In a speech earlier today Theresa May announced her resignation as British Prime Minister as of 7th June.
She ended her speech with: “with no ill will but with enormous and enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love.”
Her words echoed an emotional cry of a woman broken, destroyed and downtrodden in her job. Carrying the weight of Brexit on her fragile shoulders.
I’m not fooled @theresa_may, you’ve lined your pockets, looked after your own and shafted those who aren’t part of your elite club. Go cry somewhere else. https://t.co/XDhxxEOBM5
The internet seems to have been split and whilst many see May as someone who only cries when it benefits her, rather than for the lives of many who were hurt by her decisions.
“Theresa May didn’t cry over Windrush, over the victims of Grenfell Tower, over the victims of Universal Credit. I wish the news would give more space to them than to a PM crying because she can no longer hold the most powerful job in the country” Spot on from @OwenJones84pic.twitter.com/FUV334oEu8
— Dr. Jennie Bujold??️? (@JennieBujold) May 24, 2019
May has been known as being an emotionless woman devoid of humanity. Her reaction to the Grenfell tower incident cemented her place in history as the Cruella Deville of British Politics.
Owen Jones a left wing, Labour supporting journalist highlighted the policies of Theresa May that destroyed homes, led more than 1 million to food banks, and drove austerity.
Other users of Twitter saw her humanity, and the tears of the former PM as of 7th June as a “sign of strength”.
Teresa May’s cry at the end of it all was not weakness. It was Strength. The strength of true ❤️ for one’s country can at some point make a Leader’s voice to break and their eyes to sweat…..
The next question is who will take over the spot of Prime Minister?
Far left Johnson, second Jeremy Hun next Sajid Javid, Jacob Mogg & Michael Gove
May’s legacy will be tarnished with being one of the worst British Prime Ministers, and it may be something she will never be allowed to forget by the British public. From the hostile environment leading to Windrush atrocities, food banks, Grenfell and more. This is the only time we saw her human side, and it seems to have come far little, and far too late.
Whilst I feel sorry for Theresa May, she was undoubtedly handed a poison chalice, a flaming baton by David Cameron who has also got away. The Conservative government and the lack of an agreement, coupled with May’s patriotic cry for “country I love” has broken her. At the end of the day she is a human, a human we may despise, a human we may believe to be abhorrent and out of touch. She tried to do the job to the best of her ability. Politics is inevitably like a see-saw, which is good for the goose is not good for the gander. It’s indeed a May day in June for the former Prime Minister, Theresa May.
Today, on Friday 24th May, the Prime Minister, Theresa May, announced her resignation. This comes at a time of great uncertainty – not just for Brexit, but in the wider context of British politics.
There have been rumblings of a leadership bid for months now and in the face of some big name resignations – Andrea Leadsom (Leader of the House of Commons), Esther McVey (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions), Boris Johnson (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) and even her own Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, Dominic Raab – it seemed unlikely that May would last much longer.
The crisis of the nation reflects that of the Conservative Party. Since David Cameron’s EU membership referendum the political landscape of the United Kingdom has been dominated by petty squabbles and power grabs. What started as a self-assured attempt to consolidate his position ended up revealing deep divides across all political alliances.
Theresa May’s voice breaks as she announces her resignation (source: Reuters: Toby Melville)
Theresa May continued this legacy by calling a snap general election back in 2017. She hoped to squash Tory concerns and ended up handing seats to Labour by the bucketload. If predicted, she will lose even more seats in the EU elections, which took place earlier this week, on Thursday 23rd May.
Now, with confirmation of her resignation, we face another leadership bid that takes power away from the people and keeps it firmly in the hands of the Conservatives – who only won the last election by lashing themselves to the hardline DUP.
Where are we with Brexit now?
May’s deal has been defeated an astonishing four times and the leave date has been pushed back again and again – this time past May’s resignation date of 7th June. Meanwhile, multiple MP resignations have prevented any meaningful challenge to issues like encroaching NHS privitisation, education, welfare cuts, deportation of UK citizens, human rights abuses and our continuing support of oppressive administrations such as Trump and Saudi Arabia.
Brexit is clogging up our political system. After two years and two Prime Ministers we are no closer to agreeing on a deal and the concern will now be that May is replaced with a more hardline Brexiteer who will have the power to force a No Deal Brexit.
The next Tory leader will have approximately three months between accepting the position and our date to leave the EU. Given the petty infighting and inaction of the previous two Prime Ministers, we can only expect this uncertainty to continue.
Theresa May’s resignation speech
was teary-eyed and emotional. She showed the country and the world she really
loved this country and swept aside media attempts to paint her as this
apathetic robot. The trouble is, it’s a case of too little too late.
From her tenure as Home Secretary to her time as Prime Minister, she’s proven time and time again she is ideologically thin. She has never truly taken charge of a situation as a conviction politician like Margaret Thatcher would have done. Great leaders need to be able to hold two diametrically opposed ideas in their head. Even with Brexit she couldn’t handle the process. Imagine an NHS scandal on top of the negotiations and leadership challenges, she would have faltered sooner. May is and will always be a rule taker, capable of doing a simple, clear job; rather than a leader offering critical insight into political affairs. She artfully managed expectations and in doing so survived long enough to make it to the top.
Theresa May served as Home Secretary from 2010 until 2016 before becoming UK’s Prime Minister
The passion that showed at the end contradicted
much of her career. She had followed instruction of advisers like Nick Timothy
and Fiona Hill that led her to near political suicide decisions in triggering
A50 immediately without an adequate roadmap and then the snap-election that
cost her the Conservative majority in government. Had she interpreted Thatcher’s
Iron Lady more accurately, she would have found that it meant sticking by your
convictions and seeing them through. It’s simply too hard to keep ploughing on
with something you don’t believe in; you’re bound to burn out at some stage or
other. And here we are, without her having any support rallied and not having
garnered any real sympathy either.
May’s problem was being handed an
impossible task that no one wants. She bet on the assumption that, while she
would be criticised, no one had a suitable alternative vision and so risk
taking the impossible task off her hands.
Had she been able to carry the UK
through this Brexit quagmire without destroying the fabric of a modern
multicultural Britain, she would have been a hero for generations.
Sadly, she has achieved little to
date. Brexit sideliners in her party are resilient as ever, while her three
proposals have been rejected repeatedly without coming close to consensus. Ultimately
because of the Irish backstop.
In order to hang onto power in the wake
of the “snap election”, she had to make bedfellows with the right-wing DUP in
Northern Ireland.
Her leadership has been mired by
decision constipation from a dithering control freak. Besides the botched general
election, May triggered the two-year time frame (Article 50) before she and her
cabinet had settled on their roadmap and negotiation demands in the split from
the EU. After all, her political spin-doctors told her “Brexit means Brexit”.
What a cracker that was.
Despite the Cabinet agreeing the
Chequers Agreement, it unravelled in days. Were Corbyn a more suitable Leader
of the Opposition or had there been a more suitable replacement in her Cabinet
who wouldn’t do a worse hash of the process; either would have succeeded her by
now. Having said this, one can have no doubt, she has been resilient until the
bitter end.
Brexit is, and remains, a shambles of poor planning,
terrible appointments and crass negotiations. David Cameron wins the booby
prize for ineptitude hands down, but Theresa May has compounded the issue and
made matters worse.
May as Home Secretary
Her poor judgment was exemplified by her calling a
leaving date too soon. This shouldn’t have been too surprising coming from her
poor track record as Home Secretary. Misjudgements which the UK still
languishes from.
