Darlington General Election Results (1922-2019)

Facebook attempts to build public trust... and fails immediately.

A Biden attack ad from the Trump campaign

In audio leaked to US tech outlet The Verge earlier this month, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg riled against the suggestion of harsher government regulation of big tech, stating it would actually make election interference and hate speech more likely.

The CEO boasted about the company's superior ability to deal with these issues, slamming competitors such as Twitter: "Our investment on safety is bigger than the whole revenue of their company!”

As if by on cue, Facebook then proved how... urm... unsafe their platform was.

Only a week after Zuck's comments about safe elections and wanting to "build trust" with the public, Facebook refused to take down a Trump ad accusing former vice president Joe Biden of dodgy dealings with the Ukraine - a conspiracy theory spread by Trump that has landed him at the centre of an impeachment inquiry.

Facebook eventually took some versions of the ad down, showing they can deal with safety issues on their own platform. If only the ad hadn’t been displayed over 300,000 times before they decided it violated their policies…

This IS what we voted for.

May survives a no-confidence vote... just

Why the current turmoil in Westminster is perfect

Whenever Londoners discuss the people who voted for Brexit, they always talk about working class men living in places like Sunderland, Scunthorpe, Stockton and other non-metropolitan places beginning with other letters of the alphabet. There’s usually a tone that denotes these people didn’t know what they were voting for, they were lied to, and given the opportunity they would now vote to remain.

Although I’m sure that is true in some cases, I’m sure that it is equally as true that for many, the current mayhem is exactly what they hoped would happen after the vote in June 2016.

For some people, voting to leave the EU wasn’t so much about Brexit as it was disrupting the political landscape and getting politicians to pull their weight for once. Yes, the clichés about the European commission being undemocratic and the dangers of open borders played some part in how they cast their vote, but the real goal was to give Westminster a kick up the arse. A violent reminder to the 650 MPs that the rest of the country is still here - and they’re not happy.

After talking to people up and down the country, it seems there is a decent sized demographic who believe this. Many I’ve spoken to have a view of MPs that has not improved much since the expenses scandal almost ten years ago. MPs are perceived as money-grabbing, lazy, ignorant elites who are visible to the constituency about once every five years when another election is around the corner, but apart from that, just crop up in the local paper occasionally for a ceremonial opening of a new children’s park.

Nothing seems to change. "Vote Labour, Vote Conservative, they’re all the same” they echo. Then came along Europe. In the build-up to the 2016 referendum, everyone spoke about immigration figures and how much money was given to the EU, but a statistic that was thrown around just as much was the two thirds of British laws that come from the EU. This confirmed the belief that Parliament was lazy, and it was the EU doing the heavy lifting. Thankfully, the referendum provided the means for monumental political upheaval.

The Remain campaign somewhat helped fuel this backlash too, talking about the instability that Britain leaving the EU would cause. Columns inches were devoted to whether the traditional two-party system would survive Britain leaving the EU, the media buzzed about all the EU statutes integrated into British law that would be put in jeopardy, and economic forecasters were outspoken about the economic damage Brexit would do to the City. For those who wanted to see the elites feel uneasy for once, this was an opportunity too good to ignore.

So when you read the news this week and hear about Theresa May struggling to make it through another day in power, Jeremy Corbyn awkwardly trying to invent an all-pleasing position on Brexit, and the media whipped up in a frenzy of weak-predictions and endlessly pointing out how ‘not normal’ everything is, remember that for some this is ideal. This is bliss. For there are people who have felt for years that they have no control, are powerless, and lack a certain future… but now it’s the politicians’ turn.

Interview with Queen Mary's Principal for The Print

Last month, I interviewed President and Principal of Queen Mary Colin Bailey for The Print. We discussed the higher education sector, student safety in London, his vision for Queen Mary and much more. Listen below or on iTunes. Alternative, search 'The Print Podcast' wherever you get your podcasts.

Questions were by myself and Sophie Mitchell, with additional help from Queen Mary students who submitted questions via our web form.

Apologies for the poor sound quality at times; the interview its self was recorded using my phone's microphone.

I'd love to hear your feedback and suggestions for future guests who would make good interviews (preferably people who do something that is of interest to students). So, feel free to Tweet at me. In the meantime, happy listening.

Kensington: the last undeclared seat

The parliamentary constituency of Kensington in west London will be the 650th of 650 seats to be declared in the 2017 general election. The reason for the delay is that there have reportedly already been two recounts. These continued until almost 7am this morning when vote counters were finally told to go home and get some rest.

A recount in a close seat, that's nothing unusual right? No. However, Kensington isn't usually a close seat. In fact, after the 2015 general election, the Conservatives had a 20% lead over the Labour candidate in terms of vote share. Moreover, since the constituency was created in 1974, it has been a safe Conservative seat as it homes some of the richest people in Great Britain with house prices climbing into the tens of millions. If the reason for the delay is confirmed to be because of a close race between the Conservative and Labour candidate, this will be one of the biggest stories of the election.

The Kensington Election Count has been suspended after 2 recounts. We don't know when we'll have a result.Some say it's just 40 voes #ge2017 pic.twitter.com/KBHC9Mzi6i

— Warren Nettleford (@wnettleford) June 9, 2017

General Election 2017: Vote share compared to seats

2017 Seats to Votes Ratio
Create pie charts

General Election 2017: How close were the pollsters to being correct?

