Road to Nowhere?

Today is Brexit Day. The road here has been long, ending not just three years of bizarre politics, but a saga that stretches back to the 1960s and has claimed three British Prime Ministers. Here is the definitive timeline.

Pre-Referendum

Thatcher's resignation was heavily
linked to Europe

1963 & 67: Britain is twice denied entry to the EC because of 'deep-seated hostility' to the European project.

1969: Britain is allowed membership of the EC.

1975: A referendum approves our EC membership by a 35% majority.

1990: Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher resigns over divisions with her Cabinet on Europe.

1992: The EC becomes the EU, with 'ever closer union' a guiding principle.

2006: Newly-elected party leader David Cameron criticises the Conservatives for 'banging on about Europe' amid more important issues.

2010: Cameron wins a general election and forms a government with the pro-EU Liberal Democrats.

(2010-15: Three of the biggest Conservative backbench rebellions in this government are over EU/immigration.)

2013: Without Lib Dem approval, Cameron makes his 'Bloomberg Speech', where he commits to major reform of the EU and an in/out referendum on membership.

2015: A Conservative majority government is elected with a manifesto pledge for a referendum. This will be held in 2016 after renegotiating British EU membership.

2016

David Cameron resigns on the morning of the election

June 2016: The Referendum result shows a majority for leaving the EU. Cameron promptly resigns as Prime Minister.

July 2016: Theresa May becomes Prime Minister after a Conservative Party leadership race.

October 2016: May indicates a desire for a 'hard' Brexit: leaving most/all EU arrangements. 

2017

March 2017: Article 50 - the document that allows leaving the EU - is triggered to start a two-year negotiation period.

June 2017: A disastrously fought general election wipes out May's majority and establishes a fragmented, chaotic parliament.

December 2017: Fractious UK-EU negotiations lead to a 'joint agreement', providing the outline for a post-Brexit relationship. However, it is far from the final deal.

2018

Summer 2018: May outlines her vision for the final deal. Meanwhile, Parliament gives itself the power to vote on and and when the deal is agreed.

Autumn 2018: The EU reject May's plan, but a compromise is reached in late November, finally creating a Brexit deal. Theresa May survives a vote of confidence by her own party, but then postpones Parliament's vote on the deal, fearing they won't pass it.

Theresa May wins the Conservative Party vote of confidence

2019

Winter 2019: May finally brings the deal to a vote and suffers the worst government Commons defeat in British history. The next day she survives a parliamentary Vote of No Confidence.

March 2019: After two failed attempts to pass the Brexit deal, May agrees an extension of Article 50 until 31st October. 

Theresa May resigns

May 2019: However, a catastrophic performance in the EU elections forces May to finally resign, becoming the third Conservative Prime Minister to do so over Europe.

Summer 2019: Boris Johnson becomes Prime Minister after a leadership race, and commits to the 31st October deadline. 

September 2019: The Supreme Court orders Johnson to reverse a prorogation of Parliament, which then passes a vote blocking Brexit without a deal.

Autumn 2019: Johnson fails to pass his own Brexit deal, but after a 'no-deal Brexit' is avoided, is successful in calling a general election

December 2019: Johnson wins a landslide victory, thus eliminating effective opposition. Jeremy Corbyn resigns as leader of the Labour Party.

The iconic slogan of the election

2020

January 2020: A new decade. Johnson's Brexit deal passes with ease and is ratified by the EU. The UK will leave the EU, then enter into a transition period upholding the status quo, at 11pm on the 31st January.

Everyone was discussing it when I walked into school that morning. It had already been across TV and then it went viral online, like nothing else before it. No-one understood it, but we were all talking about it. We asked our teachers, but, as usual, they were clueless.

We had no idea what to make of the Referendum result. David Cameron had just announced his resignation. Sterling was in free fall. It was the only thing on people's minds, that sunny June day.

Then Donald Trump was elected President. What to make of that, too? There were dark jokes circulating that at least we weren't the 'screw-ups' of the year. Trump, in his fashion, captured conversations this side of the Atlantic too, even in the playground and the classroom.