Beside the incompetency in creating a culture where
British citizens were deported from here “by mistake” that should have resulted
in an inquiry finding prosecutions for officials, her obstinacy led her to
trigger A50 without any plan on what to do.
She has continued to promote and reward failure.
Brexit has been framed in the most detrimental way possible without any
rational reason, besides preserving the Conservative Party against the Corbyn
alternative. This means to say she has put party before country. There is no
doubt that she loves this country, but ever since following the terrible guidance
from her advisers Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, on top of stickability issues in
her tenure as Home Secretary; it became patently clear she was not singing to
her own tune.
In the meantime, Local Authorities continued to run
precipitously low on funding because of continued cutbacks. The Criminal
Justice system is a train wreck with one system for those who can pay and
another for the rest. Probation Services have been hacked to pieces and
privatised in a bidding war that did not account for minimum standards for
rehabilitation. Prison services are failing due to underfunding. Police forces
are stretched thin and unable to follow up on all but the most severe offences,
and worse still, the gangs and serial offenders know this. The education system
foists catchment area dilemmas on parents, with the poorest getting the worst
deal out of the state education system. May’s solution was selective state
funded Grammar Schools for those who wanted selective entrance without paying
private school fees. This came at the expense of families unable to afford
homes within these catchments, leaving their children in amongst the other
lower-achieving all-access schools, perpetuating academic inequality. We
have a housing crisis where millennials can’t get onto the property ladder
without significant help from the older generations, courtesy of strict
planning laws and lack of affordable, quality housing stock. The “free at the point of consumption” health services are
paraded around, but more health services are cherry-picked by private enterprises,
leaving the government and taxpayer picking up the tab for the less profitable
and thereby more costly condition treatments. Rail companies are owned by
private companies and operating on a Victorian state-owned rail network. The
nuclear power stations approved are expensive for a country with such renewable
potential and fully owned by French and Chinese state companies.
Years of Brexit negotiations and idling has left the
country in a completely different state to the highly successful 2014-15 under
Cameron and Osborne.
While as PM, Theresa May, has allowed David Davis
and Boris Johnson opportunities to prove they could viably solve the crisis.
They both failed abysmally and forced a general acceptance that a “hard” Brexit
is unacceptable. Only a sensible, measured compromise can work.
As things stand, the deal will not be in the UK’s
favour. It likely never would have been. However, it may well be better than
the Boris & Co’s overly optimistic outlooks. It doesn’t now appear history
will look favourably upon May.
She was never a long-term solution, as we should not
forget. It was only a matter of time before she did go, it’s just a shame on
her part she could not see through any working consensus to carry forwards for
her successors. Her credibility may have carried her through had it not been
tarnished by the Irish backstop, and the progressive resignations leading to an
impending back-bench cabinet revolt over unsatisfactory compromise and delays. But
that was the fault of her Conservative party supporters that voted her to the
leadership. Had they had more of an appreciation for her track record, rather
than get distracted by the bitter squabbling of the Brexiteers; they would have
known she wasn’t cut out for the job.
Theresa May announced she will resign
as leader of the Conservative Party on 7TH June. She will still welcome
Donald Trump 3RD June as Prime Minister after finally accepting the
invitation to the UK.
Her resignation speech was teary-eyed and emotive, showing the country and the world she was not the apathetic robot many in the media had media lambasted her for. Her passion, whilst endearing was also too little too late and didn’t really garner any real sympathy or support.
Theresa May teary eyed as she announces her resignation. (source: REUTERS/Toby Melville)
Her political clout was tarnished irreparably by the unnecessary
election and DUP marriage; her lack of negotiating prowess and the lack of magnetism
or emotion in bringing three feeble deals to Parliament. And yet, she continued
to delay all those predictions of her political demise, as she marched relatively
unscathed from one lukewarm compromise to the next.
She managed to steer her party away from destructive delusions of
grandeur on the high seas, bringing them around to a settlement more in line
with 21st century European neighbours. The Brexit “dream is dying” was
a reality check reasserting itself that without our own Donald Trump bulldozering
his way out of the European Union, or a charismatic leader who could rally
support from across the benches – we are ultimately left with a Theresa May and
her impossible brief. It remains immaterial whether she was pro or contra the
EU, but that she offered a benign readjustment to our relations instead of all
the uncertainty that would have come to a chasmic break of ties with no viable
leadership or roadmap from Gove, Farage or Johnson.
While the EU is a cumbersome beast, bogged down with glacial bureaucracy
and a quaking structure of fiscal union drifting further afield from ever
closer political and monetary union; there is a good case to turn our attentions
elsewhere. Domestic regulation, immigration and most crucially trade policy
could expand outside of the restrictive tariffs, quotas and thousands of
sub-clauses embedded into EU trade policy for non-single market countries.
Johnson did suggest we would preserve all the benefits of frictionless
commerce that Britain derives as part of the EU single market. This proved to
be rather naïve. Daniel Hannan also reassured us that “absolutely nobody is talking
about threatening our place in the single market.” Naturally, the EU would have
none of this. Brussels expects countries who benefit from single-market trade
in goods and services, should also abide by European rules, not devise their
own. It would damage the foundations of what it means to be a European Union “member
state”.
The EU’s “four freedoms” mandate of free movement of goods, services,
capital and people are all deemed indivisible. This should be taken with a
pinch of salt as a political call by the EU and not a logical necessity. Yet,
May understood earlier than most that the EU simply would not budge on that
point. Something the hard-line Brexiteers seemingly failed to grasp. We could
not bully our way to receive special treatment when it meant the EU would have
to risk tearing itself to pieces in return.
The reality stands, those hard-liners offer no viable alternative
besides crashing out. Acknowledging this, they continued to profit politically
from jibing from the side-lines rather than rallying behind her or going for
the jugular.
In terms of the negotiations, May successfully persuaded backbenchers to
accept the UK’s EU budgetary commitments, the “implementation” period, EU nationals’
rights guaranteed and European Court of Justice’s weight in legal decisions
impacting EU nationals.
As for the Irish question, the “full alignment” of Northern Ireland with
the single market and customs union rules to avoid a hard border, or otherwise
one through the Irish Sea, would mean applying the rules across Britain too –
rendering any post-Brexit arrangement little more than lip-service beyond the
current status quo.
“prudent, cautious and incremental”
So long as the Brexiteer architects can blame lacklustre outcomes on “Remoaner”
sabotage or Brussels intransigence; they may yet acquiesce to the current Irish
arrangement .
May could not last the test of time for the bubbling discontent to tire
and a settlement be accepted, albeit with protestations. She has not quite
managed to achieve Michael Oakeshott, the British political philosopher’s ideal
conservatism: “prudent, cautious and incremental”.
She made a good hash of fighting back the tide of zero-sum zealous conservatism
and is a tireless reminder of the art of democratic politics is the ability to
compromise effectively – such that no one is particularly happy, but most can
live with. We could have done a lot worse than aspired for that, failing more
forthright leadership which we are lacking in the modern political class in
2019.
History shall judge May according to its whims. I suspect she will be seen as pragmatic and principled; two words Boris Johnson and his crew can say but cannot demonstrate. Those less steely would have fallen before now. She survived the backlash for not meeting Grenfell survivors. She wasn’t forced to resign by the petulant sniping and unrealistic criticism from opportunists, fantasists, proven losers and third-rate minds; survived the vote of no-confidence and numerous leadership challenges. She’s certainly taken some people down with her, and by and large they richly deserved it.
