A possible chip in the armour could have been found on 8th December at Stamford Bridge, as Chelsea faced Premier league champions Manchester City. A game that had anyone who’s not a City fan feeling very elated and joyful due only to the result. It’s become a formality under Pep Guardiola’s City to expect a win before the game even kicks off. They possess a sort of aura that makes teams seem very fearful off them and rather than play their own, the football teams play in a manner of damaged limitations as they’re bound to score- its just a matter of how many really. Now, their unbeaten Premier League run – which dates back to April – is broken.
With a first-half domination, City, through possession and shots, failed to be ruthless in their conversions in front of goal. Chances came to Raheem Sterling and Leroy Sane but neither were able to produce the final products. This game definitely wasn’t a highlight for Manchester City, they played a t their usual best for the first 44 mins with what seemed to be talent bursting out of their seams, but for the first time in a while, they really struggled to get a goal. To top it off, at the last minute of the first half, Chelsea produced a quick goal against run of play from Kante by an Eden Hazard assist. This must have felt like a dagger to the heart for City. Hazard in the box dribbled the ball carefully before pulling it back into the open space missing quite a few players allowing N’Golo Kante to run into the centre box and smash it with his right foot into the roof of the net, it was a difficult goal for Ederson to save.
Kante this season has played in a new position that he’s not known well for especially for the skill set and technical ability he possess, but Sarri’s tactic to play him in a more advanced manner paid off in this game.
Kante fiercely battling out with Raheem Sterling, putting a Man of the Match performance.
As the second half went on, Chelsea gathered more confidence in their plays and momentum was on their side. City, even conceded a corner a goal from David Luiz in the 78th minute came – a light touch header that went into the far right corner by bouncing off the bar into the net, coming from another Eden Hazard assist. At first glance you wouldn’t make much of the goal and still would have thought that City were in the game to pull one back to at least salvage a point but when you could see the side net ripple you could well and truly tell the game was over, as all Chelsea had to do was sit back and shut up shop for the remainder of the game. Goals from unlikely candidates in Kante and Luiz gave Sarri his first ever win over Pep Guardiola. This now means Liverpool are currently sitting on top of the Premier League table with one point ahead of City. Liverpool are now also the only unbeaten side in the Premier League.
Pep Guardiola did signify that his team played exceptionally well and anyone who doesn’t think so didn’t watch the game. However it is evident that City missed Aguero’s killer finishing which has helped them out quite a few times over the calendar year. This defeat will most likely not set Manchester City back and will definitely regroup for their next game.
(source: Liverpool Echo) Mohamed Salah celebrates after scoring his team’s first goal with Virgil van Dijk of Liverpool during their game against Bournemouth
Title Race Starting To Open Up?
With City suffering a defeat in the first half of the Premier League campaign what does this mean for other teams in the league?
Well Liverpool who have been grinding out results seemed to have gained some form with their 4-0 win over Bournemouth with a hat trick from Mohammed Salah. Is this season the season that Liverpool win their first ever Premier League trophy?
Tottenham are also in contention of being able to win the league but being 5 points behind the juggernaut that is Manchester City might prove to be too much for them.
This loss could have been a new fuel source that City needed to be even more motivated to win their second consecutive title.
Much is made of Germany’s (usually) well-judged and ubiquitous recognition of its past. Going to Berlin, Munich, Dresden, a tourist wouldn’t be ABLE to evade monuments or tributes to its Nazi past. Even if you’re the kind of tourist who takes a selfie in an open-air Holocaust Memorial park. You are at least present. In fact, Bernard Schlink’s The Reader discusses the over-memorialisation of Nazi crimes and the psychological impact (namely, guilt) this can have on citizens. German literature has a whole genre dedicated to the struggle to come to terms with the past – Vergangenheitsbewältigung, by the way. Our equivalent? Historical fiction?
Britain, in my opinion, wholly lacks such a frank and upright approach to its own blighted past. In school, we learn repeatedly of WW2 (evil Germans), about World War One (evil Germans, encore), the Cold War (evil Russians this time), and guess who comes out tops each fight (literally and ethically?) – Britain!
We don’t learn about our colonisation of India which ended abruptly in 1947 aggravating a conflict in which two million people died and 14 million were displaced in the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh out of India – which the British wiped their hands clean of. We don’t generally learn of Britain’s role in the slave trade. If we do learn about the slave route, we learn of America’s role in it, rather than Britain’s own cooperation and participation.
We don’t, in most cases, learn about Britain’s relationship with Ireland.
The History of Ireland
Henry VIII was the first monarch to rule Ireland as well as England. From the mid-1500s, English Protestants started moving to live amongst and disturbing Ireland’s Catholic majority. Wars ensued, culminating in a Protestant victory abolishing the Irish Parliament in 1801 with the UK-birthing Act of Union.
What follows; the Potato famine killing one million and displacing two million, the Anglo-Irish War, the signs of ‘No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish’ splattered across English establishments suggesting the extent and encouragement of racist attitudes in Britain, the infamous Troubles, a Good Friday Agreement. And the situation as it stands which sees a partitioned country, each with a different currency and government – but a largely peaceful one.
Having just visited the Republic of Ireland for the first time, I get the impression it has remembered its history. Although in a vastly different manner than Germany, this has led to similarly beneficial result for both countries. People in Ireland struck me as being incredibly well-informed about contemporary politics and on history. An elderly cab driver, called Vince, in Dublin, who’s planning on retiring to Vietnam next July where he has a “lady-friend, gave his own complex (firmly negative) opinion on Michael Collins (an Irish revolutionary) and pointed out a Collins-named building, and monuments relating to the Famine, and to early 20th century struggles. Vince explained that, yes, Irish people were generally worried about Brexit and couldn’t see the benefits. But, he said (generously), Britain had the right to do what it wanted without fretting about its next-door neighbour.
A balding man called Michael, also a taxi driver – previously in the military, pondered with me, the possibility of army-presence at the border with Northern Ireland. This scenario was raised by, and scared, everyone I spoke to. Even more so than the prospect of huge and debilitating delays in movement between the two sides. Michael told a story of a man thinking of moving his entire factory across the border in order to avoid hours of delays which would ruin his milk and other fresh produce.
