean that it will not be published until next time around (31st Jan). Sorry.

If you have questions, or topics you want me to write on, feel free to comment, and I will certainly get back to you!

Theo

Oh Jeremy Corbyn...?

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party is widely tipped to become Prime Minister in the next general election (in 2022) if not before. I’m not so sure.



The Economist predicts a Corbyn victory...

The Labour Party surpassed all expectations last June when they secured 262 of 650 seats in

Parliament- up 30 from 2015.

Pollsters and experts alike were discussing the probability of a Tory landslide, but maverick Jeremy Corbyn instead led Labour to not-exactly-victory-but-a-better-than-expected-result.

Most journalists are now pushing the idea that he could win the next election, but I feel they’re simply overcompensating for their badly incorrect predictions of the 2017 election.



...as does the i.



40% vote share

The Labour Party was founded in 1900 to represent the working class and trade unions. They’ve since had six prime ministers and varying degrees of success in Opposition; they're the only party equal to the Conservatives, with a far wider support base.

In 1992 the party suffered one of their most humiliating election defeats, only taking 271 seats. The then leader, Neil Kinnock, subsequently resigned.

Jezza celebrating what was, really, a defeat.

And last year, Jeremy Corbyn performed worse than Kinnock. Instead, he decided to stay in power, even though Labour's vote share was only around 40%.

For a party that’s meant to be on an equal footing with the Conservatives, and has trounced them in the past, Corbyn's 'successes' are quite hollow. It's worth remembering that for all the bombast about his performance in the last election, he still lost - badly. 

Hearts and minds

Theresa May had the worst ever approval rating for a British Prime Minister a month after an election. Her net rating of -25 (she's 'disliked' 25% more than 'liked') is far worse than Corbyn's -11.

That's good news for Labour, right? Well...no. May still has a clear margin on 'Suitability for Prime Minister' (12% more), and if Corbyn has a much better approval rating, why is Labour not making more headway in the polls?

The parties are only a few points apart, as they've been for months. If Labour are unable to exploit the raging disapproval of Prime Minister May after 6 months, then it doesn't bode well for the next five years.

Granted, Corbyn was in a similar position before the last election, but he's reached the limits of his current support base (i.e. the youth and poorer communities). He needs to find more votes from somewhere, and he's making little progress with over-35s and richer homes. It's hardly the success story that the media proclaims.

Jeremy Corbyn's political strength is grossly overestimated: he and the Labour Party aren't skilled enough to exploit their opponent's unpopularity and poor handling of Brexit; and his 2017 election result wasn't a success, no matter what his supporters may say.

His chances of securing a majority in Parliament are much smaller than he would have you believe.

The British Brexit Biased Brilliant Betraying Boorish Brazen Bought-off Broadcasting Corporation

There’s a persistent belief among many that the BBC is inherently biased. That’s nonsense.

No group the size of the British Broadcasting Corporation can be absolutely impartial at all times, but to claim that the largest broadcasting organisation in the world has deep-rooted and deliberate bias is a bit off.

BBC or Stalin?

A royal charter and 95 years...all down the pan?

Impartiality is one of the BBC’s core values, and has been since they were invented as a radio network in 1922. The Royal Charter - which lays out the principles and way they’re run - opens with the importance of neutrality. It's physically is built into the BBC's constitution. But does that mean anything?

In clause 3 of 72, the BBC demands absolute independence

A lot of people would say 'no'. The most common anti-BBC claims are made by the tabloid newspapers (Mail, Sun, Express, etc.), and they say the 'beeb' is anti-Conservative and anti-Brexit.

The flaw with these claims is that the papers are owned by a pro-Conservative, pro-Brexit media tycoon: Rupert Murdoch. Obviously, he's biased against neutral news. But also, he doesn't like the BBC.

Pro-Tory...

He wants his media empire (including Fox, Sky, The Times and the Mail) to control all news broadcasting so he can make more money. As long as the BBC is powerful, it'll attract his audience away, and keep revenues low. 

So there's a hidden agenda in their anti-BBC-ness?

A bigger flaw with the way people attack the BBC is that they all have different issues with how it reports. 
A quick search on Twitter and hundreds of people believe the BBC is anti-Tory (Conservative) and hundreds more believe it’s pro-Tory. 
Same again on Brexit (although quite a few more believe it’s anti-Brexit).

Or anti-Tory?