It may be little more than mere speculation and
conjecture from this point forwards, with little more clarity than back in June
2016.
Boris Johnson, Dominic Rabb and Jeremy Hunt are effectively ruined by the fiasco. Michael Gove is untrustworthy in the eyes of the British people.
Bookies front runner for Tory leadership race: Boris Johnson
And yet, it remains likely a Brexiteer will come to the fore as newly elected Conservative leader. A vote of no-confidence may then be called when the consensus fails yet again. It will likely pass, leading to a general election in which no party wins an overall majority. A hung parliament will mean squabbling over the wreckage to form a minority, bungling government. The EU then proceeds to grant another delay, allowing them to present leaving the single market as yet more costly than imagined for other member states and hopefully for them less desirable among the UK populace. The limbo continues, despite polling showing the UK population no longer has the stomach for a divorce anymore.
Without a charismatic, dogmatic politician to take
us out; there is only one scenario: Labour win the next general election since
a new PM from the current stock cannot solve these intractable issues, largely
because of in-faction bickering of the Tories and their weak negotiating hands.
Labour’s plan has been described as promising and negotiable by Tusk and Barnier. The Labour leader will call for a People’s Vote to either remain or the alternative: the negotiated Brexit deal.
Labour Party Leader: Jeremy Corbyn could be the next PM if a general election is called
Failing this, Brexit will remain a poisoned chalice
for many years to come. A Tory leadership contest will lead to no possibility
of an EU deal before November. The winner will be granted an extension to A50.
The Tory party will try to fulfil the Brexit promise one way or another. This could
lead to them squeezing out Corbyn in the next general election with a minority
government that leads to instability, uncertainty and lost potential for the UK
economy and societal pains as living standards suffer for years to come.
Milkshake has become the new tool of political dissent as protestors from the far left are baptising prominent right-leaning political figures with milkshakes.
Infamous Tommy Robinson also has been victim to a milkshake attack
My mistake…. There's no link at all between throwing #milkshake on fascists and fascists being violent in response. I mean… it took a full 2 seconds for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson) to start punching.pic.twitter.com/TOKX5wDcg3
The liberal left strike again as the political theatre continues. Tommy Robinson whilst on his campaign tour was baptised in a milkshake. Nigel Farage anointed with a whole carton of milkshake. UKIP candidate Carl Benjamin was the third to be hit with a milkshake.
All three men were victims of assault, and yet the perpetrators have since been laundered “heroes” as it was a strike, against, fascism, racism, and Islamophobia. But when did assault of the food variety become politically acceptable?
UKIP election candidate Carl Benjamin
When bananas are thrown at black players, football is outraged, the racism screams from the corner and all across the media platforms, rightly so. How can the racial undertones of football has the alarms sounded? A disgusting act.
Arguing the principle of an item being thrown and its symbolic meaning showing a lack of common respect a negotiated space and a lack of humanity by those who have thrown such items.
Once upon a time ago, rotten tomatoes were thrown at comedians when the audience did not enjoy their performance. It seems politics has reached a comedic turn and it has added to a growing intolerant, polarised political atmosphere. That intolerance has turned to lactose intolerant. or a lactose intolerant generation of millennials.
Banana thrown at Arsenal Footballer Aubameyang
Assault is assault and should be named as such. The weight of the law needs to come down hard, heavy and honourable. with impartial application irrespective of political leanings.
A milkshake being thrown at someone on the left side of the spectrum, in particularly a minority group such as a black man, or a muslim woman would come at dire costs.
Milkshake otherwise known as angry shake
Twitter Use Nick Parker wrote:
“They bring hate. We bring milkshake. They bring lies. We bring milkshake. They bring dark, money, gaslighting, fake news, violence. More milkshake. They are fear, blame and division. We are chocolate, vanilla and strawberry. We are #milkshake. Thank u for coming to my TED talk.”
They bring hate. We bring milkshake. They bring lies. We bring milkshake. They bring dark money, gaslighting, fake news, violence. More milkshake. They are fear, blame and division. We are chocolate, vanilla and strawberry. We are #milkshake. Thank u 4 coming to my TED talk.
The milkshake has now become a political tool of dissent, disparagement and disgust. Approved by many, the scenes are reminiscent of a small food fight in an American movie. Simply because we do not agree with someone on the right or the left of the political spectrum, does not ethically, morally or physically justify a milkshake being thrown at them.
Manchester City have finally done it: they’ve completed the domestic silverware sweep, and in quite some style beating Watford 6-0 at Wembley to clinch the FA Cup. As the curtain comes down on this year’s title battle, all eyes turn to next season and what the future holds for these Premier League heavyweights.
It is an enjoyable, yet ultimately futile conversation to debate the ‘greatest’ Premier League season, or team of all time. Arsenal’s ‘invincibles’ are always in the mix for the greatest team, along with Man Utd’s treble winners and Jose Mourinho’s first Chelsea side. For best ever seasons, it’s difficult to look further than 2011-12’s ‘Agueerroooo’ moment or Leicester winning the league, but Liverpool’s 2013-14 and Newcastle’s 1995-96 title collapses comes close. Then there is this season.
Football is an emotive sport and should not be reduced to facts, but on stats alone this season has produced two of the greatest teams and the highest scoring title race. For Liverpool to end on 97 points – a tally that would have secured the title in every other season bar 2017-18 is cruel – but just underlines the quality of this year’s competition. The points tally of both sides speaks volumes, but the fact they achieved it all without sacrificing their attractive style of play is so impressive. In the end, their combined skill sets of pace, power and possession brought them 14 more points than their closest challengers as the Premier League’s best ever top two.
City and Liverpool were untouchable this season. Source: BBC Sport
There is therefore something about the achievement of City’s victory that is even more impressive. Perhaps it didn’t have the drama of their 2012 triumph, the romance of Leicester or the sheer statement of Arsenal’s undefeated season, but it had an almost algorithmic certainty about it. City knew there was no room for error and in the second half of their season, there wasn’t. 14 straight victories, second only to their own record of 18 meant Liverpool simply had no answer. For two years now City have kept up this insatiable desire for winning and are, on paper at least, the greatest team the Premier League has ever seen.
Decisive summer lies ahead for City
City also managed the rare feat of back-to-back titles, the first team to do so since Manchester United a decade ago. Besides being the most competitive of Europe’s top leagues, there are two key reasons why the title is so difficult to retain. The first is a supposed lack of hunger or desire the second time round, but with the demanding Pep Guardiola at the helm this clearly isn’t an issue, for this season at least. The second however, is merely a case of teams eventually being found out. Other sides work out how to beat their system and the club is forced to begin the cycle of forming a new style of play to overcome this. Leicester shocked everyone as a brilliant counter attacking side, but the following season, once that reputation was established, teams nullified the threat and Leicester were left toothless up front and exposed at the back.
City’s key to remaining at the top? Source: AFP/Getty Images
Manchester City have so far been able to repel any of these same threats to their dominance in the Premier League. Guardiola has, however, been accused of overthinking certain Champions League games. So have Spurs this season and Liverpool last underlined the blueprint to end their dominance? After these results and Liverpool coming so close, there is just a feeling that Pep may have to freshen up his system for next season. Fernandinho is crucial to City’s play, and at 34, the transfer talk is that a replacement is top of this summer’s shopping list. The ever-present Brazilian was outstanding this season and may have another year in him, but any wrong transfer moves this summer could damage City long-term.