Living in England, Scotland, or Wales privileges one with no experience of what a hard border across land (not sea) is like. I think we thus find the hard border situation difficult to imagine and therefore don’t really get it..
The majority of Irish lived through the Troubles, which killed 3,600 people in thirty (very modern) years and spread paranoia, anxiety and trauma across both sides of the border and beyond. The Good Friday Agreement was made in 1997, only 21 years ago.
Brexit’s impact on Ireland itself
Dublin, Michael explained to me, is popping off financially! Google, Facebook and LinkedIn have their European HQs in the city. This creates jobs both in the companies themselves, but also in the city more generally; building new offices, accommodation (which Dublin badly needs), transport links etc. Undoubtedly, it generates money. Post-Brexit, the number of businesses plunking European HQs into Dublin could rise, as Ireland is the only other native English-speaking country. As Vince said, the trading language isn’t going to be changing to French anytime soon (!)
This sounds pretty good. In fact, the World Economic Forum this year placed Ireland 2nd in a list of highest growing economies. But what about the rest of Ireland? There is already huge disparity between the economic success of Dublin and the comparatively poor situation in the rest of the country.
The Peace Wall in Belfast
Worse off than the Republic is Northern Ireland. RoI’s GDP growth rate is 4.7% (which is great!) – the UK’s is only 1.4%. And Northern Ireland is one of the poorest regions of Britain already. Suggested, is the possibility of European firms moving from Belfast etc. to the Republic, or another country, embellishing these unsavoury inequalities.
Uma Mullahy wrote a convincing article in the Irish Times that a lack of self-examination has fuelled a Brexit inciting interiority- and superiority-complex amongst the British. Fintan O’Toole, another respected Irish columnist, has suggested that Britain’s ‘paranoid fantasy’ (which lies – in his humble opinion – behind the Brexit vote)’ stems from its psychological obsession with its history of not-being-invaded in either World War.
Such a grandiose sense of self-worth on Britain’s behalf (demonstrated in one dimension in the national history curriculum) has left the British public with a skewed sense of their place in the world. Thus, we vote to get rid of the EU because we think we can ‘go it alone’ with ease. Ireland’s example, the country’s overt memorialisation of its troubled past and present, has led to an appreciation of the peaceful and cooperative intentions of the EU. 77% of the Irish are optimistic about the EU’s future compared to the EU average of 56%. 82% of Irish actually feel like they are citizens of the EU. For the UK, the number was 54%.
These statistics point to the Irish public’s consciousness of political actualities, as a result of history lessons. Caitlyn, in a pub in Cork, told me of her daughter’s Gaelic fluency. Fluency isn’t the norm, but the language is compulsory in schools. Across the Republic, road signs, pub names and even train announcements are in Gaelic as well as English. Everyone knows some of the ancient language. This is just one other sense in which Ireland’s history drapes the landscape.
Of course, it may be less complicated to ‘remember’ if you are a victim of colonisation, rather than the perpetrator. But that’s no excuse not to do so. And without a fuller and more reasonable perspective of British history, our country will surely continue to make ill-informed, self-aggrandising decisions such as voting for Brexit.
Lucy Kenningham is a recent graduate of the University of Manchester with a BA degree in English Literature. Originally from South London, she now lives and works in (South) Manchester. Her interests include philosophy, gender and international affairs. She co-founded and -edited the young person’s political and cultural magazine, Scuffle, from 2014-16.
Ashley Nicolette Frangipane, better known to her fans as Halsey, has spoken out after the Victoria’s Secret fashion show aired. Halsey performed at the show which was recorded last month on November 8th and aired on December 2nd.
In the time between the recording of the show and the show being aired one of Victoria’s Secrets chief marketing executives Ed Razek and Monica Mitro, the executive vice president of public relations sat down with Vogue magazine and addressed why the Victoria’s Secret show hasn’t featured plus sized models or transgender models. Razek said “I don’t think we can be all things to all customers. It is a specialty business; it isn’t a department store”. In talking about why the show had not included plus sized models in the past he said that they had tried it 18 years ago and “no one had any interest in it” and that they “still don’t”. He said that he asks himself about the “reason” behind their actions before making decisions “Did we include them because it was the right thing to do or because it was the politically correct thing to do?”
Razek went on to address the lack of transgender models in the show while addressing some of the backlash the show has received in the past saying “Shouldn’t you have transsexuals in the show? No. No I don’t think we should”. He went on to say “Because the show is a fantasy. It’s a 42 minute entertainment special”. Of course Razek’s comments received massive backlash on social media with many people vowing to boycott the show and the brand itself.
Please read this important message from Ed Razek, Chief Marketing Officer, L Brands (parent company of Victoria’s Secret). pic.twitter.com/CW8BztmOaM
The brand has since issued an apology on twitter stating that the comments came across as insensitive and that whilst they have had transgender models come to castings, none have made the cut yet and the statement clarifies that this isn’t due to gender.
Model Kendall Jenner who had just made her return to the Victoria’s Secret show seemed to shade Razek’s comments on her Instagram story with a post that said “Celebrate trans women”. Caitlin Jenner openly transitioned from male to female in 2015. Rihanna was also seen liking comments that praised her brand Fenty x Savage whilst critiquing Victoria’s Secret for the comments and lack of inclusivity.
https://instagram.com/p/Bq6NQraB3jy/
Halsey took to Instagram to make it clear to her fans that she has “no tolerance for lack of inclusivity” and that “complete and total acceptance is the only ‘fantasy’ she supports.” She expressed that the show has been something that she has adored since she was young” and added that “as a member of the LGBT+ community, I have no tolerance for a lack of inclusivity. Especially not motivated by stereotype”. She also asked that people donate to GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network – pronounced glisten). She stated that GLSEN are “an organisation that offers services aimed at protecting LGBTQ+ youth” She also made a donation in honour of “those youth targeted by these comments in a world where they have been made to feel ‘other'”.
Halsey’s performance at the show can be watched here:
It goes without saying that we are living in a deeply historical time. With the vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal due this week, for 11th December, journalists are in the midst of a frenzied attempt to predict what comes next. The people themselves seem to be fluctuating between intrigue and completely disenfranchised exhaustion with the whole ordeal.