The graph below shows the actual vote share (thus far) compared to what the final opinion polls from various companies predicted earlier this week. The Survation poll was closest to being correct.

General Election 2017: Opinion Polls V Reality
Create column charts

General Election 2017: Predicted winners and losers

Theresa May has called a general election for 8 June 2017. Here is who I predict will be the biggest winners and losers coming out of that.

Labour leader: Jeremy Corbyn

LOSER: LABOUR
Lots of Labour MPs are say they are not standing for re-election, Jeremy Corbyn still struggles to control the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the party, in general, has been looking unelectable for the past few years now. This disarray adds up to electoral failure. The Fabian Society says the best-case scenario is a loss of 40 seats however that number could be much higher and MPs are considering possibilities from 20-100 losses.

WINNER: LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
The Liberal Democrats only have nine MPs so they don’t have much to lose. Whether they will win back the trust of young people after they raised tuition fees last time they were in government is something that I am curious about. They are currently selling themselves as the soft Brexit party; they have said that they want Britain to remain in the single market so it is likely that the Lib Dems will hoover up votes from many die-hard remainers.

LOSER: UKIP
The figurehead of UKIP Nigel Farage resigned as leader, their only MP Douglas Carswell said that he is standing down and would be voting Conservative, and their current leader Paul Nuttall failed to win the Stoke by-election earlier this year. UKIP’s main purpose was to get Britain out of the European Union and now that’s happening, UKIP’s place in British politics is uncertain. They received 12.6% of the popular vote in the 2015 general election and I think they would be very lucky to get anywhere near that amount of support this June.

WINNER: CONSERVATIVES
Some generous estimates say that the Conservatives might win another 150 seats this June. More sensible predictions consider seats that they’re likely to lose to the Lib Dems and say their gains to be closer to 80 seats. Editor of The Spectator Fraser Nelson says that the election will have been worth it for Theresa May if the Conservatives win at least a further 50 seats. Regardless of how big their majority is going to be, one thing is almost for certain: they are going to win. In the popular vote, they are currently polling at twice that of the Labour party and Theresa May is making stability a key theme of her campaign - something which the Conservatives claim to be good at.

WHO KNOWS?: SNP
In 2015, the Scottish National Party won all but three seats in Scotland so they have a lot at stake. For the past two years, the SNP have presented themselves as a stronger, Scottish alternative to the Labour party. Nicola Sturgeon is a commendable leader and MPs such as Mhairi Black have offered the media emotive sound bites in the House of Commons. However, the EU referendum might have changed attitudes in Scotland and there have been reports of bullying and intimidation from the power-obsessed SNP. Whether the Scottish Conservatives manage to snatch any seats from the SNP will be something to look out for.

A left wing “progressive alliance” would be a waste of time – especially for Labour

Jeremy Corbyn and Caroline Lucas: frenemies?

After Prime Minister Theresa May called a snap election earlier this week, the Green Party invited leaders of Labour and the Liberal Democrats to discuss the possibility of a “progressive alliance”.

The Green Party co-leaders Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley said the aim would be stopping “the Tories wrecking our country.”

Hoping for cooperation in some seats, the Greens see this as the only way of stopping another Conservative majority in the House of Commons. Exactly what the Greens have in mind is unclear.

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon also called for an alliance to be made in order to keep the Tories out of power.

Regardless, a few hours later, Jeremy Corbyn ruled out any kind of agreement between the parties. This enraged many Labour supporters and even more people who simply don’t want to see the Conservatives return to power. However, Corbyn made the right decision. The pact would not have benefited the Labour party in any meaningful way nor would it have prevented another Conservative government.

The last time an electoral agreement (like what the Greens might have been proposing) was struck was the Gladstone-MacDonald pact in 1906. The Liberals and Labour worked together to ensure they were not splitting the anti-Conservative vote. They did this by only letting one of their candidates run in some seats. For anything like this to be successful in 2017, there would need to be more than one strong left-wing party. The Greens and Liberal Democrats currently only have 10 seats between them and are not even the second party in most Labour constituencies. UKIP are the party taking most votes from Labour – especially in the north of England.

If it did happen, the pact would undoubtedly weaken Labour. Even though the Lib Dems and Greens collectively got over 3.5 million votes in 2015, they did not manage to concentrate their support. Meanwhile, Labour received just over 9 million votes, won 232 seats, and has since grown into the largest party in Europe with regards to membership. The Labour party also has a superior internal structure and a more sophisticated organisation meaning any alliance formed would be far more beneficial to the Greens, SNP, and/or Liberal Democrats.

The possibility of a Labour coalition would work in favour of the Tory’s narrative. If you watched any PMQs before the 2015 general election you will remember David Cameron repeatedly taunting the Labour party; saying that they’d only ever get into power on “Alex Salmond’s coat-tails.”

If Labour made any kind of deal with the SNP specifically, it is likely one of the terms would be to guarantee a second Scottish independence referendum. As the New Statesman pointed out earlier this week, the SNP care primarily about independence. Moreover, if Scotland did leave the United Kingdom, Labour would stand no chance of being elected ever again.

Finally, and most importantly, a “progressive alliance” simply would not work. The maths does not add up. If you look at current polling data, the Conservatives are estimated to win a majority of approximately 100 seats so any sort of opposition alliance is a waste of time anyway. Unlike the EU referendum, the 2016 US election, and the current French elections where the polls were/are extremely close, the 2017 general election is a done deal. No sound minded person is predicting anything other than a Conservative majority so I think we should spend our time focusing on something worthwhile for the next 50 days. A new series of Doctor Who has just started. Wanna talk about that?