There's often a basic ignorance of facts. The Sun went crazy over the BBC inviting 'vocal defenders of the EU' to its proms. This includes 'remain-supporters' Theresa May, Phillip Hammond, Jeremy Corbyn, and Sadiq Khan. The Sun sees this as further proof the BBC is deeply anti-Brexit. 
OR, maybe they were invited because they’re three of the most important politicians in the country...?

These arguments are often poorly researched, have a hidden agenda, and can be disproved or explained easily. The BBC is built on rules, regulations and principles that means it’s very hard to be consistently biased.

Laura Kuenssberg

The first female political editor at the BBC

This is Laura Kuenssberg. She’s the BBC’s Political Editor. And she comes under more abuse than probably any other journalist nationally. 

She had to have a bodyguard at Labour’s party conference in autumn, and has faced online petitions demanding that she's sacked.

All this because she's apparently biased.



Depending on who you believe, she's either an arrogant Conservative, disgusted by Corbyn, or an anti-Tory, out to stop Brexit.

Text is too small to read, but it's slamming her coverage
of the Labour manifesto

While bloggers and the Labour Party yell at her for being against Corbyn, the newspapers defame her for apparently attacking anything vaguely right-wing.    

I can't believe she's pro-Tory: her most recent blog posts on the BBC website have been over Brexit, and she’s definitely not supportive of the government. A lot of her articles remind us of the weakness of the Conservative majority: ‘Theresa May’s government...[has been] folding, budging, or making new promises to avoid losing actual votes’. 

Daily Express attacks an interview with Theresa May

And the weakness of Theresa May’s government, and their incompetence at Brexit negotiations, is fact, and Kuenssberg is only reporting the news in saying so.

On the other side, her distaste of Corbyn may be explained by the fact that she’s more used to working with more efficient, personal, MPs. 

Corbyn, for all his strengths, is neither efficient nor personal, despite his show persona. She got into hot water over editing an interview with him poorly, but the response from his supporters and the Labour Party has been disproportionately aggressive. Many question whether, as a woman, she's suitable for the role.

Angering both sides is very common in journalism. That's what journalists do, after all; they pose annoying questions and uncover uncomfortable reports. It's clearly a measure of her success and tenacity at balanced reporting that she won the Press Gazette's ‘Best Journalist of the Year’ award in 2016.

She said that she would ‘die in a ditch for BBC impartiality’. That says it all, really.

I honestly can't believe that the BBC is biased. It works so hard to maintain press impartiality, and in doing so has infuriated all sides of the political spectrum. 

Maybe it's the critics who are biased; do they need to learn some hard truths about their own point of view?

The Church and the world

From Guatemalan hilltop towns to China’s social revolution, the Church is going strong.

(*Note on terminology* sometimes I talk about 'Protestants'. This is a denomination of Christianity and is within that religion, rather than being separate.)

Guatemala



Almolonga

The Economist recently published a special report on Almolonga, a town of 14,000 in Guatemala’s highlands.

Guatemala is not a prospering, peaceful country. In 2014, it was 31st of 33 Latin American/Caribbean countries on the Human Development Index. A former leader has been convicted on charges of genocide.

 

But in the 1970s there was a revival of the Christian faith in Almolonga. And that revival has changed the town. In 2003, they opened a secondary school which sends graduates to national universities; the school board talk seriously about students working at NASA.


Guatemala's in Central America

Three-quarters of the town are now members of the Church, and farmers in Almolonga earn two times more than farmers in a neighbouring town (where religion hasn’t taken off).

Down in Guatemala City, the capital, almost all of the 200 drug rehab centres are run by Christians; having a faith has been linked to a rise in earnings among male workers; the Church has had a prominent role in anti-corruption campaigns and gang ceasefires.

The Church is on the rise in Guatemala.
 It’s easy enough to shrug this off as a an accident; a small country changing amidst a struggling world. It's not all success; the Church there has been politically clumsy at times (e.g. allowing the state more power over its affairs).
But I don't buy the 'accident' story. Because it's not the only place where change is happening so fast, and with such great effects.

 

China

One of the more tightly controlled states in the world has one of the most rapidly expanding Christian populations. As people become richer, they want their modernisation to have a moral framework.



Pastor Wu Weiqing of the state church.
He believes that Jesus 'would be a member of
the Communist Party'.

An bloody attempt at suppression and destruction of Christianity in the 1960s failed, and there are now more than 80 million Christians in China.

There could be as many as 160m by 2025, which will make it the world’s most Christian country, and the number of Protestant Christians will outstrip Europe's significantly (currently standing at 100 million). 
True Christianity seems to have no problem with the fact that the state dislikes (read: 'hates') it and tries to dilute it by running a false, 'state-before-God' Church. Which is good.