Opposition to May’s deal is possibly the most unifying display of British politics we’ve seen in years. All corners of the political spectrum have spoken out against her. She had three long days where a vote of no confidence was a distinctly viable possibility, and her right-hand man Michael Fallon has now also spoken out against her deal. Amid this chaos, the possibility of a TV debate between May and opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn has arisen.
Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn
As I write this, the debate itself remains an elusive possibility for yet more political fiasco to play out on live television. Both May and Corbyn have stated they would be willing to take part but, if these two were boxers, we would still be at the painfully-staged-recycled-twitter-insults-reeking-of-fragile-masculinity stage. But with one public poll revealing that two-thirds of Brits want the debate to take place, it seems to be increasingly inevitable. The debate itself is set to have a focus on Brexit, a reasonable focal point given the political climate, which leads me to wonder – what exactly is Corbyn going to say?
I myself have been a staunch Labour supporter since the day I started taking an interest in politics. As with any other political party, some of their practices beg analysis and invite disdain (to put it mildly). But it is their core values that I naturally held before I even began my attempt to understand the complexities of Westminster, so they have had my vote thus far. And, along with many other young Labour supporters, when Corbyn burst onto the screen of mainstream politics in 2015 I was imbued with a deeply impassioned sense of idealism and excitement for the country’s future.
2016 was the year that I fell out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. His behaviour during the Brexit referendum instilled a distrust in him that I am yet to shake. This man whom I believed so dedicated, outspoken and staunch in his political views was largely silent. At a time when he had the ear of most of the young people in this country, he refrained from making his stance either clear or understandable. In retrospect, and given his previous voting history, it is apparent that some wily PR employee knew that he wanted to vote Leave, recognised that that would alienate his youth support, so instructed him to remain silent. He stuck to this blatantly obvious attempt to protect his political image over voicing his political view. And, thus, my perception of him as ‘genuine’ and ‘different’ to your typical Westminster slime-bucket, was shattered.
This context begs the question of what exactly Corbyn and May hope to achieve in this TV debate. May is a Remainer who is pretending to want Leave and has managed to disappoint basically everyone with her feeble negotiating efforts. Corbyn is a Leaver who opted for silence rather than publicly rejecting Remain. So what can this debate lead to other than yet more political facade, insincerity and non-truth to add to the ever-growing pile of drivel that’s been fed to the British public since 2016?
Ultimately, I fail to see the point of this debate. There are better, more sincere candidates for Brexit debates on Question Time than a televised debate between the leaders of the two biggest parties in the country. This fact may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it is emblematic of this government’s painfully obvious inadequacy in navigating Brexit as a whole. I have to admit that I am minimally hopeful that Corbyn may take the opportunity to shine light on the domestic issues that have suffered from Brexit being the central point of focus in Westminster. Other than that, I fail to see what else either Corbyn or May could contribute to the discussion at this point.
Ellie is a recent graduate in History and Politics from the University of Manchester. Originally from Bristol, Ellie moved to Manchester in 2015 and has no intention of leaving any time soon. She spent the final year of her degree as Editor of the university’s only historical publication, The Manchester Historian, and continues to present/produce weekly news videos for Manchester start up, Student Inspire Network. She has dreams of becoming a journalist and hopes to embed her passion for politics and popular culture in all of her work.
Last month saw us celebrate Mental Health Awareness day I’d go as far as to say there’s a pretty gaping hole in society in terms of our discussion of autistic people’s rights. Universities and a number of media outlets in the UK are buzzing with talks on gender equality, consent, transgender rights etc. This is all good – none of those conversations should be tapered. But we need to broaden the list of equal rights movements that are being championed.
30 minutes until the latest installment from the jungle on #ImACeleb. Some autistic people need more processing time than others. Watch our video, 'Make It Stop' here: https://t.co/6XSh7MEosd
I only heard of neurodiversity through a discussion with a friend about the difference between the label ‘autistic person’ and ‘person with autism’. Whilst ‘person with autism’ could seem more desirable in its refusal to define a person by their neurological condition; those who favour neurodiversity tend to prefer ‘autistic person’ as they embrace their autism as a part of themselves. It is part of them in the same way that some people regard biological attributes such as their gender as a key component in self-identification.
So,what is neurodiversity?
Defined by the OED online as “the range of differences in individual brain function and behavioural traits, regarded as part of normal variation in the human population (used especially in the context of autistic spectrum disorders”.
#dyspraxia mentioned again briefly on @bbcdoctorwho again tonight and anxiety too over going down the chute.
Dr Who sparks conversation about dyspraxia (a term covering a wide range of neurological ‘differences’)
Essentially, neurodiversity views autism not as a disability, but a difference to be embraced as an irremovable dimension of one’s identity.
Specifically, the movement aims to reject the idea that autistic people deviate from ‘the norm’ by rejecting any possibility of a basic neurological normality. This makes sense; we’re often told autism is a spectrum. Throughout this ‘spectrum’ lie many varying intensities of mental ‘conditions’, which fluctuate greatly both within an individual’s experience and compared to the experience of others. So it is conceivable to imagine a world which considers autistic people as not deviations, but variants.
Is it controversial?
Yes.
The crux of the neurodiversity movement (and the point that its opposers most forcibly reject) is that there need be no cure for autism. Society has advanced and progressed because of not despite of neurological differences. That in itself is hard to argue with; one clear example is world-renowned scientist Temple Grandin who credits her success to an ability to, amazingly, ‘think in pictures’.
Temple Grandin
But does this really mean we can strike autism off any lists of impairments or diseases? Whose voices are we actually hearing? To some, this debate is dominated exclusively by the voices of high-functioning autistic people. Critics of neurodiversity argue that sure, for those autistic people who function with ease in society, acceptance and celebration of neurodiversity is great.
But, for those whose lives are hindered by severe autism, searching for practical solutions to quotidian societal challenges and searching for a ‘cure’ isn’t offensive, but rather, urgent.
What is autism anyway?
However – are these critics really just mixing up autism with learning disabilities? My contact, a student at the University of Sussex’s psychology department, explained that:
When a person has ‘low-functioning’ autism, it is more that they have autism and a learning disability. The lines are very blurred as to what is autism, and what is a learning disability, but autism in and of itself is such a broad spectrum, a cure is impossible.