And between Brexit and President Trump, the news feeds have barely stopped rolling. Every week, something else to engage with, as teenagers discussed 'Parliament', 'European Union' and 'impeachment'. Politics could be mentioned in the same breath as Love Island, The 1975 and history revision and no longer draw scorn or weird looks. 

So, politics became a public subject. Something worth knowing about, and a reasonable discussion topic. Not just in school, but at work or with family, too. Because as long as the disasters kept floating in, it was all rather interesting.


Notice the past tense though? Because that era is over.


With its convincing majority, Boris Johnson's government has already passed the Withdrawal Agreement, and his large majority means he has a clear authority to do whatever he likes. Most remainers have quietly conceded defeat, and the grudging British respect for elected authority has kicked in - the mentality now is 'back to normal life and wait for the next one'.

So, that period of Brexit, with all Theresa May's failures and the media frenzy, is over. There are no more disasters on the horizon to captivate us, or nasty debates about what Brexit should look like.

And the actions of President Trump alone will not keep politics in the schoolyard or the break-room. It is a given that he will not be impeached, and bar the apocalypse, his controversies are so frequent that they'll hardly merit a brief comment at work, never mind science lessons. Even if he wins the 2020 election, we'll just keep our heads down and carry on.

And rapidly, politics will stop being relevant. It will be met with the same derision it has earned from fourteen year olds for centuries. No longer worthy of schoolyard chat, politics will again become a quiet, niche interest.

Political discussion has reached its high-water mark. Time for the status quo again it seems.


Theo

The Decade is Over. Where Does That Leave Us?

The 2010s are over. The 2020s are just hours away, full of possibility and expectation.


The decade opened with the unveiling of the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, and has ended with impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. A colossal earthquake demolished Haiti that January, just as bushfires have set Australia alight this December. In the UK, one million fewer people live in absolute poverty, and Spain, Germany and France have all won the Football World Cup. It has been a decade of humanity living amidst huge change - as in every decade.


And politics. Where has the decade left us politically? There is an air of having been chewed up and spat out by the 2010s' politics, as we stumble into 2020, hoping for deliverance.


To clarify all this, I've picked out three of the most interesting political and social trends from the last decade, with a short description and analysis of where that leaves us now.


For good or for bad, this is how the 2010s end.

1) The Death of The Political Class

Every year the high and mighty of politics and economics are organised by the World Economic Forum to meet in Davos - a plush Swiss ski resort. There they discuss all matter of gibberish. These people are the political class.

They are mostly liberals, upper middle-class born, believers in rational, intelligent leadership and committed to democracy and their right to lead that democracy. They saw the fall of the Iron Curtain and successful intervention in the 1st Gulf War (1992) early in their careers. 

They were shocked by 9/11 and the Second Gulf War (2003) which they believed they would have avoided. They all subscribe to The Economist and the Financial Times. And they have provided woefully little leadership in response to the EU Referendum, the 2016 Presidential Election, the economic growth of Africa and the all-important issue of climate change.

Countries are historically run by leaders with degrees who spend several years in business or the Bar before turning to politics. There they manage traditional political parties and make medium-sized changes to the existing structure of things. At some point they get booted out, so they retire and write memoirs where they manage to be reasonably polite to their former opponents. They do not question democracy, human rights or the rule of law, and they believe in free speech (of course) and have smart people around them that help them out.

But where were those men to challenge Mrs Clinton in the primaries in 2016? Or to lead the Labour Party instead of Mr Corbyn? Where were they when Italy needed a skilled Prime Minister? Or when the United Nations' Secretary-General role needed energy and verve? Where were they hiding when the migrant crisis reared its ugly head?

A whole generation of leaders, now in their mid-fifties, went missing in the late 2010s. Cameron resigned, Obama ran out of time, Angela Merkel became a shadow of her former self. They lost, outmanoeuvred by social media-driven populists with no experience of governance.

After long taking for granted their capability to lead, the political class have lost the momentum to leaders like President Trump, Matteo Salvini and Narenda Modi; dangerous, divisive men who do not have a shared code of conduct and who do not believe in itty-bitty tweaks to the economy where they can rework it with a sledgehammer.