Thoughts on the snap election announcement

Theresa May made a speech on Tuesday morning announcing a general election for 8 June 2017. Mrs May claimed the reason for calling the snap election is to "guarantee certainty and stability" and allow the government to have a stronger negotiating position with regards to leaving the European Union. Here are my thoughts on the announcement and what it means:

• Many praised Theresa May for risking a general election however I think it's a stretch to call this a risk. It is anything but that. The Conservatives are polling at twice the numbers of Labour, economic growth is good, and the Conservatives are predicted to win a majority that could be as high as 150 seats.

• Earlier this year, the government needed to make a U-turn on their policy to raise National Insurance on the self-employed. It would have been a reversal of a 2015 manifesto pledge therefore some Conservatives were threatening to vote against it. A larger Conservative majority in the House of Commons would ensure controversial legislation like this would get passed. The election also allows Theresa May to put forward a manifesto that is truly hers and not be bound to what David Cameron promised in 2015.
  
• I think it is a little dodgy holding another general election whilst up to 20 sitting Conservative MPs are under investigation for violations of electoral law. 16 police forces are looking into whether some MPs overspent during the 2015 general election. If found guilty, MPs involved could be imprisoned for one year and barred from Parliament for three. It makes me feel uneasy that those MPs are allowed to run campaigns again whilst there is evidence of their recent monetary mismanagement that they have not yet been penalised for.
  
• This election will probably devastate the Labour party when they lose however it will give them a chance to replace Corbyn with a stronger leader who can unite the party, better hold the government to account, and convey a clear message to the public. If the party wants to survive, it can't make the same mistake of electing a leader as un-pragmatic as Corbyn when there is inevitably another leadership election in the summer or else the party may never recover.
  
• With some Labour MPs saying that they won't be seeking re-election in June and many more still refusing to unite behind Corbyn, it will be interesting to see the role that the Labour leader will play in the campaign. Many are already speculating that Labour will be trying to avoid a Corbyn-centric campaign.
  
• It will also be interesting to see how far policy pledges alone can take a party. Labour appears to be publicising their manifesto as well as they can without the support of the mainstream media. However, concerns over Corbyn's leadership and the disarray of the Parliamentary Labour Party mean that many are calling the party "unelectable" so it is likely that many of those who vote Labour are voting because of manifesto planks alone.
  
• Since the announcement of a snap election, Labour has kicked up a fuss about Theresa May going back on her word as she had previously said that she was not going to hold an early general election. Labour are doing a good job at highlighting May’s untrustworthiness but they need to be careful not to go too far or else the public will see them as dwelling on this point rather than focusing on something they can actually do something about. Also, if they moan about the election too much, it further instills the notion that Labour does not have any electoral confidence in themselves.

With around 50 days to go until election day, I look forward to seeing how Labour tries to portray themselves (it is still ambiguous where they stand on Brexit), I hope the Conservatives campaign spending is monitored closely, and I am fascinated to see how voters respond to third parties - especially the Lib Dems and UKIP.

Victory for public health campaigners as plain packaging nears full implementation

In 2016, the government passed plain cigarette packaging legislation. The new law stated that packaging for cigarettes must have a standardised size, shape, and shade of green. The boxes must also carry health warnings which cover at least 65% of the surface area.

This was fantastic news for anti-tobacco industry lobbyists and public health campaigners. In the North East of England, it is predicted that the average smoker starts at the age of 15. At that age, being cool is often considered to be important and smoking can be perceived as the chic thing to do because of the glamorisation of smoking through fancy packaging. Plain packaging aims to prevent this.

Unsurprisingly, cigarette manufacturers were less pleased about the new laws. Last May, they accused the health minister of introducing these new regulations unlawfully. However, the high court and the court of appeal have since ruled against these claims.

A loophole was exploited in the plain packaging law though. Companies were allowed to sell cigarettes which don’t have the new packaging as long as they were produced before 20 May 2016. This caused cigarette manufacturers to ramp up production so they had a large amount stock to sell off before the law was implemented.

Another tactic that the cigarette manufacture Imperial employed involved applying stickers to the standardised packs to make them look more appealing. They argued that this technically was not part of the manufacturing process however a legal expert disagreed.

Ultimately, this is win for public health campaigners. Despite creative efforts from the cigarette companies and spending large sums of money on legal hours in attempt to stop the legislation, plain packaging is now almost universal everywhere. All non-standardised cigarette packaging produced before 20 May 2016 must be sold off by 20 May 2017 meaning that fancy cigarette packaging will gradually become increasingly rare as the dark green boxes finish phasing in.

The AHCA: is it just 'Obamacare-lite'?

For months, President Trump has been saying that his number one priority with regards to health policy is to “repeal and replace” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Immediately, questions were raised about what it would be replaced with and how many people might become insured as a result. Last night, the Republicans unveiled the American Health Care Act (AHCA) – the healthcare bill which will replace the PPACA and which may become ‘Trumpcare’.

What immediately strikes me about the bill is how like Obamacare it is. Children can remain on their parent’s plan until the age of 26 still and insurers cannot discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions by jacking up prices. The stark similarities have caused many Republicans to condemn the AHCA as ‘Obamacare 2.0’ or ‘Obamcare-lite’.