Damian Milton’s well-received theory of ‘double empathy’ reassigns the familiar roles in the classic trope ‘autistic people cannot feel empathy’. Milton, an academic at Kent University, suggests rather that any two people with such different ways of viewing the world find it hard to empathise with each other. Empathy difficulties are a mutual problem, not simply the autistic person’s ‘handicap’.
The truth is that we define autism as an illness in order to ‘other’ the autistic person and not to recognise the non-autistic role in miscommunications that occur.
Where do we go from here?
Conversations about neurodiversity have to increase. This is crucial because a) a section of society pushing civil rights progression is being wrongfully ignored; b) considering how neurological differences interact with people’s identity can only help further society’s dialogue with not just autistic people, but anyone with an underlying mental ‘difference’. Which, quite possibly, incorporates a majority of the population.
There are many reasons the neurodiversity movement has been ignored; the awkward binary of ‘illness’ being one. We must make sure that we are not just avoiding these conversations because we find it difficult to listen to and understand those who differ from us. Their voices must be heard.
For more information on these key issues visit the www.autism.org.uk website.
Lucy Kenningham is a recent graduate of the University of Manchester with a BA degree in English Literature. Originally from South London, she now lives and works in (South) Manchester. Her interests include philosophy, gender and international affairs. She co-founded and -edited the young person’s political and cultural magazine, Scuffle, from 2014-16.
A US Congressional committee will investigate Ivanka Trump, President Donald Trump’s daughter and a White House adviser, following reports she repeatedly used a personal email account for government work.
A White House review of her emails found she used her personal account up to 100 times last year to contact other Trump administration officials, the Washington Post reported on Monday, citing people familiar with the review.
Use of a personal account for government business potentially violates a law requiring preservation of all presidential records.
Are private emails illegal?
It is not illegal for White House officials to use personal email accounts for government business.
However, under the Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Act, government officials must forward any official correspondence to a work account within 20 days for preservation
.If this is not done reliably, the use of private accounts can put official records beyond the reach of journalists, lawmakers and others who seek publicly available information.
There are also rules against sharing classified or privileged information on personal email accounts.
White House to Investigate
President Trump, a Republican, repeatedly criticized his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election campaign over her use of personal email and a private server while she was secretary of state.
The panel will investigate White House communications when Democrats take over the US House of Representatives in January.
“We plan to continue our investigation of the presidential records act and federal records act, and we want to know if Ivanka complied with the law,” said a spokesperson for Representative Elijah Cummings, who is the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.
The current House Oversight committee chairman, Republican Trey Gowdy, also asked the White House for information related to Ms Trump’s use of private email in a letter yesterday. Republican Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate’s Homeland Security committee, also asked for a briefing on the topic.
Mr Trump said his daughter’s use of her personal email account was different from Mrs Clinton’s.
Mandatory Credit: Photo by Evan Vucci/AP/REX/Shutterstock (9896574k)
“For a little period of time, Ivanka did some emails. They weren’t classified like Hillary Clinton. They weren’t deleted like Hillary Clinton … She wasn’t doing anything to hide her emails,” Mr Trump told reporters. His daughter did not have a private server as Mrs Clinton did, he said.
Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Ms Trump’s ethics lawyer, Abbe Lowell, told The Washington Post the emails occurred before she was aware of government record-keeping regulations.
Since then, she has turned over all her government-related emails to be stored with other White House records, the newspaper reported. Ms Trump’s emails came to light when White House officials began reviewing them in response to a lawsuit from watchdog group American Oversight, according to the newspaper.
What about #LockHerUp
Mrs Clinton’s email practices as secretary of state prompted a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe in the run-up to the 2016 election that still draws ire from Mr Trump and calls from some of his supporters to “lock her up”.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her PDA upon her departure in a military C-17 plane from Malta bound for Tripoli, Libya, in this October 18, 2011, file photo. An investigative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives will subpoena Clinton’s personal emails regarding the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the Washington Post reported on March 4, 2015.
REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Files (LIBYA – Tags: POLITICS)
The FBI concluded that Mrs Clinton’s actions were extremely careless but did not recommend any charges be filed. Mrs Clinton expressed regret for her decision to use a private server but said she violated no rules. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat on the Senate judiciary panel, said there was “no way” Ms Trump did not know the rules after the 2016 campaign.
There were also larger questions about the Trump family’s mixing of private enterprise and government duties, Mr Blumenthal said. “It raises the issue of whether there has been anything improper. There should be some kind of investigation” either by Congress or the White House ethics office, Mr Blumenthal told CNN.
The White House began reviewing senior aides’ email use last year after reports that Ivanka Trump’s husband Jared Kushner, also a top White House adviser, used private email for government work.
The Netherlands beat France on Friday 16th November in their UEFA Nations League match and deservedly so, with Wijnaldum and Depay both getting on the score boards. It could have been more than just 2-0 win, but Lloris made a number of good saves to stop the bleeding. The Dutch had 18 shot attempts with 11 being on target, compared to France’s 7 shot attempts and 2 on target. France by no means had a weak team out on the field, but with Paul Pogba being injured the midfield didn’t tick as effectively and lacked creativity and technical presence, which was evident in the final possession stat of the Dutchmen holding 59% of the ball. Even with Pogba out, the likes of Mbappe, Griezmann, Kante, Matuidi should have been enough to secure them at least one point which is what they needed to secure the top spot.
Paul Pogba was injured and so sat this match out.
What is the UEFA Nations league?
The UEFA is a new national team competition that replaces friendlies with competitive matches, allowing nations to play against equally ranked teams. The four group winners of the top-ranked League A qualify for the UEFA Nations League finals in June 2019.
UEFA League Nations Official Logo
Within the first minute, the Dutch looked threatening and exciting. A nice through ball that split the French defence with ease allowed Depay to play it across the box allowing Wijnaldum to hit it but Lloris blocked it.
At the 44th minute mark, Liverpool’s Wijnaldum managed to parry his shot in the bottom left corner, after Ryan Babel’s right footed shot was saved by Lloris. But this was not enough to get it away from danger. Wijnaldum in the centre box was in the perfect position to put his team 1-0 up in Rotterdam ending the first half of the match.