Will the real Liverpool please stand up?
Liverpool’s form and performances this season were simply irresistible. They still kept their ‘heavy metal football’ identity of last season, but without the defensive masochism. Yet, at the end of day and all that expended energy, they still came up short. Much like City, this next year should prove fascinating to see how they develop (or regress).
Robertson has been outstanding since joining Liverpool Source: Press Association
Left back Andrew Robertson has already been talking up Liverpool’s future ambitions, after they came so close on the final day of the season.
“Man City know, hopefully, we are here to stay.”
Robertson’s comments (source: BBC Sport)
Neutrals will hope he is right, as this could be the start of the next thrilling rivalry of a generation. In truth, there has been no Premier League rivalry with any high stakes permutations for some time now. In Sir Alex Ferguson’s twilight years there were title battles between the Manchester clubs, with a short lived rivalry developing between Manchester United and Chelsea before that. Really you have to go back to the Arsenal and Man United teams of the 90s and early 00s for the last great, consistent title rivalry. Both sides never left anything out on the pitch, but there was always an underlying level of respect between the two.
Liverpool and Man City have been hugely complementary about one another these last two years and their match-ups equally as entertaining. With none of the other big six seemingly anywhere near close to being title challengers, they really are a pair that could dominate for years. There must just be that lingering doubt in Liverpool fans’ minds that what if this was it? What if they do a Leicester next season? What if this was the chance to win the title and they still couldn’t defeat the Man City machine. This simply cannot be allowed to happen; for Liverpool’s sake and for English football’s sake.
A war on wealth has begun. In the UK, its the Labour Party’s dogwhistling. Our American cousins face the rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Ilhan Omar, Elizabeth Warren’s proposals for a wealth tax in the U.S., and Bernie Sanders’ Modern Monetary Theory and New Green Deal.
The Labour Party’s latest broadcast (below) shows how a billionaire would spend (or not) a tax cut of £20,000 versus how their government would reallocate that money to student grants, pension and wage increases which is then in the hands of individuals to spend in the economy to generate economic growth. It poses the question in its denouement: “Who’s better for the economy. Ordinary people or billionaires?”
Whatever your political viewpoint, it’s not hard to see why someone may be anti-rich. Global inequality, according to a report by Credit Suisse, has increased since 2008’s Great Recession, with the top 1 per cent of global wealth holding 42.6 per cent of all household wealth in 2008. This shot up to 47.2 per cent mid last year.
While this may seem problematic, the rich aren’t to blame for the recession, but central bank policies, in particular the ECB. Witch-hunts find it easy to scapegoat the wealthy throughout history that aren’t easy to comprehend. It doesn’t help when Labour politicians feed these narratives of the wealth gaps, rather than address poverty as the evil, not wealth.
Imagine the scenario: you have built a successful business, played by the rules and made lots of money. The public then decides you have more than you need so decide to rob you of your labours. Because of this threat, many wealth are curbing their ostentation, and keeping a low profile. The rich today try not to look rich, let alone talk about it.
Labour’s Virtue Signalling
The problem with the video besides its tenuous links to economic reality is the tendency to incite resentment toward wealthy, singling them out from the rest of us. All the while, blaming them for the economic issues and claiming they don’t value money: “Oh, that money, I completely forgot all about it!”
A Labour government will re-nationalise economic sectors they think they can manage better, increasing employment and improving pay, reinvesting profits in Britain with no need for these flitting billionaires.
But what would make Labour better placed than the private sector to offer quality services? People are quick to forget the absolute state of them before privatisation. And because we had been protectionist, nationalised for so long they simply couldn’t compete with international competition.
Billionaires employ tens of thousands of people. But why would it be a good idea to keep them situated here in the UK?
Rawls and Picketty to the Rescue
Rawls and Picketty insist on redistributive programmes being implemented in a closed society. Otherwise they would be unsustainable, for instance, exodus of the more internationally-mobile rich. In other words, they have to outlaw tax competition and stipulate ‘Socialism in One Country.’
This doesn’t lift up
the poor. It brings down the rich.
For Piketty, wealth
seems to be the social evil, not poverty. Poverty has been
greatly reduced in recent decades and new money has replaced old amongst the
rich.
These narratives of
runaway accumulation of inherited capital simply aren’t plausible. That’s the beauty of
modern market economics. The maligned rich perform useful functions without
necessarily intending to do so.
This idea of wealth
statuses being something unearned through rape pillage and plunder in Europe
isn’t widely held in the States. And look at the result, we are all in the bottom 3 US states.
Little wonder Labour
broadcasts are virtue signaling. Vilifying wealth because of their wealth, with
no consideration for causality. No attention to system
design under Lemon socialism – privatised gains, collectivised losses.
Ideologically perverse
motivations to capitalise on Brexit shambles by the Labour Party. The circulating of
funds through the economy with lower taxes for small businesses, struggling
entrepreneurs who can then work and employ people will make the
difference.
On the other hand,
those billionaires who have justly earned their money not by government
exclusive contracts to allow for monopolised profit extraction, should be
thanked.
Most nations with a
developed financial system allow for capable functioning despite debt. Many of
the most materially wealthy individuals are incredibly indebted as they fuel
their investments (especially in a low interest world) through taking on
debt.
Musk’s Space X stole market share from the Russian Roscosmos State Corporation & Co with relaunch-able rockets – Introducing a little private enterprise to Space // Economist
These billionaires are like the rail barons of old- burning through their great wealth to pioneer new, exciting industries – driving the human face forwards and creating real wealth through the value they provide by virtue of the fact people are willing and prepared to pay handsomely to reward them.
Take JK Rowling’s Hary Potter (a favourite anecdote of Yaron Brook). People have made her a billionaire because they valued her stories and magical world more than they valued a few pounds here and there. Or the iPhone XS, are people really being coerced by advertising / marketing alone to part with 1200$ or do they believe it will give them more value than their 1200$ in their pocket?
Or the Sam Walton’s
with their Walmart’s saving consumers money by driving down prices. Then they
have more disposable income to spend elsewhere, or save – I know, a novel
concept for Keynesian drones.
The reality is, this
mentality makes everybody poorer. And we would end up with a basket case
economy where to get ahead of other people power is sought in politics and then
they grant themselves exclusive rights to an industry (Brazil) or appropriation
of businesses (Serbia).
Much of the western
world, with free markets, entrepreneurialism and hard work + significant risk –
be it time, capital or taking on loans – are how people get rich and create
wealth for others by innovating to solve problems in society that other people
are prepared to pay money for.
Wealth is endogenously
created and not restricted, despite central bank efforts. My having it doesn’t
not decrease the size of the pie available to you as there is no fixed pie.
Wealth is not at the expense of others. It can be destroyed though, take
Bastiat’s broken window fallacy illustrating why destruction and the money
spent to recover destruction is not actually a net benefit to society.
Wealth is created in
exchange for creating value. Labour going into products or services only has
value if something is willing and able to pay for it. Otherwise, what would you
tell the entrepreneur who put in 10,000 hours and didn’t see a single penny?
Should we bail them out according to his ability, to each according to his
needs?
Trillions of dollars
aren’t stuffed in mattresses as the video suggests the billionaire with his tax
cut just pockets the money and forgets about it. It’s invested, either via
ownership of capital assets or via financial institutions. New businesses are
funded creating jobs and products for consumers, or it is used to finance
household debt for mortgages and other consumer purchases.