Even some of the changes are minor. Under Obamacare, people without health insurance were penalised in the form of a tax. Under the AHCA, although there is no tax for people who go without cover, if they decide to re-enrol after being uninsured for more than 63 days, insurers can add a surplus charge of 30% for the first year of being covered again regardless of their health. The effect of this resemble that of Obamacare: US citizens are better off owning health insurance and keeping it.

Under Obamacare, insurers could only charge old people 3x more than they would charge young people however under the AHCA, insurers can charge old people 5x more than young people. Many predict that this will make health insurance slightly cheaper for young people but slightly more expensive for old people.

Many are pleased that Medicaid (the health care program that assists people on low-income) will continue to expand until 2020. After that, it will ‘freeze’ and be re-evaluated.

However, basic insurance plans will not be required to cover paediatric and maternity care from 2020 onwards.

The changes to tax credits are where things get slightly more complicated and the effects become more unclear. Under Obamacare, any individual with an annual income less than approximately $24,120 would be able to get a midlevel insurance plan for no more than 6.4% of their income. People earning more than that figure would not be entitled to any tax credits.

Under the AHCA, any individual earning less than $75,000 will be entitled to tax credits. The amount depends vastly on age though and varies from $2000 for those under the age of 30 to $4000 for those over the age of 60.

Accurate statistics regarding who will benefit and who will not are still emerging. As are the Congressional Budget Office’s figures showing how much the AHCA will cost the US government.

All of this might not matter anyway, the bill is currently facing intense scrutiny from Senators and congressmen both sides of the aisle and Trump is yet to endorse it. The future of the AHCA/Trumpcare may still look very different to the bill released yesterday.

The US media need to improve their Trump coverage

If you’ve dragged yourself out of bed at any point over the last few weeks, you will have heard about the ‘leaked' Russian dossier stating crude things that President Trump allegedly did in Moscow some years ago. Although many news sites admit that it had been on their radar for a while now, they had decided not to publish it because the provenance wasn’t even slightly credible. Enter BuzzFeed. 

BuzzFeed published the dossier and sparked a media frenzy as mainstream news organisations (such as the BBC and CNN) started to report the story too - admittedly, in a more delicate kind of way. In a press conference following the reports, President Trump slammed CNN as “fake news” and wouldn’t take their question whilst he condemned BuzzFeed as a “failing pile of garbage”.
 


CNN has a network that reaches millions of people every day meaning when they lay a blow in to President Trump, it has impact. However, if CNN continue to run with stories with little evidence to support it, the impact of their scrutiny will start to diminish. I use CNN as an example but this is the same for any news organisation which decided to report on the Russian dossier.

As for BuzzFeed, they've always been a lost cause in my eyes. I commend them for being a large part of the investigation that exposed the malpractice at Kids Company and for having such a large network. However, their habit of publishing sketchy stories and then saying “it’s up to the reader to decide whether it is true or not” undermines their status as a news organisation and makes the whole news industry untrustworthy.

Another reason, news organisations in general should clamp down on their coverage of Trump controversies is because none of them stick. He is a snake sliding effortlessly though a field of scandals. Analysis of newspaper headlines after the election showed that Clinton’s consistent criticism was for her deleted emails yet there were dozens of Trump scandals. Muslim-ban-gate, Mexicans-are-rapists-gate, sexual-assault-allegations-gate, women-who-have-abortions-should-be-punished-gate, and grab-them-by-the-pussy-gate - to name a few. 

Chart via Media Matters

The more scrutiny the better, right? Wrong. Unlike Clinton’s deleted emails, most of Trump’s scandals could only be explored superficially because it was only a matter of days before the next one came along. This meant that the significance of Clinton’s deleted email was blown way out of proportion because the coverage spanned many months.

If liberal news organisations are trying to turn Trump voters off Trump, they need to realise that controversies don’t repel his supporters. In fact, they make him appear politically incorrect thus anti-establishment (like what many Americans desire). Instead, news organisations should really start scrutinising his policy decisions. The first steps have already been made to repeal Obamacare which could cause 18 million people to lose health insurance. This is an issue which needs far more attention than what it is getting. By covering this extensively, the liberal media might win over some Trump voters but, more importantly, they would be doing an effective job of holding the President to account.

Credit where credit is due though, Vox is getting a name for itself producing in-depth policy analysis. Just before the Obama administration ended they held an hour-long interview on Obamacare and its future. Plus, they have recently also published pieces on possible Supreme Court nominations, Trump killing the TPP free trade deal, and Trump’s plan to cut Medicade. These are all matters of serious substance which need scrutinising and exploring in order for voters to understand what Trump’s administration is achieving. Sadly, at the moment, not many news organisations are rising to that challenge and instead opt to publish the platitude entertaining scandal stories.

To conclude, although it acts as excellent click-bait, the media should try and report less on the next alleged Trump scandal and, instead, home in on the many executive orders he has been signing this week and what they will mean for the American people. As for BuzzFeed, they should go back to publishing quizzes about which character from Friends I would be – and nothing else.

Sources: Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/17/18-million-would-lose-insurance-in-first-year-of-obamacare-repeal-without-replacement-cbo-report-says/?utm_term=.70853fcd142f,  Media Matters http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/11/04/study-top-newspapers-give-clinton-email-story-more-coverage-all-other-trump-stories/214309

President Trump will have worryingly little opposition

There is just less than one month to go until Donald Trump is inaugurated as President of the United States. Many Americans are relying on the system of checks and balances outlined in the US constitution and other forms of scrutiny to protect their civil rights. Also, to prevent Trump from implementing any of the regressive policy ideas he discussed in the campaign. However, I don’t think Trump is going to face many significant obstacles when making any kind of decision as President.