Attempts in the second half were ramped up even more with Ryan Babel’s shot being saved again at the 50th minute mark. With Virgil Van Dijk narrowly missing the header assisted by Delay at the 60th minute mark and Denzel Dumfries header saved in the bottom right corner of the goal at the 62nd mark. It’s safe to say that the Netherlands really mounted pressure on the World Cup winners. As the second half went on, a greater number of attempts were made and at the end of the match Frenkie De Jong was awarded a penalty after a silly foul by Moussa Sissoko in the box. Depay stepped up to take the penalty kick and what a wonderful one it was, he dinked it right in the middle of the goal which made Lloris a world class goal keeper, look rather silly. This whole game was the Dutch really showing how dangerous they are and Hugo Lloris keeping his team in the game by the scruff of the neck.
With France beaten in a competitive match it now means their 15 streak unbeaten run has come to an end.
With a stellar performance from the Netherlands XI it begs the question: which individual players will now be on the teams’ radars and whether Memphis Depay’s return to Manchester United is a possibility. Depay regained his form which first got him the transfer move to the Reds at his now club destination Olympique Lyonnais in the French League. United fans are certainly calling for his buy back clause to be activated as the team needs a surge of new energy, however I personally believe that it won’t fix any of Manchester United’s problem and it’s more of a structural issue at every level.
31 year old Ryan Babel has been putting in a shift with his performances for the national side which could put his name back in the lights and of course one of the best defenders in the world and the captain of the Dutch side Virgil Van Dijk brings calm and stability to the defence and whoever he’s playing with, so the Dutch national Side looks to be in good hands under head coach Ronald Koeman.
France can still take top spot if the Germans beat the Dutch. But if the Dutch win they take top spot of group A. Overall there are some doubts surrounding the French team as they looked very stale and it’s evident that head coach Deschamps needs to rotate the quality that the French team posses a lot more because they sure don’t lack it in most departments on the pitch.
The UEFA Nations sure do bring back a bit of excitement to international football.
On Tuesday 13th November, the Fourth group held their annual Politics Summit. The Fourth Group, a public advocacy group that represents citizens’ interests in an ever-growing digital era is founded by Alvin Carpio. Their mission, is to essentially shape technology for all people, ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard.
When it comes to the digital age, we need to think about the how we as millennials can hold others to account for the use of our data.
Accountability
Nowadays, social media is the most efficient way to keep up with the latest news updates. Social media pushes and even obligates people to be accountable but an effective leader must be willing to be accountable without having the pressure to do so.
Many politicos have used social media to their advantage, by bombarding Twitter, Facebook and Instagram with heartwarming pictures and videos, making it an an easy place to gather supporters and even avoid mainstream media. But every rose has a thorn, and even social media has also brought an end to many political careers. According to POLITICO, in 2016, former Republican US presidential candidate Ted Cruz fired his spokesman, Rick Tyler, “for misrepresenting a video clip on social media that made it seem as though rival Marco Rubio was mocking the Bible” – a blatant attempt of social media manipulation gone wrong.
It’s a place where people have access to all manner of things, whereby many major news outlets have taken material from social media and broadcasted it. Director of the Global Social Entrepreneurship Network, Peter Ptashko, stated that two out of the six digital sins are ignorance and disconnection – two factors that affect our current leadership during this digital age, in that they are ignorant to the power and effect of social media causing them to be disconnected from their constituents as a result – which in turns leads to a lack of accountability.
6 Digital Sins presented by Peter Ptashko, Director of Global Social Entrepreneurship Network
Tech-savvy
Carrying on from the need for accountability of the leaders in a digital age, leaders would also need to primarily be ‘tech-savvy’, in that they would need to have an awareness of how to operate in a digital world so as to be able to be relatable to their constituents. Having said that, the most significant attribute of being a tech-savvy leader is the ability to communicate with different levels of tech ‘saviness’. This is needed in order to be able to relate to younger age groups who are very technologically knowledgeable and also to elderly groups who may well have a limited understanding in this area. Though a ‘tech savvy’ (political) leader may sound like a utopian concept, such a leader is the future of politics in age where the escape from technology with the hope of still remaining in touch with politics, is next to impossible.
Having said all this, there is no obligation for Theresa May to begin Snapchatting everything she says and does in the House of Commons or at EU negotiations, but rather there is (or should be) an obligation for current and future leaders to be aware of the ever-growing impact of technology in society, both in and outside of politics, and to respect and yield to that.
Kerric Harvey, author of the Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics, stated: “Both the technology itself, and the way we choose to use the technology, makes it so that what ought to be a conversation is just a set of Post-it notes that are scattered,”. If we are to be true leaders in a digital age, we must hold the responsibility of making sense of these scattered notes and forming a clear bridge of trusted communication between the leader(s) and the citizens.
This Tuesday 13th November, the Common-Sense Network attended the Politics Summit 2018 in London.
The event was organised by The Fourth Group, led by CEO and founder Alvin Carpio. The day took a focus on our fast-changing role as citizens in the digital age, featuring speakers, panellists, and group discussions.
NEWS: A global coalition of community organisations – representing over 200,000 people worldwide – has launched a global inquiry into the problems caused by technology on society. To have your say and shape the agenda, go to https://t.co/DwGhxgGj4f. #UnitedCitizenspic.twitter.com/ZG4qYMLfCi
The event comes as part of the ‘We are #UnitedCitizens‘ campaign. A global coalition of companies and volunteers, with the long term objective of mobilising international citizens to take collective action, to ensure technology is a force for good.
At two years old, The Fourth Group, a crowdfunded initiative, delivered the Politics Summit, grouping new leaders together to raise awareness of the key issues that technology brings to our political processes.
The Summit featured guests and panelists ranged from tech leaders, CEOs, politicians, data experts, editors, and academics, racking heads together on topics such as fake news, data protection, and social media echo chambers.
The day started with a collection of speakers introducing the key issues that we are now faced by us as citizens in the technological era. Andras Volom, President of V4SDG, broke these down to a broad range of concerns across our social, business, political lives and our existential future.