Street protests and populism own the stage. Why have a degree in law to stand in Parliament when you can throw molotov cocktails against that law and create just as much change? The political class seems to have collapsed and chaos has filled the vacuum.

2) The Individuality Boom

Secondly there is an increasing fragmentation of our identity as humans. Belief in community and inter-generational unity is declining, fuelled by social media. The emphasis on family and community that peaked in the 2000s is waning, as ideas of identity; sexual, moral and physical, among others, have become personal, rather than defined by society.

We see this in social media. The echo chambers that affirm our cosy ideologies mean that we control what we see and hear more than at any other time in living memory. Other people and other ideas are less relevant to our perceptions of the world than what we see on Facebook (in the West) or Whatsapp (in Brazil or India). We are able to make an online identity that has no basis in reality and rejects influence from elsewhere.

We see this in how Generation Z behave. Georgia Gould shows in her book 'Wasted: How Misunderstanding Young Britain Threatens Our Future' that those of us born from the mid-1990s on prioritise ourselves over others. We have more confidence in our own abilities but we see teams and communities as existing just for our own gain. This explains the boom in discussions about identity - no longer do we feel that other people are relevant to how we live and think, as we are the most important opinion we know.

And we see it in the inter-generational conflict that has always been a presence in human society but has now reached new levels, as seen in skewed voting patterns: over 65s are 20% more likely to vote Conservative and 10% less likely to vote Labour compared with 2010, while 18-24 year olds are 20% more likely to vote Labour (Conservative vote share stays the same). The difference in opinion is striking and shows a serious age divide that neither side - inflamed by social media and a reduced community spirit - has a desire to cross.

And so the 2010s have left us with an increasing individuality - that we can make our identity whatever we want it to be - but also a downgrading of the importance of community and generational unity. People are striking out by themselves more confidently, able to reject traditional ideas of family and society as uneccessary.

3) The New Kids on The Block

Let's split the world's most influential countries into several classes. Class 1 is the United States. The world's preeminent exporter of culture, economic influence, currency and hard power.

In Class 2 are China, the UK and France. They combine large military influence with significant economic and diplomatic clout and are primary players in most global issues.

And in Class 3 are (broadly) Canada, India, Italy, Russia, Australia, Japan, Germany, and the EU. These are countries with some influence, and with either a strong economic or military presence rather than both. It is Class 3 that is interesting.

Because it is the Class 3 countries that have become much more prominent this decade. 

After years on the wane, Russia stunned the West by invading Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014. India was a relatively bit player in the 2000s but this year has become the fifth largest national economy, and is still growing. 

Peaceful Canada has significantly increased its role in foreign affairs, rebuking both Saudi Arabia and China in 2018, while the EU, formerly a quiet regional economy, has led a noisy pushback against global tech firms, slapping $9.5bn on Google since 2017. 

Pacifist Japan has been trying to expand its military presence, while Italy has courted with controversial hard-right governance.

Why the sudden change? Continued global economic growth since 2010 means that trade has made countries richer and with increased connections with each other. The result is less dependence on the Class 1 and 2 nations for trade and security. And this is compounded by implicit American withdrawal from international events, leaving space for other countries to make noise.

Maybe this is Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau taking a very active role in global affairs this decade, and criticising President Trump - two things unthinkable for America's smaller neighbour previously. Or Russian President Putin reviving Russia's regional presence, and meddling in several western elections.

And this is also, most interestingly, the European Union becoming a new player. The 2016 British EU referendum result had an adverse affect, as painfully protracted Brexit negotiations have dissuaded disunity. Massive regulation against tech monopolies has set the global standard. There are explicit moves towards a joint defence force. China's inroads in Southern and Eastern Europe are being more openly blocked. The EU is the world's second largest economy and is starting to both realise it, and use that power elsewhere.

The effect of the growing voice of Class 3 nations are hard to judge. But policy and global tone is no longer set by Class 1 or even 2 states; countries have more freedom and more independence, and they're unlikely to let it go in the 2020s.




Who can know what the world will look like in the 2020s? Even the most carefully calculated predictions may not survive on contact with reality. But for saying where we're at now, I hope this is a pretty good attempt. The 2010s have left us with a very clear legacy. We shall see what it turns into.