Congress
The Republicans have maintained their majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, making it far easier for Trump to pass legislation – a luxury that Obama only had for two of his eight years.

During the campaign, many Republican Senators refused to endorse Trump however, like almost everything said in the campaign, many are retracting their defiant comments. Now there is a Republican in the White House, they have a chance to make real differences. Congressmen and Senators have nothing to lose by working with Trump; every Trump victory is a victory for them so the Republicans are in a win-win situation.

Supreme Court
Obama spent the last year of his presidency trying to appoint a Liberal by the name of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court following the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016. Due to Republicans refusing to schedule a hearing for Garland in the Senate, Obama was unsuccessful in his appointment attempt. Trump, on the other hand, should face no problems appointing a Conservative to the court. From what he has said in interviews recently, the judge will likely be pro-life and anti-gay marriage.

It is also likely that Trump will get the chance to appoint further justices to the Supreme Court over the course of his term. The Liberal, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Conservative-leaning Anthony Kennedy are both over 80 years-old. Given the opportunity, Trump will be able to upset the current balance of the Supreme Court and make it lean conservative.

Media
The media industry is currently going through a fake news crisis which is undermining the credibility of even respectable titles. Most of the fake news that goes viral on social media comes from Conservative leaning sources.

Furthermore, Trump supporters are very sceptical of mainstream media. A national Quinnipiac University poll in October revealed that 55% of likely voters said that they think the media is bias against Trump. Furthermore, Trump has spent the last few weeks tweeting almost endlessly about the bias of the mainstream media.

Reports by @CNN that I will be working on The Apprentice during my Presidency, even part time, are ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 10, 2016

Just watched @NBCNightlyNews - So biased, inaccurate and bad, point after point. Just can't get much worse, although @CNN is right up there!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2016

In the past, the media has had the means to sway public opinion and scrutinise decisions with some weight however nowadays there appears to be a larger trend in people only reading news that they want to believe. Trump is subtly encouraging this because it works in his favour.

Foreign Policy
With regards to foreign policy, Presidents are not subject to the same checks and balances that they are with domestic policy. For example, Trump can press the ‘nuclear button’ or order a military intervention (like what was seen in Vietnam and Iraq) without running it through Congress first. With rumours that the transition from Obama to Trump is chaotic and RealClearPolitics’ Simendinger and Caitlin Huey-Burns describing Trump’s cabinet as “loyalists”, Trump’s ability to make educated and thought-out decisions in times of crisis will be undoubtedly compromised.


There is a well-known phrase in the politics sphere that goes “you can’t do anything in opposition”. Sadly, for the Democrats and liberal media, that is even more true in a time when some opposition - any opposition - would be beneficial for democracy and the future of the US.

AUDIO: Trump has won. Now what?

References (in order of mention)
'Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson Is This Year's Sexiest Man Alive!' from People Magazine http://people.com/celebrity/sexiest-man-alive-2016-dwayne-johnson-the-rock/
'Bernie Sanders: Donald Trump harnessed anti-establishment anger' from The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-harnessed-anti-establishment-anger
'Hillary Clinton Made the Same Darn Mistake as Al Gore' from History News Network http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/164466
'Felony disenfranchisement: The untold story of the 2016 election' from Salon http://www.salon.com/2016/11/28/felony-disenfranchisement-the-untold-story-of-the-2016-election_partner/
'@transition2017 update and policy plans for the first 100 days' from Donald J Trump's Twitter https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/800850810490023937
'Barron Trump looks dazed and nauseous through dad Donald’s election victory speech after staying awake for nearly 24 hours' from The Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2147584/donald-trumps-late-night-triumph-proves-too-much-for-his-exhausted-young-son-barron-who-can-barely-stay-awake-during-his-dads-victory-speech/
'Election 2016: Exit Polls' from The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
'List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin' from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin
'Paris Hilton reveals she voted for Trump' from The Hill http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/306652-paris-hilton-reveals-she-voted-for-trump
'Kanye West: I didn't vote but if I did, 'I would have voted for Trump'' from CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/18/entertainment/kanye-west-donald-trump-trnd/
'Beyoncé - Single Ladies' from YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m1EFMoRFvY
'The real Clinton email scandal is that a bullshit story has dominated the campaign' from Vox http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit
'Clinton's lead in the popular vote surpasses 2 million' from Politico http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-lead-popular-vote-2016-231790
'Trump Is Self-Sabotaging His Campaign Because He Never Really Wanted The Job In The First Place' from The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/trump-self-sabotage_b_11545026.html
'Watch: How Nigel Farage became friends with Donald Trump' from The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/16/watch-how-nigel-farage-became-friends-with-donald-trump/
'Republicans hold the House and Senate, but will that end the Washington gridlock even with President Trump?' from LA Times http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-election-congress-control-20161108-story.html
'ABFoundation' from Twitter https://twitter.com/abfalecbaldwin
'MELANIA TRUMP - THE FIRST LADY IN OUR NUDE PHOTO SHOOT' from GQ Magazine http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/donald-trump-melania-trump-knauss-first-lady-erections
'Melania Trump takes on cyberbullying: 'Our culture has gotten too mean'' from The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/melania-trump-cyberbullying-campaign-speech
'Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions. I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!' from Donald J Trump's Twitter https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798721142525665280
'Sessions dogged by old allegations of racism' from CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/17/politics/jeff-sessions-racism-allegations/
'Michael Flynn, Anti-Islamist Ex-General, Offered Security Post, Trump Aide Says' fron The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/michael-flynn-national-security-adviser-donald-trump.html
'The crowd chants "lock her up" as Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn criticizes @HillaryClinton in his speech at the #RNCinCLE' from Politico's Twitter https://twitter.com/politico/status/755236633507729408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
'Ringside With Steve Bannon at Trump Tower as the President-Elect's Strategist Plots "An Entirely New Political Movement" (Exclusive)' from The Hollywood Reporter http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-bannon-trump-tower-interview-trumps-strategist-plots-new-political-movement-948747
'Mike Pence—Conversion Therapy True Believer—Adds More Hate to Donald Trump’s GOP Fire' from The Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/20/mike-pence-conversion-therapy-true-believes-up-the-hate-for-donald-trump-s-gop.html
'‘Hamilton’ Had Some Unscripted Lines for Pence. Trump Wasn’t Happy.' from The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/mike-pence-hamilton.html
'Hillary Clinton seen hiking day after conceding US election' from The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/hillary-clinton-hike-new-york-after-election-donald-trump
'Three ways Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has made history' from Salon http://www.salon.com/2016/11/08/3-ways-donald-trumps-presidential-campaign-made-history/