The wealthy often have businesses and ventures themselves. They take in lots of debt to finance projects they believe will generate growth of capital or provide a solution they can sell and make profit.
It could be new
infrastructure, technologies or arbitrage opportunities that assist in clearing
market inefficiencies more swiftly.
Wealth may nominally
be in the possession of billionaires. But its use is restricted to normal
economic functioning which demands everyone consume and interact with their
wealth. If they did not provide value, why are we parting with our hard-earned
cash to help them ?
This presentation of ownership as necessarily exclusionary is largely inaccurate for England.
Lord Sugar’s cheque to the taxman 2017. Source: Daily Mail
Baseless Agendas Leading Voters up the garden path
The video has lots of straw-man arguments that are somewhat befitting of their agenda. If reality doesn’t line up with your beliefs, just make baseless assertions. It’s rather telling when tax cuts are presented as government giving people money, instead of the reality of them taking less. Unless you remember the taxman working those 40 hours last month with you?
Labour Government: Chief Judge, Jury and Executioner – A Tale of Inefficiency
This notion a government ministry can adequately allocate and redistribute some hand-outs -instead of doing this hypothetical tax cut (corporation tax perhaps) – and this will solve a slowing economy by itself doesn’t hold much water. Money changing hands increasing the flow in the micro-economy is beneficial for providing more liquidity which helps consumer confidence, but it isn’t better for the economy than entrepreneurs and pioneers who create real wealth by solving problems we face through brainstorming ideas and then implementing them. Innovation, then, through taking on risk, debt and working incredibly hard trumps this stagnating, sustain the status quo drivel we are fed by political virtue signalling.
The trouble with this simplistic “tax the rich!” jargon so routine workers can then enjoy a better life is it would encourage stagnation.
If you’re happy sitting where you are that includes being happy with what you’re paid. If you’re willing to be an employee at that wage then great as companies need steady, complacent workers. If you’re not, however, and want more to improve yourself, work hard and promote upwards, then great also.
This idea that some who have bettered themselves, risen through businesses or created their own and are making money can then be taxed sufficiently to have ANY noticeable effect on the average workers quality of life is a mathematical improbability.
There are simply not enough rich people and there are far too many idle people with hands extended to rob them of their earned money, put it in the governments hands where inefficiencies piss away 80% into white elephants and hand out the remaining funds to millions of people. Often providing the funds to attend courses and degrees that don’t teach them the needed skill sets to make them useful for working in businesses. The miss-allocation of resources that allows for people to undertake degrees they wouldn’t risk doing if they had their own £30,000 of capital on the line, instead without any real risk of having to pay those loans back to taxpayers – clean slate after 30 years – is nonsensical.
The reality is, a Corbyn government would want to keep large swathes of the population in their place so they’ll vote for those generous overlords to keep the handouts coming. It’s far more expedient than working for it after all. And the government can keep printing money or plucking it off the magic money tree without damaging the UK’s credit rating. It’s bound to all end in tears and conveniently we can just blame those remaining rich people who stuck it out and continued working hard developing businesses while the rest fled overseas.
The Maths Doesn’t Add Up
Take the top 10 US billionaires. We can assume net income at 5% of their net worth. For instance, Bill Gates takes in ~$4 Billion. Applying this factor across the 10 richest, we have 26 Billion dollars a year.
Now let’s add a new
tax to that money. 10% off the top to Government will be 1.3 BN
Now take 321,400,000
American citizens. Assume 60% qualify for your wealth distribution programme
with the 40% above rich enough arbitrarily. Some of them may have tried to get
rich but failed, tough luck, not enough for everybody.
160,700,000 people
have a slice of $1.3 Bn .
Congratulations , you
have a life changing cheque for $8.14 courtesy of the generosity of your 10
Richest people that inequality campaigners lark on about.
Oops, sorry. This is
before government inefficient handling of the redistribution takes its chunk.
80% is the general rule of thumb for revenues that is consumed by the machine.
So 20% left for social programmes. Even if Trump whopper government into shape
and we saw 40%. This is a measly $3.25.
We have only taken
from the top 10, how about the others? Well, wealth drops off going down Forbes
400 from $80~ Billion down to 1.7 Bn. With far more single digit billionaires
than double, median net worth stands at 3.6 Bn.
Doing the same math as
above, you would receive $353.25 from the entire Forbes 400.
Now, I don’t know how
much more money you think you deserve, but you can see that you would have to
work pretty far down the “Rich” lists before you’re going to get to you making
another $10,000 a year more. And the case in question in the U.K. with our
considerably fewer superich is significantly raiding the upper middle class of
the family silver and while you’re at it make sure you get the crockery
too.
The simple
mathematical answer is, like with all socialist policies there are simply not
enough rich people to pay for all the non-rich people’s fantasies. Especially
not after glacial bureaucracy and ballooning government inefficiency margins.
Besides, then, creating a system of dependency, it encourages people to be idle and comfortable in their relative poverty. Rather than actively impelling oneself to take personal responsibility and find solutions to problems we all face or get the skills necessary to be useful in the modern economy.
The moralistic answer is why should people expect to be allowed to sit where they are and paid more money that comes from other people who have earned it? Let alone the incredible leaps and bounds for humanity’s benefit those dreamers and high achievers can accomplish without coercive intervention, whether intentional or their part or otherwise.
For Labour’s concept of a magic money tree or this “Modern Monetary Theory” to work, the number of Brits to be taxed would be huge in relation to the number of people receiving the money. Just ask any breadwinner of a household supporting their family, they’ll tell you how hard that is to do. It’s simply not right.
There isn’t generally
a good reason why most people can’t make the sacrifices to secure their
financial positions.
There’s too much
entitlement, impatience and envy in this country and Europe for that matter
with an obsession for tales of Robin Hood than the glorious risk – taking of
our Atlantic cousin’s Robber Barrons.
The sooner we wake up and smell the coffee, we can move away from this socialism quagmire that has stagnated swathes of the globe for decades, and move away from the true evil ‘poverty’ which has plagued mankind as the naturalised state of nature forever. Innovating our way out of the challenges in the 21st century. But this isn’t how you do that.
The appropriation of minority groups’ struggles in society continues as major supermarket retailer Marks & Spencer release the LGBT sandwich in solidarity with those of the LGBT community.
The supermarket retailer will be donating to charity as well cementing its purposeful attempt to help the LGBT commnunity.
The brand is giving £10,000 to Akt, an LGBTQ+ youth homelessness charity and €1000 to BeLongG, an Irish youth service, although Piers Morgan strongly detested such a notion.
Hi Piers. We have given our popular BLT sandwich a twist to celebrate Pride and raise £10,000 for akt the national LGBTQ+ Youth Homelessness charity.
For something as disposable as a sandwich, you pick it up open, eat, digest and then forget, I wonder truly how much meaning it has behind it. The colours are well known and immediately resonates with those in the LGBT community.
For the LGBT movement to be reduced to a sandwich in the name of unity, highlights the fickle attempts by retailers such as Marks and Spencer’s to stay relevant in a turbulent social justice market.