Andras Volom introduces issues caused by tech
Throughout the afternoon, myself and our other representatives from the Common Sense Network took a lead in debates over the causes and effects of social media echo chambers. Our contributions led panelists to consider the importance of not just tackling strong algorithms online, but also taking political discussions offline.
Democracy certainly requires accountability, collective action, and equal participation, which can become lost in the suffocating whirlpool of purposely controversial one line statements, endlessly piling on top of each other on our news feeds.
Many other speakers urged the audience not just to highlight the issues, but investigate measures we can take to solve them.
Malini Mehra for example, argued that alternatives to Facebook do exist, which can protect us having our data being used in ways we don’t want it to be (see Cambridge Analytica debate). The CEO of GLOBE Lesgislators enforced the point that an overuse of one platform leads to a frightening level of data knowledge and power given to one company.
Malini Mehra: Even amongst as these things we arent talking about the alternatives. We also have an assumption that the law makers have more power and resource – most are deeply under-resourced and underfunded. Be sure to send your reports to parliamentary libraries #PS18pic.twitter.com/AuGKhgWU83
A series of fascinating panel discussion that followed featured more radical proposals. Areeq Chowdury, CEO of WebRoots Democracy, shared his teams work on introducing a tax to be paid by the social media giants per user on their platform, which would then be redistributed back into the education and raising awareness of children/young people understanding their data.
Later speakers encouraged us to gaze further into the future.
Speaker Jamie Bartlett focused on the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The author highlighted that what is remarkable is not the scandal in itself but the speed at which the tools politicians can use to win votes are developing.
‘Elections being hacked’. What’s actually being hacked is trust. It’s now very easy to claim impropriety / cheating even if it made no difference to the result – because rules aren’t fit for purpose. This is why electoral reform is so vital.
Bartlett urged us to use our imagination and think about what tech in politics might look like in decades to come. Raising the somewhat comic possibility that data collecting fridges could present us with holograms of Donald Trump when we open them most at our most hungriest, and therefore most vulnerable to the messages of authoritarian leaders.
In summary, this hugely stimulating occasion recognised not only the biggest issues that tech presents to us today, but the signs of far broader impacts we must prepare for in the decades to come.
The Common Sense Network Team
It was a pleasure to meet so many others with similar objectives to the Common Sense Network, devoted keep our democractic systems alive and well in the ever changing world of technology. Thanks for having us! We look forward to next year.
The recent controversy about Anthony Ekundayo Lennon, a white man who identifies as black, who received the Talawa Theatre Company Artistic Director Leadership Programme (ADLP) has illuminated the discussion around whether identifying as ‘transracial’ is acceptable.
On one side, Anthony’s case presents a quandry vis-à-vis Rachel Dolezal who purposefully lied about being white and changed her appearance to hide the fact. Anthony on the other hand, while being of white-Irish parentage, from a young age was racially profiled as black because of his darker skin and afro-Caribbean hair. In Anthony’s instance does transracialism make sense? It throws up the nuances of the discussion as to what constitutes Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME)? Is it your immediate heritage or whether you can pass for white based on your features and skin colour?
Since the story broke last week, both Talawa and Anthony himself have responded in respective statements. Talawa takes the position that ‘in the spirit of inclusivity’ on the basis of which Talawa has operated since 1986, Anthony was awarded the traineeship as a person of mixed heritage. Michael Buffong further responds to the Anthony’s eligibility:
“About a year ago, I was made aware of some quotes taken from a book that Anthony had contributed to about his identity, these were contrary to what I had understood about him. I asked Anthony about this and he said he was misquoted. I took this very seriously and sought legal advice to check whether he was indeed eligible for the ADLP scheme. From the advice I was given, because of the complex nature of his case, he was deemed to still be eligible.”
Buffong also dispelled the myth that Anthony had received £400,000 worth of BAME funding which is not the case. Anthony’s own statement published in the Guardian, doesn’t really acknowledge his assuming a mixed-heritage identity but presents it tacitly. Talking of when he moved close to a black community at the age of 12 when his parents divorced:
“It was like being adopted or fostered by people who “got” you, or knew what you needed. It was at about that time that I heard the word “throwback”. I wasn’t sure what they were talking about. But in my mind there is no doubt that I have some African ancestry.”
The popular comparison to Lennon’s case is that of Rachel Dolezal but how they have both positioned themselves within the black community is crucially important, while Rachel had extreme appreciation of black culture, Lennon was defined that way by society and therefore welcomed as a mixed heritage individual. While Michael Buffong explains that Lennon’s story is complicated and said that he “welcome[s] the debate around identity and while I am no arbiter of that debate, surely we must acknowledge that there are nuances and grey areas.”
Of course, there are grey areas, nobody is disputing that fact. It is inherently hard to draw a line in terms of how far you go by generations to qualify as BAME. Or conversely how BAME do you have to look for you to qualify for opportunities, predicated on the fact that the more BAME you look the less opportunities you must have had in life. This is an accepted correlation by the Arts Council who has focused on the importance of diversity in relation to social mobility.
Like gender equality, the purpose of BAME initiatives is to make themselves redundant. Especially in the arts, BAME opportunities are working towards a future goal where there is diversity in race and backgrounds not only proportional to the ethnic mix in the UK but based on merit alone. They are a means to a truly multicultural end.
Re: Anthony Ekundayo Lennon situation. Have a watch of this BBC Doc. https://t.co/TJGY3LS11Z I think it puts things into perspective! Let’s not jump to conclusions until we know the full story. Skip to 5mins10secs
— Kalungi Ssebandeke aka Kalungi Fresh (@Kalungi_) November 4, 2018
To those who are asking whether transracialism will continue to grow and be accepted by society at large, for some the answer lies in the broadening of who is accepted for BAME opportunities. From the latest census findings BAME represent 16% of the working population, while the latest report from the Arts Council’s 2016-17 ‘Equality, Diversity and the Creative Case’ reported that only 10% of Artistic Directors were from BAME background – inferring that it is 6% lower than it should be. Although the Arts Council has only been collecting data on diversity since 2013, the categories and ways of collecting data seem to evolve as the debate around diversity continues. For example, In last year’s report, “white – other was included in the ‘Black and minority ethnic’ grouping. We now recognise this grouping does not give an accurate picture of ethnic diversity in the sector, so in this report ‘white – other’ is shown as a separate category.”