Donald Trump: One Week as Preisdent-Elect

It has been just over one week since billionaire Donald Trump defied the pollsters and surprised the media by getting elected as the next President of the United States. Donald Trump has, unsurprisingly, had a very busy week and voters have been given some more clues as to what exactly the Trump presidency will look like.

Professionalism 
Anti-Trump protesters have taken to the streets of US cities over the last week to voice their opposition to Trump’s callous rhetoric. Trump responded to these protests on Twitter, initially calling the protesters “unfair”. However, he later tweeted: “Love the fact that … protesters … have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!” The second tweet probably came following a gentle reminder from the White House or a member of his staff that the campaign is over now and he needs to unite the country. I suspect the public will begin to see a reserved and less impulsive Trump more frequently now he is President.

Appointments
Trump has been appointing Republicans to key positions in his cabinet this week. So far we know that Reince Priebus is going to be Trump’s Chief of staff and Steve Bannon is going to be Chief strategist. Priebus used to be Chairman of the Republican National Committee and is known to be close with House Speaker Paul Ryan. Bannon is an ex-Goldman Sachs financier and has already sparked controversy due to his position as executive chairman of an alt-right news website which opposes immigration and cultural diversity. So far these appointments lack relevant White House experience therefore it will be interesting to see if they even last in their current positions.

Transition
Already, the Office of the President-Elect has began the transition from Obama’s administration to Trump’s. Obama met Trump on Thursday and the Wall Street Journal has since reported that during the meeting Trump expressed his surprise at the scope of the duties. They also reported that many Trump aides were "unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term”.

Trump also began making phone calls and meeting with senior international politicians. British Prime Minister Theresa May was the 10th world leader that Trump contacted causing many to speculate on the state of the "special relationship". Though, Trump apparently told May the UK was a "very, very special place for me and for our country." Trump seemed to be more interested in another British politician this week though: Nigel Farage. They were pictured together in a gold-plated elevator having campaigned together last month. Is Farage expecting a new job working closely with President-elect Trump?

Media
Trump did his first television interview since the election result with CBS’s '60 Minutes'. He admitted he had no regrets regarding anything he said on the campaign however it became clear that many of the things he said on the campaign weren’t to be taken literally. Furthermore, following a meeting with Paul Ryan, he stated that issues which were going to be addressed on the first day in office include healthcare and immigration.


This first week has been extremely telling and already we are seeing Trump appear more presidential. I think Trump will quickly discover how difficult the job is and that he is in fact no better than any regular Republican politician. His ambitions for “better healthcare for less money” and to destroy ISIS will prove to be far easier said than done (duh!). Also, his temperament which was very public during the campaign will be made private and his use of social media will decrease. Donald Trump will never be a stereotypical statesman like any other US Presidents in modern history (especially since his anti-establishment rhetoric is part of his appeal) but it will be interesting to see how close to that he is willing to go.

Donald Trump probably won the second presidential debate

The second Presidential debate between the Republican candidate Donald Trump and the Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton took place on 9th October 2016. The two candidates didn’t stray far from their tried and tested styles: Trump with his simplistic answers shadowed by his aggressive passion, and Clinton with her calm technique and reserved responses which sound overly-rehearsed. The debate covered a wide range of issues varying from healthcare to foreign policy but answers from both candidates were frequently unfocused. As for the ‘winner’ of the debate, that depends on what your definition of winning is.

If the criteria for winning the debate is making the most evidence-backed, compelling arguments to deal with the questions, then Clinton won hands down. She kept her cool throughout the debate, even when put under pressure by Trump. However, if the definition of winning the debate is persuading undecided voters to vote for you, then I suspect that Trump won. Here’s why:

Often, when Trump was regurgitating his nonsensical rhetoric, Clinton would smile - probably highly amused by how easy Trump was making it for her. However, for Americans who are not politically educated and don’t fact check, Clinton’s grins could be perceived as her not taking the issues seriously or making light of them.