Food is a momentary pleasure, a sensation that does not last more than a few seconds. It comes and goes. Business is also business and these companies are looking to make money. The capitalist nature of this attempt at solidarity hasn’t gone unnoticed. Witty comments have surfaced on Twitter by one user “Louis Staples”
LGBT people: “it’d be nice if people could stop abusing us when we hold hands in public, we could teach LGBT lessons in schools and if the BBC could stop debating our existence on live air that’d be grea- Capitalism: “what we’re really sensing here is you want your own sandwich”
LGBT people: "it'd be nice if people could stop abusing us when we hold hands in public, we could teach LGBT lessons in schools and if the BBC could stop debating our existence on live air that'd be grea-
Capitalism renders these messages insignificant through making it a commodity in the market. Bought and sold, it makes the movement for LGBT rights tangible and something meaningless.
Feminist thought leader bell hooks argues that such commodification strips political integrity and meaning, making it no longer a possibility to serve as a catalyst for concrete political action. Consumers may ignore political messages.
Feminist author and social activist, bell hooks, discusses the intersectionality of race, class and gender to a full theatre of students, Sept. 20, at the Sorensen Center.
However, if companies are apathetic to the fight for the minority groups to have equality, society will complain.
What we see here is an ongoing trope of companies, organisation jumping on a bandwagon. Its part of the changing market and the way capitalist endeavours are making money in this social justice generation. Companies are now being ethical to align their beliefs with minority groups.
Where is the black lives matter, or even Muslim sandwich? Or a sandwich for gay Jewish vegans perhaps? Perhaps it’s time companies walked back up and stayed out of politics.
Sajid Javid is a British politician and a former Managing Director at Deutsche Bank. A member of the Conservative Party, he was appointed Home Secretary on 30 April 2018. He has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bromsgrove in Worcestershire since the general election of 2010.
On Friday 10th May, Javid told “Political Thinking presenter Nick Robinson he had come to expect social media abuse”. He was quoted as saying: “I get it from the far left, including lots of Asians, who say: ‘He’s not brown enough.’ I get it from the right, and the far right in particular, saying: ‘He’s too brown,'”.suggesting the these moments implicated that the UK was “not ready for a Muslim PM”.
The Home Secretary then went on to refute the racial comments by stating: “I think in Britain, anyone who is capable, regardless of whether they are Muslim, or Hindu for that matter, or any religion – or no religion – can be prime minister.”
“There are some forces that wouldn’t like that but I think the forces against that are much, much stronger. And if you look around the world and you compare Britain to other leading industrial democratic countries, we are way ahead.”
There are two ways Javid’s statement to Buzzfeed can be interpreted. The first being the Javid genuinely believes that given the blatant racism of the UK is easy to overcome regardless of all the red tape and underlying restrictions facing people of colour and ethnic minorities on a daily basis. Or he is simply playing the role of a politician and feeding us a utopian perspective of Britain. Either way, it can be deemed as naive to believe that simply anyone can become even a politician let alone Prime Minister and this is self-proven given the ethnic and gender make up of the House of Commons.
According to Parliament.uk, ” 8% of MPs in the House of Commons and around 6% of Members of the House of Lords are from an ethnic minority background”. In addition, results from the 2011 UK census, 13.3% of the population in greater London are Black / African / Caribbean / Black British people, 18.4% Asian and 59.8% White. The most recent estimate from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Annual Population Survey 2016 reported that 13.6% of the UK population is non-white. The Home Secretary’s belief that anyone, regardless of their ethnicity, experience or religion, can become Prime Minister is limited by these statistics to simply a pleasant sound-bite.
On the contrary, the 2017 general election provided the most diverse Parliament yet. The number of ethnic minority female MPs in the House of Commons increased from 3.0% in 2015 (20 of 650) to 4% in 2017 (26 of 650).
According to BBC News, “the general election of 1987 saw the first ever black MPs voted into the House of Commons. Fast forward 30 years and the 2017 result has seen 52 ethnic minority MPs elected, of those, 32 are Labour, 19 Conservatives and one Lib Dem. It is an increase from 41 in 2015 and the highest number ever”.
Though Sajid Javid’s comments to Buzzfeed seemed to come across as a far-fetched utopian wish, there is an undeniable increase in representation in Parliament that increases the possibility of this wish becoming true.
77% of ethnic minorities vote Labour. It's not because Sajid Javid isn't 'brown enough'. This is either just ignoring the reasons why ethnic minorities dont vote Conservative, sad pandering, narcissistic navel gazing, or some combination of all 3. https://t.co/ZUseHFrkZd
It’s a Full English in Europe this year, with Liverpool appearing in their second Champions League final in two years, they face off with Tottenham Hotspur, whilst Chelsea face Arsenal in the second tier European final.
A Premier title race to remember
English clubs have created European football history by taking all four final spots in the continent’s two major competitions. There have only been two all-English finals before, with Tottenham beating Wolves in the 1971-72 Uefa Cup and Manchester United beating Chelsea in the 2007-08 Champions League, however across both tournament’s it’s never been done simultaneously.
English teams not affected in Europe by Brexit woes
This year’s title race was relentless between Manchester City & Liverpool, with City emerging victorious. The top two amassed 195 points – a top-flight record for the champions and runners-up. The battle for the top four was fierce, with Champions League qualification at stake, Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United & Tottenham fought a tense battle with Spurs & Chelsea clinching the final spots.
That’s just it: the competition in the league this year has served English clubs well and reflected in their European campaigns. In France’s Ligue 1, PSG have again run away with the title, to nobody’s surprise. However, the lack of competition domestically has been noticeable over the last few years and as a result harmed them in Europe.
A struggling Manchester United were able to overturn a first leg 2-0 loss at home to comeback and beat PSG at Parc des Princes. Admittedly, the VAR decision that gave United the winning penalty was highly controversial, but the Ligue 1 champions never looked convincing against lacklustre opposition.
Marcus Rashford consoles Kylian Mbappe after United’s injury time win against PSG. Source: Manchester Evening News
In Italy’s Serie A, Juventus retained the league title by 13 points, their eighth consecutive title: again to nobody’s surprise. In Europe however, this time last month, an exciting Ajax team knocked the Old Lady out of the Champions League, winning the decisive leg 2-1 in Turin. Yet again the lack of competition in domestically has been detrimental to non-domestic football. Italian football at the moment is a far cry from it’s glittering status in the 90’s or early 00’s where the Milan derby made Pro Evolution Soccer 3 the most coveted football game of it’s time and Pierluigi Collina made his name.
Ronaldo was frustrated by Ajax. Source: Talk Sport
Real Madrid and Barcelona between them have won the last 5 Champions league competition as well 7 in the last decade. There is no question of the pedigree of Spanish football in recent history. In the Europa League 6 of the last 8 competitions have been won by Spanish teams.
Barcelona won their domestic league this year with an 11 point margin. In previous years, La Liga has been competitive with Barcelona, Real Madrid & Atletico all battling for the titles. This year however, in the aftermath of Ronaldo’s departure the previously formidable Real Madrid struggled severely, finishing their campaign unconvincingly in third place.
This lack of competition was reflected in the Champions League. Both Madrid clubs failed to make the quarter finals and Barcelona dropped a 3-0 aggregate lead, losing 4-0 to an inspired Liverpool side.
The Liverpool-Manchester City rivalry spills into Europe
Ahead of that second leg, Liverpool were in fantastic form keeping the pressure on Manchester City. The intensity of the league race between both clubs likely had an impact on City during their Quarter Final tie with Tottenham, losing on away goals.