One large cathedral in Wenzhou (a coastal city) being demolished

Because this persistent growth worries China’s leadership. They see Christianity as an organisation outside their all-knowing control. Its different ethics and codes could make it a problem (there's sure to be conflict in the future).

So they’ve started to clamp down on open Churches, investing into their own brand of Christianity while demolishing buildings linked with the original faith.

But the Church thrives under persecution. People are simply going 'underground'. If this new round of repression goes anything like the last one, I’m not sure it will be very successful.

The developing world...throughout history

Okay...It's a generalisation. But there's so many different examples, and data is rather hard to come by so I've thrown them all in. What is clear though, is that a Church based on Christian love remains constant in the past, present, and probably the future.

In our more science-based, ‘rational’, Western identities, religion is certainly on the decline. Yet that trend runs opposite to the worldwide shift.


The spread of people who at least identify as Christian


As Mike Davies (an activist and writer) puts it, ‘Marx has yielded the stage to Mohammed and the Holy Ghost’.

Instead of embracing Karl Marx (the founder of communism) and launching revolutions or insurgencies, people are turning to Christianity and Islam for support.

In Colombia, scene of a Church revival, where a man would spend 40% of his earnings in a bar or brothel, he now invests it into his family. This has been linked to a rise in living standards and democracy, because women are more able to speak up.

William Wilberforce, an activist, successfully lobbied the government of the biggest slave trading nation in the world (Great Britain and its Dominions) to be the first to ban the practice in 1807. He then met the King of Russia and persuaded him to pass a similar law. All this was done with other notable Christians such as John Newton and Thomas Clarkson - the Church coming together.


And my favourite example: in East Germany in 1989, a Leipzig prayer movement sparked mass protests against an oppressive and ruthless regime. 

The police let the 70,000 people who'd gone to the prayer meeting campaign for change in East Germany's first ever mass protest.
The protests snowballed, and next month the country collapsed under pressure, leading to a united Germany and the end of the Cold War.

The Church is ridiculed in the UK. It's seen as backwards, comical, and stubborn. And it's gotten things wrong in the past. Badly wrong. But if people were to see the amazing things that it does, around the world and for all people, I think we'd be amazed.

 

A Stubborn Donkey

After damaging losses last year, the Democrat Party is re-emerging and gaining ground again. 

It’s had successes in Virginia and New Jersey, and may do well in Alabama.

Virginia:

(Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Attorney-general, House of Delegates up for election)

The New York Times called the Virginia elections the “purest form of grassroots anger” at President Trump. The convincing vote for the Democrat Party suggests that the people are getting fed up with his leadership.

Ralph Northam - staying on as Governor -  beat rival Ed Gillespie by a margin of 231,715 votes; that’s an 8.9% lead. 
Northam is not a typical Democrat. He has vowed to work with President Trump, and admits to twice voting for George W. Bush. But this stance seems to have secured many swing voters, attracted by his more moderate style.

Northam (left) and Fairfax (right) celebrate

Meanwhile, Justin Fairfax became Virginia’s new Lieutenant-Governor, while Mark Herring held onto his attorney-general seat. They are both Democrats. 

Then in a vote almost too close to count, they took the House of Delegates (i.e. the House of Lords) from the Republicans, who'd previously had a 2:1 majority.

This is a big success for the Democrats. Yes, the opposition normally does well in the local elections, and yes, they were already strong in Virginia. 

But they’ve shown an ability to take the more moderate centre ground with well-chosen candidates. Mr Northam is polled to have won votes on healthcare and opposition to Trump. The Republican Party doesn’t have a convincing answer to either of these issues.


New Jersey:

(Governor, Senate, Assembly, Mayors)

Election map -
New York is in the top right.

In a state that traditionally bucks the trend, former President Barack Obama and native rock star Bon Jovi both supported Phil Murphy to his first political victory: the Democrat candidate soundly beat Kim Guadagno to the Governorship, enjoying a 13.3% margin.

The victory here was slightly more expected: there are 900,000 more Democrat members than Republican members, and the Democrats won here comfortably last year. 
Also, neither candidate was overly-exciting. Turnout was low, inevitably favouring the Democrats.

But any victory is welcome for the Party right now, and the success will hold off internal squabbling and divisions. They have majorities in the State Senate and Assembly, facing down Republican opposition, and giving them a secure base for the next election.







Alabama:

(Senator, State House)


After one of Alabama’s senators, Jeff Sessions, became Attorney-General to the United States, a new senator was needed. Cue a special election in this deeply Republican state.

