Special Report

'Special Report '

Different people like different blog posts. Some prefer coverage of topical events, whereas others like subjects off the beaten track. Some like it short and snappy, others like drawn out, thoughtful pieces. 

To help you clarify between the two, I'm introducing a new format: the 'Special Report'. 

The idea is that most of the time (6/10) I'll look at current topics and discuss them in a small, accessible, format. But I'll ocassionally write an original piece on a unique area. 

Recently, I wrote about the collapse of Big Tech - that is now a Special Report. Likewise, the monsoon/hurricanes comparison, and my article on the UK arms trade.

A Special Report will be several things:

• It will be on an original idea that you won't have heard about in the news
• It will involve more opinion and commentary from me 
• And it will likely be more developed, and so longer (but not always).

So thank you for reading and enjoying the blog, and I hope this makes it easier to find articles you want to read in the future! 

Theo

(Also, here's a nice photo of Justin Trudeau - Prime Minister of Canada)

No smoking without fire

Special Report

There are deep comparisons with the downfall of the tobacco industry and the behaviour of the tech industry. Facebook and Apple could go the same way as Marlboro and Phillip Morris.

 

Big Tobacco

It was official. On 11th January 1964, a US Government commission reported that smoking tobacco damaged our health. Its shock findings revealed that cigarettes increased chances of early mortality by 70% and lung cancer by tenfold.

There had been concerns about smoking for years, but in 1958 less than half of Americans believed it caused cancer. This ignorance was due to intensive lobbying and pressuring of Congress by tobacco conglomerates (also known as ‘Big Tobacco’).

For years their finances had successfully kept a lid on any reports or legislation that could harm their money-making. 

This was an era where 6 year-olds were able to recognise Camel Joe (a cigarette mascot) and Mickey Mouse equally and that same brand was promoted by doctors as their 'preferred choice'.

But in 1965, warning labels were introduced on cigarette packets, and by 1970, TV and radio adverts were banned. It took until 1998 for smoking to be culled on all US plane flights, but at least Camel Joe had been pulled from advertising. 

That same year, Big Tobacco had to pay a $206bn 'master settlement' with 46 US states, all suing for its fraudulent behaviour. 

Most of Big Tobacco has either left the market or is desperately consolidating. Unless their gamble with e-cigarrettes pays off, they'll soon be a shadow of their former self.

So?

You may then ask, how does the behavior of the tech companies fit into this?

The triggers of the downfall of Big Tobacco are being repeated before us with Big Tech: i.e. concerns about health, a change in public attitudes, and a dollop of government intervention (remember those three).

They themselves are not too different:

1. There is/was a boom in usage of their products, and the world's dependence on them increased
2. The dominance and brand heft of the market leaders is/was unparalleled and unforeseen
3. Their drive to sell is/was superior
4.  to all else, be it through subverting information or merciless advertising campaigns

A satire of the 'Big Five':
Google/Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook

But what does the downfall actually look like?

Step 1: Health

Yeah...we've all done it

Two major investors in Apple recently sent an open letter to the firm, worried about the increasing addiction of young people to their phones. 

They described a survey where '75% [of 2,300 teachers] say students' ability to focus on educational tasks has decreased', and they called on Apple to 'protect the next generation of leaders, innovators and customers'.

It's well-understood that addiction to screen and mobile phones hurts our education and (probably) our social lives. Intense use of devices damages the eyes (my head's hurting from intense blogging right now) and keeps us awake at night.
And we barely know of the long-term impacts, because smartphones haven't even been around for 10 years.


Heavy declines in the number of under 25s using Facebook

But this challenge would be quickly forgotten if it were not for another interesting piece of news: the number of users of Facebook dropped by 1 million users.

Step 2: The Public

In North America, Facebook's biggest audience, the decline is equivalent to 50 million hours lost. That means the world is spending 15% less time on the site.

The planet's biggest social media network may be suffering due to allegations that the Russians used it to manipulate the 2016 US election result, or because social media is diluting.

Where under-25s prefer Snapchat and Instagram, businesses use Linkedin and my Grandma Whatsapp. Companies are can't hold a monopoly or dominate the market - humans are bored of Facebook and Twitter.

These are baby steps: there are still vast markets in Asia and Africa available, and any public mistrust of tech is not yet strong enough to have a big impact.

However the idea that social media companies are not indomitable (or innocent) has been planted, and may build up over time.

Step 3: The Government

We've seen less of this stage than of the other two, but governments on both sides of the Atlantic are doing more and more to curb or tame the raging tech titans. 

Facebook, Twitter and Google suffered bruising hearings at the US Senate as part of Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia and the US election, and that's surely not the last time those two affairs have been mentioned in the same sentence.