The competition for the top four has raised the importance of the Europa League for English clubs. In the 2016/17 season Manchester United prioritised the Europa League beating Ajax in the final, whilst finishing 6th in the Premier League, crucially qualifying for the Champions League. Arsenal appear to have done the same in prioritising the Europa League this year.
England is the first nation to book every place in European cup finals. Source BBC
Big spending in the Premier League
The money surrounding the Premier League is another factor that can’t be ignored. In 2018, Sky Sports and BT penned a £4.4billion deal to live broadcast Premier League games from 2019-2022. This is a large sum of money which Premier League clubs receive and can subsequently use to fund marquee signings and high wages to keep star players. According to Talk Sport, over the last nine years, three English clubs sit in the top five of money spent in the transfer window. Manchester City having spent £1.325billion and Chelsea £1.31billion since 2010.
Being able to attract and fund world class players such as Paul Pogba, Sergio Aguero and Raheem Sterling points to the potential of the Premier League, and the first all English European final points to the coming reality: the Premier League is not only the most competitive league, but it’s also the most talented.
Pogba signs with Manchester United for a then world record fee of £89million. Source: Sky Sports
Could the reign of Spanish
teams in Europe be coming to an end? Is this all English final a sign of things
to come? For now we look forward to watching what will certainly be an exciting
set of finals.
According to the Sports Business Journal, the NBA Playoff ratings were down 18% after the second weekend of games across TNT, ABC, ESPN and NBA TV. The obvious reason of course being the absence of Lebron James. But in a Playoffs filled with buzzer beaters, shock defeats and all the emotion, the Playoffs might still be just as much fun without the ‘King’.
With the absence of Lebron James, games are more competitive in the Eastern conference as James was always known as the dominant force, especially against the formerly known Lebronto Raptors.
As it pertains to the West its always been a survival of the fittest conference and certainly this year it’s even more true than normal with both OKC and the Denver Nuggets losing to the Blazers.
A star-less LA Clippers going to a game 6 with a full strength Warriors team whilst in the same vein a KD-less Warriors team managed to beat a full strength Houston Rockets team. All that to say, for the first time since 2010, we can expect to see an NBA Final without Lebron James.
Kawhi and Joel Embiid watching in suspense as Leonards shot bounces into the net. Source: The Athletic
Milwaukee Bucks vs Toronto Raptors
With both these teams being arguably the better teams in the east, we will finally get to see who is top dog when Giannis Atentetokumpo and Kawhi Leonard face off against each other.
The Bucks have had an easier second round compared to the Raptors. With the Bucks beating the Celtics 4-1 and the Raptors having to go to Game 7 at home, needing a walk off buzzer beater from Kawhi Leonard to clinch a spot in the conference finals. Leonard put the Raptors on his back and it was almost Jordan-esque how resilient and dominant he was in this series.
A rare occasion of Joel Embiid looking very emotional at the sight of his team having an early off-season. The Raptors fought hard and showed grit against the 76ers. The Bucks were able to quickly adjust after losing Game 1 with Boston Celtics legend Paul Pierce already proclaiming the series over.
Giannis was excellent averaging 28 points and 10 rebounds in the series and showed why he’s the MVP of the league against a talented team. Kyrie Irving had a disappointing series and game 5 was bitterly disappointing, only managing 15 points and 1 assists. It’s safe to say that he wont be staying in Boston come next regular season.
The Bucks who hold the best record in the NBA will certainly be ready to go up against the Raptors. With plenty of rest and time to evaluate what their game plan will be against Kawhi, it will give them a slight edge and possibly a win in the series. It’s almost certainly going to at least 6 games.
The Raptors are sure to feel confident in their hard fought battle against the 76ers. Additionally, the conference finals presents the perfect opportunity for under-performing players like Kyle Lowry and Serge Ibaka to redeem themselves after a poor series.
The Golden State Warriors managed to ward off the Houston Rockets in six games, winning 4-2 and having to play halfway through game 5 and all of Game 6 without their best scorer in Kevin Durant.
It seemed a tall order for them to clinch the series without going to a game, but Klay Thompson kept them in the first half as Steph Curry amassed 0 points, but erupted in the second half with 33 points and a whopping 23 in the 4th quarter.
In the last 5 mins of the game, Curry scored the same amount of points as the whole Houston Rockets team which was 16. Chris Paul finally turned up scoring more than 20 points but it wasn’t enough, as we were all reminded that the Warriors were a champion team long before Durant arrived in the Bay.
Steph Curry ERUPTS for 33 2nd half PTS as the @warriors advance!
The Portland Trailblazers became part of the 21% club of teams who have won a game 7 series away from home. With a monster performance from CJ McCollum who scored 37 points he was able to claw back the 15 point deficit to finally give the killer dagger in the 4th quarter.
Damian Lillard had a horrendous shooting night especially in the first two quarters. He couldn’t buy a shot and it seemed that he might follow suit in the same manner of Stephen Curry but in the end Lillard only managed 13 points, with 10 rebounds and 8 assists.
.@CJMcCollum was CLUTCH in the @trailblazers' Game 7 win to advance to the Western Conference Finals.
McCollum poured in 37 PTS while also contributing 9 REB, 1 AST, 1 BLK, and 1 STL to end his night with 55.3 #NBAFantasy points! pic.twitter.com/HhdB5n4iZV
Two of the best back courts will face each other in the Splash Brothers Curry and Thompson to the Blazers McCollum and Lillard. They’ve faced each other plenty of times in recent years and unfortunately for the Trailblazers it’s not a pretty tale, with them losing every single time and even being swept in 2017 and losing 4-1 in 2016.
Frankly the Splash Brothers are better shooters than the Lillard and McCollum and individually Thompson and Curry have had bigger moments. This will also be a great opportunity to see the Curry brothers face off against each other which will be sure to produce a proud father moment in Wardell Stephen Curry, former NBA player for the Charlotte Hornets.
The Trailblazers will be the underdogs in this series and if they can stretch it to a 7 game series then they can prolong the inevitability of Kevin Durant returning from injury. The Warriors will feel they are matched up particularly well and will have to dig deep to their 73-9 days to play at their best.
Making predictions for these series are easy but as we’ve seen between the Rockets vs Warriors and Raptors vs 76ers, entertainment will be provided and twists and turns are awaiting all the teams in the Conference finals. No Lebron, no problem.
The second round of the NBA Playoffs are halfway through in most of the match ups in the Eastern and Western Conference, each having played three games a piece. And it’s fair to say the Playoffs are really heating up.
Toronto Raptors vs Philadelphia 76ers
Joel Embiid puts in a dominating performance for Game 3 in Philadelphia. Source: CBS Sports
Kawhi and Embiid as the two best players in the series face each other head on with both possessing exceptional offensive and defensive capabilities that surpass the rest of the league.
However Kawhi Leonard has proven himself to be the more consistent player in the playoffs especially in Game 1 and 2 of this series. But Embiid’s Game 3 performance could not be matched. He put up 33 points, 10 rebounds and 3 assists in their 20 point blow out against the Raptors where the 76ers shot 51% from the field and 43% from the three point line.
In fact the 76ers had a better shot percentage from the three than the Raptors did for field goal percentage at 42%. Their teams are both loaded, whoever’s wins this series is most likely favourites to go to the finals. So far Lowry and Simmons haven’t put on a spectacle in this series but Siakem (who’s likely the most improved player in the league) and Jimmy Butler certainly have. With the 76ers winning Game 2 they’ve managed to steal home court advantage away from the Raptors. The tides have turned against the Canadian team as they were pitted to win this series.