Clinton’s smiles were biggest when Trump came out with statements which she knew were lies and, when she got a chance to speak, Clinton would encourage viewers to visit her website to ‘fact-check’ Trump and find out the truth. However, it is becoming more and more evident that we live in a post-fact world and even the most politically uneducated among us know that candidate’s websites are not the ideal source for correct information. Clinton gives off a shifty impression to many and Trump has dubbed her ‘crooked Hilary’ numerous times so when Trump presents his false version of reality and Clinton just refers to her website, it is not a suffice response. Clinton's inability to outright deny lies individual lies with evidence proving it makes her look guilty. Ultimately, I think in those situations, it means Trump has come out on top.

Transcript 

TRUMP: So we’re going to get a special prosecutor, and we’re going to look into it, because you know what? People have been — their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you’ve done. And it’s a disgrace. And honestly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. 

CLINTON: In the first debate... I told people that it would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I’d never get to talk about anything I want to do and how we’re going to really make lives better for people. 

So, once again, go to HillaryClinton.com. We have literally Trump — you can fact check him in real time. Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we’ll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is — it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country. 

TRUMP: Because you’d be in jail.

It is clear from social media that many Trump supporters are highly suspicious of the media and think that there is an anti-Trump media conspiracy. During the debate there were a number of occasions when Trump argued that Clinton had spoken for too long or that Clinton was allowed to respond but he wasn’t. For those sceptical of the media, this only throws fuel on the fire.

One of the notable examples of this is when Trump brings up the issue of Clinton’s private email server to deflect from the questions he had regarding inflammatory comments he made about women. The issue of Clinton’s emails was talked about excessively at the last debate, has had days’ worth of airtime over the past year, and thousands of articles can be found about the ‘scandal’ online. Nevertheless, Trump was infuriated by the chairs of the debate when they pushed for him to address the question given to him rather than diverge back on to the issue of Clinton’s email. I think many who don’t read the news as much as they should might perceive this as the media attempting to protect Clinton and attack Trump. In reality, the subject of Clinton’s emails has just been exhausted. Regardless, the chairs snubbing of the issue that Trump raised will work in his favour as it made Trump look like the victim being ignored by the biased pro-Clinton media.  



Despite criticism following the first debate for interrupting Clinton, Trump still did it a total of 15 times (whereas Clinton only did it five times). I think many undecided voters will not see this as a negative, rather as Trump simply wanting his views to be heard - and isn’t that what America wants when they’re doing dealings on the world stage? Clinton’s passive method of waiting her turn, although customary, respectful, and polite, could be perceived as her lacking passion. Some might think, if she disagrees so profoundly with Trump, why wouldn’t she try and stop him in his tracks?


Finally, Trump frequently ignored the question and instead attacked Clinton. The attacks were so frequent and on such a breadth of subjects, it made Clinton look like a dangerously flawed candidate. If you don’t focus on the discourse of the debate, you forget there was a question and instead are just left with the two candidates trying to get one-up.

In conclusion, it is a matter of political education and knowledge. If undecided voters don’t digest news (possibly because they don’t trust it), I think Donald Trump will have emerged from this debate appearing to be the strongest candidate: ruthless, straight-talking, and passionate. For Americans who are more politically educated though, and do consume news regularly, they will be able to see through Trump’s blatant dismissal of important issues, his oversimplified rhetoric, and be extremely concerned about the prospect of him becoming present. With election day in only 4 weeks, we will soon know what significance, if any, the debates had and who in fact won.


Debate Transcript: http://fortune.com/2016/10/09/presidential-debate-read-transcript-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/
Interruptions: http://time.com/4524739/debate-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/

Theresa May: a new Margaret Thatcher?

Above: a horribly executed face-swap of
Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May

Yesterday, Andrea Leadsom withdrew her candidacy in the Conservative leadership contest leaving Theresa May as the last woman standing. Theresa May became leader of the Conservative party with immediate effect and yesterday afternoon David Cameron announced that he would step down as Prime Minister after PMQs on Wednesday. Quite rightly, there has already been plenty of speculation on what kind of Prime Minister May will be. Some have been bold enough to compare her to Margaret Thatcher. But is she going to be the next ‘Iron Lady’?

Obviously, they are similar in the sense that they are both women Prime Ministers (a rarity UK history) but, in terms of policy, May seems to be less radical on many issues.

Margaret Thatcher was conservative through and through. She took a hard-right social and economic stance; promoting privatisation, introducing poll tax, and doing nothing whilst inequality and poverty rates grew throughout the 1980s. Meanwhile, May is pro-hunting, pro-smoking in public areas, and has an inconsistent record when it comes to civil rights and liberties. She voted against a bill in 2002 which would allow gay couples to adopt children however in 2013 voted in favour of same sex marriage. Additionally, she has supported the 2015 Conservative manifesto pledge to abandon the Human Rights Act and replace it with a UK Bill of Rights (a bill which faced large public backlash so has since been put on the backburner). However, May has renounced Cameron’s austerity measures to eliminate the budget deficit before 2020 and stated that she thinks that workers should be on the boards of major firms. The case can therefore be made for May being an extremely moderate conservative. For every hard-right policy she has backed, she has supported a soft-right (sometimes even liberal) policy to balance it out.