Have a Happy New Year, and a very Happy Decade.



Theo

Creek. No paddle.

We are not legal experts, but we believe that, more than anything else since June 2016, it is the Supreme Court case against Boris Johnson that will be remembered in the future.

When Parliament gains more powers, history notices. The Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the Great Reform Act in 1832; all led to huge changes in the way this island is governed. The Supreme Court unanimously declared that the Prime Minister has overreached his power, which limits what future Prime Ministers can or cannot do. This implicitly gives Parliament more power, and sets a precedent that the Supreme Court can overrule the Prime Minister's actions.

This is because we have no codified constitution. In most countries, the constitution is the political rulebook, dictating what politicians are able to do, what powers the various branches of government have and where their limits are. In the UK, the rulebook doesn't exist.

Or, rather, it does, but across a sprawling mass of documents, and mostly in the minds of the rule-keepers (the Speaker and their Deputies) and players (MPs and the PM) instead of in one central place. This means the rules are often fluid, changeable, or can even be ignored. Unlike in the US, the Prime Minister could become a dictator if they get enough votes (and if the Queen obliges - but that's a whole other issue).

So Boris Johnson, in trying to limit Parliament's power by shutting up shop for five weeks, has only achieved a muscular extension of Parliamentary sovereignty at his own expense. Aside from the rather satisfying end result this is, future Prime Ministers will curse him for how much harder their jobs have been made. Running the country is an intensely stressful occupation, never mind having to deal with one of the most active parliaments in the world. And now said parliament has suddenly been endowed with new possibilities and freedoms to act against the PM.

He is in trouble. This is not a magistrates court dealing in petty theft. The most intelligent and experienced justices in the country have declared him a criminal - a man who has broken the law. In moral terms, that is a deeply alarming judgement of a figure in No.10. In political terms, that means Johnson is likely to lose support from moderate Conservative MPs and much of the more liberal party membership, plus a swathe of the middle-class at an election. Resignation calls are coming from every quarter; remainers are-invigorated, leavers are demoralised; this is a man in trouble.

Don't write him off yet. Laura Kuenssberg earlier suggested that we must not 'underestimate how aggressive Number 10 might be willing to be in response'. In New York for the United Nations Assembly, Johnson could well fly straight home to start an immediate counter-campaign. He still has options. He still has power.

Yet this is a man who has lost all six of his first Commons votes, broken the law and misled the monarch. His Premiership has not been a success story.

And don't you think he looks tired?


Theo

What’s a Tory, Balamory?

We often don’t understand what conservatism is. What we should understand is that it isn't pure evil.

Ahead of our episode with Sir John Redwood being released, I thought it would be worth revisiting what 'conservatism' is as an idea, and trying to give it a fair say in an increasingly uncompromising world.

Where does the idea come from; what does it actually believe in; and is it really important?

[Just to clarify: there is conservatism with a small ‘c’, which means the idea/ideology and Conservative with a big ‘C’, which means to belong to the political party. They are slightly different, so don't get confused!]

There are two types of people...

No, seriously. When modern political thought emerged out of the late 1700s, it basically worked out that there are two naturally opposing political groups. A yin and yang, if you will.

Firstly, there are those that want more change in society. They are ‘liberal’, or ‘progressive’, and are dissatisfied with the status quo, seeing it as allowing abuses of power. They feel the government should be the agent of change, and that individuals can benefit from government support. Business is to be regulated, and taxes higher. Labour, the Democrats (USA), the SDP (Germany) are all examples. 

To this, naturally, there must an opposite. Cue 'conservatism'. Conservatives prefers cautious, natural change over time, driven by local communities and institutions, generally feeling there is value in tradition and history. 

Slightly outdated graphic, but it roughly shows positions

They would see government-led change as dangerous, and allowing government excess, so these people prefer a smaller government and trust businesses more. They are the Conservatives (or 'Tories'), the Republicans (USA) and the CDU (Germany).