As well as this, the “prefer not to say” category also presents problems for comparability of the data year on year and prohibits the collection of diversity data from giving a full picture.
Further, within the report the statement from Sir Nicholas Serota CH addresses the successes of increasing diversity at all levels within the arts but also acknowledges the challenges and highlights leadership roles as an area to focus on. The report goes on to say that “…aspirations are not always translating into meaningful actions or significant appointments. The reasons are complex, but leadership plays a major role. More power should be in the hands of those who understand the need for change.”
The traineeship which Anthony is receiving is directly a corrective measure to increase the proportion of BAME individuals in leadership roles within the arts. According to Sir Nicholas’ statement, Anthony represent someone who understands the need for change however due to the limited opportunities available to BAME individuals in the positions were true change can be made, is it still fair for this opportunity to go to someone who is BAME in the arts council definition?
This is important because the popular conception now is that in the post-New Labour world, the multiculturalism project has failed. A survey carried out by the anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate, found that 43% of respondents predicted relationships between different communities would deteriorate over the next few years while only 14% who felt things would improve.
In today’s times we have much more nuanced approach to talking about identity in general whether it is about gender, race, religion, heritage and even ability. You can now add citizenship to that list following the Windrush scandal and the hostile environment policy set by the Home Office. Part of this is deconstructing what this identity means in terms of power and access, by outlining what is problematic in order for it to be corrected towards the aim of inclusivity. But those who are marginalised are not the only ones defining identity and especially from a racial perspective, far-right groups inherently have a problem with immigration and Islam. The defining of identity especially based on race looks set to continue, and the goal of BAME opportunities making themselves redundant looks like a distant dream moving further away. As such these BAME opportunities become all the more political with the grey areas and nuances presenting themselves as not speculative but real dilemmas.
Homera Cheema is a writer based in Manchester. After some years working in aid in the UK and in field missions she is now undertaking an MA in Creative Writing at Manchester Writing School and writes reviews on author events, books as well as articles.
‘Yeah, I’d say I’m pretty left.’ They said, nervously
circulating their gaze around the group, hoping the topic of discussion would
move on.
But what does being left-wing actually mean in 2018? After decades of people being split separate ways by a growing plethora of issues, can a simple left-right border line describe much about us at all? We are right to feel confused by a measure like this.
Where does left-right come from?
Originally it comes from a debate in 18th century
France. The left, who were against the
idea of a monarchy, opposed the right, who supported it.
In the UK, the left-right wing split was most prominently defined by a debate over how the government should manage the economy, after World War 2. The Labour party on the left, believed that industries such as the bank of England, coal, and transport, should be managed under government ownership, funded by taxation. The Conservatives, on the right, thought the government should let industry be privately managed by businesses, resulting in lower taxes.
The history of the left-right divide
However today this discussion is far less contested. In the
decades following, a broad consensus was reached that the majority of these industries
should became privately owned. By this measure Britain’s overall stance as a
country is ‘right wing’. That’s right, you’re right wing.
In the absence of calls for nationalisation, the right-left
divide became largely about debates over social welfare, education spending,
minimum wage and benefits.
In addition, social concerns surfaced as a large cause of
divide amongst voters; attitudes towards issues such as women’s rights, LGBT
rights, religion, and race, gained ‘left-right’ status.
The social vs economic left/right split
This made being left or right wing a delicately built hybrid
machine, made up of a growing package of views. Either side carries
connotations of beliefs on the government economic role, the monarchy, immigration,
attitudes to love life and everything in between.
This is problematic. There are lots of people who care about
the environment but favour a monarchy or low taxation. Equally wanting higher
taxes or opposing a monarchy doesn’t guarantee your passion for the
environment, show that you want to remain in the EU, reveal your thoughts on
immigration, or guarantees your opinion on LGBT+ for that matter
A Global World
Unfortunately, things aren’t getting any less complicated.
Every day that we roll out of bed there will be new issues we have to force
into the overcrowded left-right compartments.
A lot of our debates today are in fact no longer nationally
confined but centred around global issues, such as climate change, national identity,
the morals of artificial intelligence, and the EU.
Let’s take Brexit. The biggest debate of our time has been sided by an unconventional formation of left-right thinkers. With the desire to leave the EU having been championed by right wing voices like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, but also previously long campaigned for by ‘left-wing’ Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
On the flip side, the voice of remain is made up of a
mixture of left-right voices from Labour’s Chuka Ummanu, to Tony Blair, to
Conservatives David Cameron, and George Osborne.
With all this clutter in mind, trying to make yourself into
a person that can align as left or right wing causes more than a headache. It isn’t
really possible for most of us. In
reality these right-left camps are becoming more associated with identity or moral
connotations rather than having any particular meaning.
For example, universities are left wing places, where it is
good to be left wing. But in practise we all at university have our individual
takes on these complex bundles of issues, which would fail to complete the
paradigm of being ‘left wing’. In this respect being left or right wing might better
describe where we are, rather than who we are.
We need to update ourselves to new times. To avoid being trapped into the left-right debate. If anything, these false homes prevent our ability to discuss issues in detail, by checking our broken political compass for guidance.
In the late hours of Wednesday the 14th of November, a seemingly battered, yet gleeful Theresa May emerged from 10 Downing Street after what she titled “5 hours of heated debate”. She looked tired and flabbergasted, however, the news she had to share was positive. For the first time in 2 years, despite the bitter in-fighting and resignations, the Cabinet had finally backed her Brexit withdrawal plans.
She said she was optimistic and that ‘her head and heart’ were behind the deal as she proclaimed that cabinet unity would see the deal through.
Theresa May’s Brexit Statement in full
Resignations
Despite the earlier proclamation of unity, the morning after was not kind to Mrs May. Before 10:30am the next day an all too different story had emerged. Before her speech to Parliament was over, we had already seen at resignations from senior and junior ministers alike.
Down Goes Dominic
In a devastating blow, Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab quit shortly before the prime minister was due to give her statement to MPs in parliament, saying he could not support the withdrawal agreement struck with the European Union and approved by Cabinet on Wednesday.
Raab, who is the second occupant of the office to resign this year, after David Davis’ departure in July, said he “cannot in good conscience support the terms proposed for our deal with the EU.”