Although May has been outlining her aims over the past few days, the public can’t be blamed for being bit confused about her positions regarding some key issues. For example, although she voted for increasing the rate of VAT to 20%, she has recently criticised David Cameron in The Times for doing that. Maybe May was forced to hold her tongue in the past and tow the party line (because of collective ministerial responsibility) so she could retain her position in the cabinet. It is clear that from the policy announcements she has made over the last few days, she is drawing subtle contrasts between her own agenda and Cameron’s. As for May being the next Margaret Thatcher, it seems unlikely but only time will tell.

Angela Eagle will be better for the Labour Party if they want to win the next general election

Elections are won in the middle ground. Analysis of historic voting behaviour in the UK suggests that the more affluent people in society tend to vote Conservative and the working classes tend to vote Labour. A large factor contributing to winning an election is appealing to the floating voters in the middle ground.

Kudos to Corbyn
In the 2015 General Election, Ukip, the SNP, and the Green party managed to rake in over 6 million votes for the first time. Labour’s core working class vote seemed to have splinter off and many turned to alternatives like Ukip, the Greens and (in Scotland) overwhelmingly the SNP.

Since summer 2015 when Corbyn was elected leader, it can be argued that he has started to win back the working class support at a rapid pace. With the backing of the trade unions, the surged Labour party membership, and his new brand of more honest, straight talking politics, Corbynmania has reared its head up and down the country.

However, that isn't enough if Labour wants to win the next general election. Winning back their disillusioned working class voters is step one but step two entails winning over some of the middle and upper class also. Angela Eagle thinks she is the woman who can do this.

Eagle swoops in
The ex-shadow First Secretary of State and MP for Wallasey revealed that she was going to run against Corbyn yesterday. Although she hasn’t singled out any key policy differences between her agenda and Corbyn’s, she says that she aims to unite the party. This is something which needs doing if Labour stands any chance of being successful again. Although Corbyn has a mandate from the Labour members, he lacks the support of his MPs. Corbyn cannot be a one man party.

However, unless Corbyn somehow isn’t on the ballot paper when the new vote for Labour leadership happens (which would be a democratic outrage), it is very unlikely that Eagle will stand any chance of becoming leader in the near future.

She had a first opportunity to make a strong case for her leadership on ‘Sunday Politics’ with Andrew Neil this morning however failed to answer the majority of questions and failed to come across as a potential strong leader. Instead, she tried to shift the focus of many questions on to Corbyn’s flaws.



Her leadership bid is still very young so it won’t be long until Eagle might move into the spotlight of her own campaign and stop being hung-up on why many Labour MPs think Corbyn has failed.


Overall, even if Angela Eagle isn’t the solution to Labour’s lack of support and divisions, neither is Jeremy Corbyn. Angela Eagle stands a far better chance of appealing to the more broad electorate. However, what Corbyn lacks in support from MPs, he more than makes up for in the way he has rallied the support of young people, the working classes, and voters who had started to find alternatives to the Labour party. Regardless of where Labour goes next, if they want any chance of success, Jeremy Corbyn needs to be involved. 

Leadsom should not be underestimated in the battle for Conservative Party leadership

David Cameron only announced that he would be resigning as Prime Minister just over two weeks ago but the Tory leadership contest to replace him is already well under way. Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom are the last women standing after beating Michael Gove, Stephen Crabb, and Liam Fox in ballots by Conservative MPs. May was an EU 'remainer' and Leadsom campaigned as an EU ‘leaver’. They represent an interesting cross-section of the Conservative party as what they stand for and their motives for running are intriguing.

Theresa May
With 90 Conservative MP endorsements and the bookies putting her odds at 1/3 to be the next Tory leader, it seems inevitable that May will be the next Prime Minister. She has a wealth of experience in foreign negotiations as she served for 6 years as Home Secretary and she calls herself "not a showy politician" which means that few people have preconceptions of her and she could start her term with a clean slate.

Although she was anti-Brexit, she has since accepted the result and has stated “the campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high and the country gave their verdict… Brexit means Brexit.” This is unsurprising as during the EU referendum campaign she was virtually silent. Many at The Spectator predict that she was playing the long game all along and being quiet so she would be in good standing in the case of Brexit and Cameron resigning. Her strategy appears to have paid off as she is now favourite to be Tory leader… not that opinion polls can be trusted.

One thing which strikes me is, if May wins the Tory leadership contest it surely defeats the point of Cameron resigning in the first place? Replacing one anti-Brexiteer with another seems a waste of time.

Andrea Leadsom
Leadsom has emerged as the dark horse in this race for Tory leadership. She appears to have come out of nowhere but many are already pumped about her potential. Leadsom is currently a junior minister and has only been in Parliament for six years.

In the last few days she seems to have been appealing to social conservatives; speaking out against gay marriage and talking about her Christian views in a series of TV interviews. Appealing to the right-wing of her party which might just pay off. There is around two months Leadsom now has to portray herself as material for the next Tory leader and PM. From what we have seen in the last week, she definitely seems up to the job however she is going to have to fight a excellent campaign to beat May.

If history is anything to go by, David Cameron can be likened to Andrea Leadsom because he too was the underdog candidate in the Tory leadership race in 2005. He was overshadowed by David Davis right up until the end of the contest when Cameron managed to win to the surprise of many.


No matter who wins the leadership contest and becomes the next Prime Minister, Boris Johnson (leader of the EU leave campaign) should not be allowed to walk away from the turmoil that Brexit has so far created. When a Brexit department is inevitably set up, Boris must be made the head of it so it is him who is held accountable for Britain’s exit deal from the EU and the other changes that follow.