Naturally, these beliefs all range along a spectrum, with most somewhere in the middle, but if you were to divide society into two political groups, you’d find that it would broadly coalesce along these lines. There are always those who want change, and those who are cautious of it. Simple as that.

Vive la sitting-at-home!

British perception of the French chaos

Conservatism with a small ‘c’ emerged during the French Revolution, when the violent, painful destruction of the French elite (and the resultant wars) shocked much of the middle and upper class in Britain. 

In response they reestablished their commitment to trusting facts, pragmatism and the community in their politics. The flag-waving, 'egalitare'-proclaiming, abstract-thinking Revolutionaries were too distant from their own experiences. They preferred the hard truth to grand plans. 

The philosopher Michael Oakeshott put it like this: ‘To be conservative...is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, near to distant’.

It is not that conservatives hate change, but more that they trust what they can see and hear over lofty principles that mean well, but often fail. Conservatives rely on local communities to keep in check the government and the excesses of the individual. Liberals believe that government is always good, and that people are generally well-meaning. Conservatives are less naive.

The Party of Government

If you follow British or American politics, you will likely have an unfavourable view of the right-wing, having seen the behavior of President Trump, or the Conservative Party around Brexit. Yet, this is a chaotic anomaly for a group that in history has been the stewards of responsible economic management and reliability.

For instance, it was the Conservative Party that pulled Britain’s economy out of a post-World War Two slump, after the Labour Party struggled; 

it was Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in the 1960s who pioneered the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, accelerated decolonisation, and oversaw Britain's permanent transition into a modern economy by liberalising business;

thirty years later, John Major strengthened the European Union, began the Northern Ireland peace process and halved unemployment;

the Coalition austerity plans skillfully reduced a damaging budget deficit, while reducing the tax the poorest had to pay and making British universities world-class again.

Forty-four of the seventy-four years since 1945 have seen a Conservative PM. Time and time again they have been reelected. Surely, with the public so often backing them there must be merit in the Conservative belief of reliable, non-experimental politics?

Of course, we must except the present state of conservatism. It has failed to respond responsibly to nationalist populism and so has been corrupted by xenophobia and racism. Their policies are being pulled out of responsible thinking and into the realms of unicorn-land that more often belongs to the left-wing.

The sharp Republican turn to the right in the USA
has caused political deadlock

But conservatives have done a lot of good. By making progress steady, rather than excessive, and stabilising the United Kingdom when it needed it most, they have fully contributed to the effective running of this country. 

More worryingly is what fills the gap if the conservative parties crumble and forget their beliefs. Progressive parties are not perfect; something will emerge to oppose them, but it looks like 'something' will be very far right.


Conservatism isn't all bad, so it would be a shame if it screwed us over now.


Theo

The Donkey Kicks Back

I rate the Democrat Party's leading candidates for President.

Kamala Harris. Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden. Elizabeth Warren. The Democrat Party has four leading candidates for the 2020 Presidential nomination. 

After a series of local Party votes a winner will emerge to challenge President Trump for the leadership of the free world. 

And it will be one of these four; lacklustre television debates and funding limits mean that a dark horse (such as O'Rourke or Buttigieg) is becoming increasingly unlikely.

So who will, a) win the nomination?, and b) have the best chance of victory in what will likely be the most chaotic, slanderous and unpleasant election in American history? I've judged each candidate on their chances. 

But I can only cover so much, and you may disagree. Quite right. Let me know what I get wrong and what you think, in the comments or on Instagram.

Bernie Sanders

"Our infrastructure is collapsing. Teachers are underpaid. Veterans sleep on the streets. Families can't afford childcare"

Age: 77

Current Job: Independent senator for Vermont (but officially allied with Democrats)

Previous Career: Mayor of Burlington, Vermont Congressman

Rivals: 1) Kamala Harris, 2) Elizabeth Warren

In the Polls: 16.0% (RCP Poll of Polls)

Donation Record: $6mn raised within 24 hours; c.$72mn overall (precise figures unclear)

Key Policies:

• Healthcare - introduced universal healthcare ('Medicare for All') into mainstream and frequently attacks drugs firms/bosses

• Immigration - Backs comprehensive reform of immigration policy and enforcement

• Climate - Pioneered 'Green New Deal' (more here) and has a history of environmental action

• Education - Supports free tertiary education ('College for All')

• Justice & Drugs - Prefers rehabilitation and early prevention to deterrence; pro-weed-legalisation

• Foreign Policy - moderately isolationist; mixed on Israel; pro-defence spending cuts

• Taxation - Much higher taxation on richest earners and businesses

Chances:

In 2016, Bernie was the outsider to Clinton, his plans on universal healthcare and free tuition dismissed as too excessive for a Presidential candidate. Yet today, with one notable exception, those ideas are values cherished across the Democrat Party. 