(L to R) Reps of Facebook, Twitter and Google at the hearing

Likewise, Google, the king of the Internet, has been hit hard by an EU ruling revealing it manipulated search results to favour its own shopping subsidiaries over third parties.

Margrethe Vestager, the commissioner who delivered the ruling, said that 'you [tech companies] have a special responsibility and you cannot misuse your powers in your own market or any other market'. The $2.7 billion fine has not gone down easily, and further investigations into their tax arrangements will surely be rattling them.

Also, Theresa May warned last year that the battle against IS is moving from the “battlefield to the internet”, and she's right.

Big Tech has been accused (correctly) of not doing enough to combat online radicalisation and governments will soon take measures into their own hands, further reducing the power of the giants.

Big Failure

Surely the parallels are clear: Big Tech is facing the same problems as Big Tobacco except in a much smaller time frame. Being under pressure from the public and the West's governments because of health concerns has resulted in uncertainty and (possibly) falling user numbers.

The irony is of course, that in using the services that Big Tech has given us, we have a voice with which to push back.

The Lib Deads

In a political atmosphere where Jeremy Corbyn is splitting opinion like marmite and Theresa May as safe as a nuclear deterrent, alternative and third parties could do well. Yet there don’t seem to be any - where are the Liberal Democrats? 

Origin Story

First they were the ‘Liberals’, the only rivals to the 'Torys' until 1900. Then they became the ‘Liberal-Social Democrats’ in 1981. Finally, after a bad election in 1987, they simplified and became just the ‘Liberal Democrats’ and Britain’s third biggest party.

All smiles at the announcing of the coalition...

During Nick Clegg’s leadership in 2010, they secured enough seats (57) to form a coalition with the Conservatives, but governing was tough. 

Their support base of young people fled to Labour after a broken promise to freeze tuition fees, and the party became more and more ignored, especially after a humiliating referendum defeat on an alternative voting system. 

The result in 2015? Losing 49 seats. Nick Clegg resigned, the Conservatives had a majority, and the Liberal Democrats were disgraced. 

...then devastation in 2015

Their next leader was Tim Farron, who had to prevent the party’s collapse, endure a European Union Referendum, and react to Cameron’s fall and the rise of May and Corbyn. 

For a smaller, poorer party expecting five years rest, the referendum and the 2017 snap election drained their finances and support base. They could only muster 12 seats - nothing near what they expected. 
After Farron resigned for personal reasons, Sir Vince Cable took over, but they still sit at only 7.5% in the polls.

Long term Lib Dem Vince Cable has to lead an
ageing party

What's going wrong?

Basically, Brexit and old people. 

While those two things sound synonymous, what I mean is that their line over Brexit hurts them, and the look of the Party does not look like an election-winner.

It was Farron who initially demanded a second referendum on Brexit; mainly because the first result was so close that it didn’t represent a clear majority. Principally, it’s not a bad way to think; encouraging pro-active and clear democracy.

Pragmatically, however, it’s impractical and awkward. The EURef campaign was poisonous and damaging, and few people want to see a repeat. Also, the result has been widely accepted, and wanting a second vote sounds a bit like they’re just rejecting a result they didn’t like. 

The idea has since morphed into a vote on the eventual Brexit agreement instead, which seems more reasonable, but support is still uncertain, because there’s no idea what would happen if the deal was rejected.

The Party’s lack of MPs means many have to perform several jobs, and the face of the Lib Dems rests on a few politicians who repeatedly appear in the media. Alas, they’re all old.

The average age of a Liberal Democrat MP is 53.5 years - the highest of any party. 67% are aged 40-59 (the same as the notoriously middle-aged Conservatives), and their Youth Spokesperson is 68! 

Liberal Democrat MPs - all twelve of them

While they’re certainly experienced, it doesn't suggest they have an intimate knowledge of vital younger age groups - those most willing to support moderate, moral ideas. 

They also have a dear shortage of young, dynamic leaders. Clegg had gravitas and determination, Farron seemed principled and bubbly. 

Cable is highly experienced and intelligent, but is ageing (he's almost 75). He was recently quoted as saying it's 'perfectly plausible' that he could be Prime Minister - earning him ridicule rather than rapture.
Their middle-class comfort and rising age range puts them largely out of touch of the population.

Or...

Europe's three biggest right-wing politicians:
(left to right) Geert Wilders of the PVV (Dutch),
Frauke Petry of AfD (German), and Marine Le Pen of FNF (French)

Is there another reason? The success of Trump, Brexit, and Europe's Far-Right shows that extreme populism is in. 

People are fed up with the 'establishment'; centrism and the art of compromise and moderation is no longer politically trendy - people want to see their stubborn values prioritized above give and take and balance. 

Thus, the Lib Dems are no longer popular because they represent something else - hope, progression, and tolerance of all values. These are not idolised by the West right now.

But values change, and maybe the Liberal Democrats will too.

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?