The Republican front-runner is Roy Moore. Mr Moore is a revolver-waving, twice-suspended Chief Justice seen as a religious Conservative. His Democrat opponent is Doug Jones, a former Prosecutor from a blue-collar background. 

The Democrats are encouraged by their recent success in special elections (see above) and Moore’s odd inability to perform well in the general vote (he scraped through in 2012).
The Democratic National Committee has sent research reports and a personal profile on Moore. (Former Vice-President) Joe Biden has visited. The Party has sensed they may have a chance.

It’s an outside chance in this deeply religious, Bible-bashing territory, but it’s a chance nonetheless. A victory here would be a critical defeat for the Republican Party -  even a narrow defeat would enhearten the Democrats. 

Jones is fishing for those apathetic about Trump - maybe 37% of the electorate - but his traditional Democrat beliefs may hold him back: he’s energetic over renewable energy, education reform, and abortion. 

It’s too close to call.

Stay tuned for December 12th.

David Cameron: Clumsy Etonian or Modern Leader?

When we think about politics now, we think of Corbyn, Brexit, and Trump. 

David Cameron announces his resignation
(June 24th 2016)

We have little time to judge the UK’s 75th Prime Minister. He served for one and a fifth terms, and has been associated with huge change in healthcare, education, and welfare. 
Yet he resigned abruptly in 2016, attacked from all sides after defeat in the EU referendum vote. 

He split opinion decisively, and I believe his strengths (passion, morality, leadership) were too easily dismissed. However, he certainly rushed into things, and could seem out of touch at times.

So what were his main achievements; what were his big failures, and how do they add up?*

Achievements:

1) NCS

His flagship 'Big Society (1)' idea is the 'National Citizens Service', a youth scheme for 15-17 year olds, funded by the government and cheap to join. He wanted young people of all backgrounds to integrate, exploring different opinions and cultures, taking that experience into adulthood. 

As a recipient of the program, my experience did live up to that ideal, and certainly challenged the way I live and behave. With a financial overhaul, it could become a world leader of its kind. A big success for Cameron.

2) Aid budget

While suffering a lot of calls to stop doing so, Cameron continued sending 0.7% of our budget to developing/fragile nations - honouring commitments made by many major economies in recent years (while being the only one to keep that promise - we give more than the USA proportionally). 

The funds go to countries struggling with natural disasters or civil war, and reflect the British tradition for generosity and charity during crises like the spread of Ebola and famine in Africa.

3) The Scottish Referendum

His success in securing a ‘No’ vote over Scotland leaving the UK in 2014 has put the divisive issue to rest for a while. After concerns over a possible ‘Yes’ vote, he made a late emotional, and possibly vital, push for Scotland to stay. He made no attempt to disguise his patriotism in the campaign, and was visibly relived when it ended successfully. His passion for the country was evident and powerful.

Failures:

1) EU Referendum

His career breaker: the decision to leave the European Union. He confidently expected an easy, sensible campaign resulting in a 'Remain’ vote. What happened was a messy; controversial; tough four months, resulting in a slim, but disastrous, loss. 

He struggled to co-ordinate potential allies (Jeremy Corbyn dragged his feet throughout, and the Lib Dems had no strategy), and misread the mood of the people. The only part that he executed well was his resignation.

2) UKIP

His party never had any idea how to combat the anti-EU, anti-immigration party, preferring to ignore it until it was too late. Even though Farage struggled in the 2015 election, his mere existence kept the Conservatives talking about the EU so much that  Cameron decided to launch a referendum. UKIP also attracted many Tory voters and two of its MPs, causing damage to Cameron's reputation.

3) Education

Michael Gove - a close friend of Cameron's

His second education secretary, Michael Gove, led a huge reform of the education curriculum, emphasising exams and grades over individual-based learning. 

The result? A great increase in the burden and mental pressures on both students and teachers. No teaching body has thought well of the changes. 

Cameron certainly encouraged this, and gave Gove too free a reign in this area, so I partially attribute this failure to Cameron.

Summary:

He certainly can't deserve all the flak directed at him: he was undeniably compassionate and kind as a person, and took Britain in a much more progressive direction. Yet he was also misguided in his grasp of what the people thought, and struggled when events were moving at speed (see Libya). The choice is yours - what do you think? 

(Comment your opinion below.)

*Obviously, this is all my opinion and are the things I feel the keenest about; there are other big topics (e.g. gay marriage, Chinese relations, austerity, Libya) which all could be on here, but would make it too long. I'm also not going to refer to any scandals or tabloid stories - just policies.