His perceived integrity and appeal to white working class voters - the traditional Democrat base - create significant hype and energy. But his chances of winning the nomination are limited by a lack of anything really edgy and new, allowing alternatives to flourish. The huge cost of his policies is a valid concern too.

He would not beat Trump. Four years of on-off Twitter attacks have poked holes in his broader reputation and his staunch-left position makes appeals to the centre difficult. 

His age makes a difference too; this is one of the most exhausting jobs in the world, and the reliability of an eighty year-old is thus questionable. His attitudes towards the military, a cherished icon of American power, would also not sell.

The real danger is that, upon losing the nomination, he would run anyway as an independent. This would be disastrous, siphoning key votes from the Democrats just as the electoral stakes are the highest since World War Two.

Chances of being Nominated: 7/10

Chances of Beating Trump: 5/10

Kamala Harris

"This election is about you, your hopes, your dreams, your fears, and what wakes you up at 3 a.m."

Age: 54

Current Job: Democrat Senator for California

Career: District Attorney of San Francisco, Attorney General of California

Rivals: 1) Bernie Sanders, 2) Elizabeth Warren, 3) Joe Biden

In the Polls: 8.0% 

Donation Record: $1.5mn within 24 hours; $23.8mn overall

Key Policies: 

• Healthcare - Backs 'Medicare for All' which would provide universal health insurance

• Immigration - Opposed to most current policy (ie anti-wall, detention centres, and splitting families)

• Climate Change - Supports the Green New Deal 

• Education - Free college for incomes below $125,000, and has planned for a large teacher pay rise 

• Justice & Drugs - Pro-weed legalisation; anti-death penalty; history of tough action as California DA ("I did the work of significantly reforming the criminal justice system of the state of 40 million people")

• Foreign Policy - Favoured withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan; opposed to Yemen involvement; staunchly pro-Israel

• Taxation - Introduced a tax cut for middle-class provisionally costing $2.8trn over a decade

Chances:

An uncontroversial, well-liked candidate, Mrs Harris sits fourth in a race of twenty-four. She is probably the most charismatic of the front-runners with relative youth and an advantageous background (child of immigrants, success as Attorney General). 

She's fairly strong on policy, with her middle-class tax cuts a detailed appeal to the centre-ground, and she has an ability to connect to key demographics. 

I don't agree with all of this, but the 29% figure is clear.

However, she will struggle to distinguish herself from the other three, being too left towards Bernie Sanders (see similarities on education, climate, and healthcare), too wonkish towards Elizabeth Warren, and sharing too many potential voters with Joe Biden. 

Yet her clear message, readiness to pivot towards the centre, and more conservative action on crime means that if she can secure the nomination, she will have a chance in the real thing. 

A quarter of Democrats already think she could beat Trump - more than most candidates. I agree.

Chances of being Nominated: 5/10

Chances of Beating Trump: 8/10

Elizabeth Warren

"Today's big tech companies have too much power-too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy. They've bulldozed competition...and titled the playing field against everyone else."

Age: 69


Current Job: Senator for Massachusetts

Career: Law Professor; oversaw post-Recession economic stimulus; adviser to President Obama on financial fair play

Rivals: 1) Kamala Harris 2) Joe Biden

In the Polls: 17.3%

Donation Record: $300,000 within 24 hours; $25.1mn overall


Key Policies:

• Healthcare - Backs Medicare for All and favours profit regulation for insurance companies; has suggested opening a government-run pharmaceutical firm to bring prices down

• Immigration - pro-ICE (immigration agency) replacement; favours decriminalising illegal border crossings

• Climate - Supports GND; wants public companies to disclose impact of climate change; has suggested new laws on water cleanliness, methane pollution, etc.