My prediction for this series is a Philadelphia 76ers win due to their starting 5 collectively is better than the Raptors and frankly right now the Raptors bench isn’t aiding the team effectively enough.
Golden State Warriors vs Houston Rockets
Warriors vs Rockets at the Oracle Arena. Source: CBS Sports
The most anticipated match up of the whole NBA playoffs and its come a round quicker than last year due to the Rockets’ seeding position.
A star studded Warriors team against a Houston team with MVP Harden and Chris Paul who nearly knocked them off their throne last year when the series went to seven games.
Kevin Durant has been sensational so far in the series putting up 35 points in Game 1 and 29 points in Game 2. He’s proving why he’s the best player in the world and along with a healthy Andre Igoudola is making the difference in the series for The Warriors.
With Steph Curry and Klay Thompson both suffering from ankle injuries and Curry furthermore suffering from a dislocated finger it will be an interesting series as to how Houston can exploit this in physicality and being clever in their plays.
In Game 2 Harden suffered an eye injury which he used as an excuse for his performance even though he put up 29 points. His team however, needed more offensive rebounds and needed to lower the amount of turnovers which was a deciding factor for they’re loss in Game 2. In Game 3, the Warriors suffered their first defeat losing 126-121 after the game went to OT.
James Harden scored a whopping 41 points and Kevin Durant answered right back with 46 points, with 17 in the third quarter alone, however it wasn’t enough as Curry missed a wide open dunk in OT that allowed the Rockets to seal the deal. The Rockets deserved this victory as Golden states Curry and Thompson have been a shadow of themselves again and need to regroup.
My prediction is that the Warriors win this series in 6. Even though both teams haven’t played at their best with the Rockets already losing 2 games might prove to be too difficult for them to pull back against the 2x defending Champions.
CJ McCollum celebrating the Blazers 4x OT victory in Game 3. Source: Dead Spin
The Blazers were favourably ranked to beat the Nuggets after their amazing win against OKC even though the Nuggets are the second seed and so far the Blazers are holding true to that.
For Game 2 CJ McCollum came to the Blazers rescue and carrying them to tie the series with 20 points, 6 rebounds and 6 assists being the only player on the floor to even reach 20 points. And once again in Game 3 CJ McCollum came up big again in a 4x Overtime thriller with victory against with 41 points. The last time a game went to a 4x OT was back in 1953 and certainly neither team was prepared for such a marathon of a game but for the neutral it was phenomenal.
My prediction for this series is a Blazers win, this particular series however is the most difficult to call. It all depends on if the Nuggets can still shine through their lack of playoff experience.
Since the formation of the Premier League in 1992, English football’s top division has developed into a vast melting-pot of diversity and culture. In fact, just 12 of the competition’s possible 31 Golden Boot winners have been English. Fascinatingly, in the first nine seasons of the competition these league top scorers were all English, but since 1999 only three winners have been from Britain – a stat which clearly outlines the multicultural nature of the league. And whilst England may have a strong claim for having the most entertaining competition in the footballing world, this assertion comes with a great debt owed to the foreign talent within the country.
Nigel Farage (source: Sky News)
Sadly, however, despite the countless range of different ethnicities on the field providing fans with top quality entertainment, issues of racism and discrimination have always cast a murky shadow over the English game; much like in the rest of the world. Recently it has felt as if we are never too far away from a small but notable section of any club’s fanbase disgracing themselves with acts of abhorrent racial and xenophobic abuse targeted at the footballers; who, after all, are just people in their place of work.
A recent high-profile example of this occurred in April 2019 when Chelsea fans – travelling to the Czech Republic for their Europa League tie with Slavia Prague – began chanting ‘Salah is a bomber’ in reference to the ex-Chelsea and current Liverpool winger Mo Salah: a Muslim from Egypt. The Guardian reported that three of the Chelsea fans were immediately identified and banned from entering the Slavia Prague stadium and will face further action from the club at a later stage. But as of yet that action, if any, has not been made clear to the public.
In satisfactory fashion, just three days later, Salah responded to his abusers on the field by scoring a wonderful goal in Liverpool’s 2-0 league victory over Chelsea. He pulled a one-legged yoga pose in his celebration, his hands pressed together, perhaps alluding to a message of calmness and peace. However, it shouldn’t have to be up to the players to respond on the field; more action must be taken off the field by the governing bodies such as the FA, UEFA, and FIFA as well as the clubs involved.
Indeed, one of the biggest off-field areas of debate at the moment is just how to correctly issue punishments when disturbing racist events, such as the Salah incident, occur within the context of the game. Raheem Sterling, a Jamaican born England international, who plays for Manchester City, stated in an article he wrote for The Times that he “would call for an automatic nine-point deduction for racist abuse. It sounds harsh, but which fan will risk racist behaviour if it might relegate their team or ruin their title bid.” Such a rule change would certainly send out a clear message to all that such ill actions will no longer be tolerated.
The irony of it all can be a hard pill to swallow at the best of times. Quite frankly the Premier League relies on black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) migrant talent to maintain the quality of football within the league. In return, the league ought to do its best to provide a safe environment for those players to work in. But if it continues to fail in doing this, perhaps footballers will start to look elsewhere. The league’s appeal certainly must be fading for migrant players; and this issue may well be further exacerbated by the impact of Brexit.
The UK has previously been quite accessible for young emerging talent. Although FIFA bars all players under 18 from moving to a foreign club, they make an exception where those aged 16 and 17 can move across teams and countries within the European Economic Area. Former Arsenal and Chelsea midfielder Cesc Fabregas is a notable example of this. In 2003, as a 16-year-old, he left FC Barcelona to join Arsenal – taking full advantage of the free movement between Spain and England. His move brought him near immediate success: still aged 16, he became the club’s youngest ever senior player and goal-scorer.
However, if a player wanted to follow a similar path post-Brexit, they will come across many more obstacles. Brexit not only brings the end of transferring under 18s across the Continent but also means European players who want to sign for British clubs will have to apply for a Tier 2 Sports Visa. This Visa requires the FA to endorse the application and the player must be considered an ‘elite’ sportsperson as recognised by the governing body. This process could take up to three weeks which may be problematic when teams look to make last minute transfer deals. Also, the Visa only covers a stay of three years; though this can be extended to six.
Whilst this won’t necessarily prevent the best and highest paid players from coming over, it will likely affect those who fall into a lesser bracket of footballing quality and stardom. The lower leagues, and even the smaller Premier League teams, may suffer significantly as European players will likely prefer to avoid the hassle of visa applications when they could just move to another club in the EU without so many complications.
For well over two decades now, the best players from across the globe have flocked to England with ambitions of playing in football’s most competitive league. But as Britain breaks off from the EU and free movement comes to an end this may no longer be the case. Premier League clubs will likely miss out on the previously accessible emerging talent, who will now be snapped up by the European clubs still able to sign those youngsters. And, on top of this, the break with the EU after Brexit, alongside the disturbing rise of racism, will make Britain a less attractive prospect for senior professionals.
Those factors working in tandem could quite significantly change the face of English football across the next few seasons. As a result, the Premier League could regress from one of the most exciting and diverse leagues in the world, into something much more culturally bland and sportingly uninspiring.
Hal Fish is a specialist content writer and correspondent for the Immigration Advice Service – the UK’s leading organisation of immigration solicitors.