• Education - Plans to partially forgive student debt & make public higher education free

• Justice & Drugs - pro-weed-legalisation; anti-death penalty

• Foreign Policy - favours Afghanistan withdrawal; opposed to Yemen involvement; has criticised Israel openly

• Taxes - reversal of 2017 tax cuts; wealth tax on 75,000 richest Americans

Chances:

Elizabeth Warren has a reputation of being a policy 'wonk' - someone who likes detail and understands the complexity of law. Where the above candidates had eight/nine policy categories on other websites, Warren had about twelve, each properly developed.

This is in contrast to Sanders' big-picture thinking, or Harris' inexperience in high office. Warren's plans to heavily regulate Big Tech have gone down a storm, helping her sit ahead of Bernie in the polls. 

But the cost, oh the cost. $37 trillion over ten years for all her policies. And does she have the sparkle necessary to out-charm Biden?

Trump and Warren would be a very, very entertaining contest; his opportunism versus her structured detail. In theory, she is capable of gaining moderate Republican votes, but could she stand up to Trump in a TV debate, where her deliberate, scripted speech would be drowned out?

Yet the focus on plausible policy is encouraging, and if she could make the message heard, Warren would be in with a chance.

Chances of being Nominated: 7/10

Chances of Beating Trump: 7/10

Joe Biden

"We're all human, and we can all be misled. When leaders don't level with citizens, we can't expect them to make good judgments."


Age: 76

Current Job: N/A

Career: Delaware Senator; Vice-President

Rivals: 1) Elizabeth Warren.

In the Polls: 30.5%

Donation Record: $21mn April-June 2019 + $10.9mn cash on hand


Key Policies:

• Healthcare: Wants to build upon Obamacare - which he helped introduce - but anti-Medicare for All due to cost

• Immigration: Wants to increase border security, but not Trumpian style

• Climate: Has not endorsed GND, but fully backs Paris Accords; criticism for 'cut and paste' climate plan

• Education: Supports free college education; pro-universal preschool care

• Justice & Drugs: History of deterrence-based crime law (more prison & police funding etc.)

• Foreign Policy: Tough on Russia; supported drone strikes in Syria; anti-Libya intervention

• Taxes: Higher taxes on wealthy Americans; increased tax relief for middle-class

Chances:

Joe Biden. Three-time Presidential contender, former vice-president, and long-term senator. After an early surge to 42%, 'Uncle Joe' has fallen somewhat, but is still the clear leader. 

A tough man lies behind the amiability; his wife and daughter died when he was 29, and a son passed away four years ago. He has integrity and commands genuine appeal in the 'rust belt' swing states, as well as having a history of pragmatism that is sorely lacking in America. 

If he showed some developed policy ideas, and overcame some awkward historical senate votes, he might be able to defend his left flank from Warren and Harris. 

But he could well stumble at the televised debates in September, and his perceptions of race, gender and personal space are still clumsy.

The Economist has written that 'Mr Biden's long-ago working class roots are [not] a substitute for the serious reappraisal of economic policy' needed. 

They aren't wrong. Biden will not bring the energetic changes that much of America is looking for. 

He is too prone to gaffes and his support base too apathetic (in comparison to the frantic cheers at rivals' rallies) to hold up for eight months against an incumbent who will find gaps and holes everywhere. He might win the working-class, but he would lose the left-wing, especially as Sanders would probably run if Biden won.

Chances of being Nominated: 8/10

Chances of Beating Trump: 4/10

This is how I ranked the four:

Winning the Nomination:

1. Biden
2. Warren
3. Harris
4. Sanders

Winning the Presidency:

1. Harris
2. Warren
3. Sanders
4. Biden

On this conclusion, it seems that Warren has the best combined chance of victory, while Biden would be thoroughly unsuitable if elected as candidate. Sanders is barely worth considering. 

Yet there are still seven months until the primaries begin in March, and anything could happen. Let's just hope 'anything' favours Kamala Harris.

Theo