In his resignation letter to the prime minister, Raab said he was concerned the regulatory regime for Northern Ireland proposed under the “backstop” guarantee (more on this later) for avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland represented “a very real threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom.”
He added that he could not support an “indefinite” backstop arrangement. Raab had been known to favor a unilateral mechanism for the U.K. to leave the backstop — a provision which was not included in the draft withdrawal agreement published on Wednesday.
Today, I have resigned as Brexit Secretary. I cannot in good conscience support the terms proposed for our deal with the EU. Here is my letter to the PM explaining my reasons, and my enduring respect for her. pic.twitter.com/tf5CUZnnUz
McVey was next to go, quitting just an hour after Raab and was swiftly followed by Suella Braverman, a junior minister at the Department for Exiting the EU. Braverman, who is a former head of the European Research Group of backbench Brexiteer MPs, tweeted she looked forward to “working to support Brexit from the backbenches.”
In her letter to the prime minister, McVey, a longstanding Brexit supporter, accused May of putting a deal to Cabinet that “does not honor the result of the [2016 EU] referendum.”
“The proposals put before Cabinet, which will soon be judged by the entire country, means [sic] handing over around £39 billion to the EU without anything in return,” she wrote. “It will trap us in a customs union, despite you specifically promising the British people we would not be.”
McVey said “I could not look my constituents in the eye” and defend the draft deal.
In her resignation letter, Suella Braverman said that the negotiations had been an “uncomfortable journey.”
It is with deep regret and after reflection that I have had to tender my resignation today as a Brexit Minister. Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to working to support Brexit from the Backbenches. This has not been an easy decision. pic.twitter.com/C0kply8aLE
“Throughout this process, I have compromised. I have put pragmatism ahead of idealism and understand that concessions are necessary in a negotiation,” she said. “However I have reached a point where I feel that these concessions do not respect the will of the people.”
Shailesh Vara, a junior minister responsible for Northern Ireland, also resigned. Vara said in his resignation letter that the draft withdrawal agreement doesn’t deliver on the promises made to voters, and “leaves the U.K. in a half-way house with no time limit on when we will finally be a sovereign state.”
She May’be Going
It did not take long to emerge that, as well as fighting to push this withdrawal agreement through parliament, a possibility that the parliamentary arithmetic does not allow, Mrs May might also have to fight for her political future as a vote of no-confidence looms ever closer.
Leading backbench Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg submitted a letter of no confidence in her to Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the Tories’ backbench 1922 Committee.
Only 48 Tory MPs have to write letters to Sir Graham for a vote to be triggered.
Mr Rees-Mogg told reporters that the negotiations had “given way on all the key points” adding: “The deal risks Brexit because it is not a proper Brexit.”He denied being involved in a coup against the PM, saying he was “working through the procedures of the Conservative Party” which was “entirely constitutional”.
The embattled Prime Minister was briefing MPs in the House of Commons on the draft deal on Thursday morning amid rumours that the number of letters submitted by Tory MPs to the 1922 committee was nearing the 48 needed to trigger a confidence vote.
Mrs May is facing a battle to get the deal, which was passed by Cabinet on Wednesday night, through Parliament with Brexiteer Conservative MPs, Remainers, the Labour party and the DUP all saying they will vote down the plan. She has been accused of breaking promises and handing control back to Brussels.
How Would No Confidence Work?
A ‘no confidence vote’ takes place if the Prime Minister is no longer deemed fit to hold her role by her own MPs. A total of 48 Tory MPs must write to the party’s 1922 Committee chair Graham Brady to request a vote of confidence. If the Prime Minister won the confidence vote, she would remain in office and be awarded immunity for a year.
If the Prime Minister loses a confidence vote, she is obliged to resign and would be barred from standing in the leadership election that follows.
What Would Happen Next?
If this is the case, what is known as a two-week ‘cooling off’ period will commence. During this time, Parliament is dissolved, although Mrs May would still remain in Downing Street.
If the Tories cannot choose a new leader and form a new Government with the support of a majority of MPs within 14 calendar days, an early General Election is triggered.
A new government could also include a cross-party allegiance and could dramatically change the government as we understand it now. However, if an alternative government cannot be formed with a majority support, the prime minister would be forced to set a date for another general election – the second while Mrs May has been at Downing Street.
House Of Cards Deal
The draft withdrawal agreement is all about how the UK leaves the European Union. It’s not about any permanent future relationship.
Most of the details in there are of the financial settlement (often dubbed the divorce bill) that the two sides agreed some months ago: over time, it means the UK will pay at least £39bn to the EU to cover all its financial obligations.
There’s also a long section on citizens’ rights after Brexit for EU citizens in the UK and Brits elsewhere in Europe. It maintains their existing residency rights, but big questions remain about a host of issues, including the rights of UK citizens to work across borders elsewhere in the EU.
Some key takeaways.
Transition
The legal basis for a transition (or implementation) period, beginning after Brexit is due to happen on 29 March 2019. It would be 21 months during which the UK would continue to follow all European Union rules (in order to give governments and businesses more time to prepare for long term change).
That means that during transition, the UK would remain under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (in fact, the ECJ is mentioned more than 60 times in this document). The document says that decisions adopted by European Union institutions during this period “shall be binding on and in the United Kingdom”.
The transition period is also designed to allow time for the UK and the EU to reach a trade deal. The draft agreement says both sides will use their “best endeavours” to ensure that a long term trade deal is in place by the end of 2020. Significantly, if more time is needed, the option of extending the transition appears in the document (although, it makes it clear that the UK would have to pay for it).
The document doesn’t say how long the transition could be extended for (in fact they’ve left the date blank), only that the Joint Committee may take a decision “extending the transition period up to [31 December 20XX].” UK officials hope that the date will be clarified by the time of the proposed EU summit on 25 November.
Northern Island
If there was no long term trade agreement and no extension of the transition, that’s when the so-called “backstop” would kick in. It’s the issue that has dominated negotiations for the last few weeks and months: how to ensure that no hard border (with checks or physical infrastructure) emerges after Brexit between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Both sides agreed back in December 2017 that there should be a guarantee to avoid a hard border under all circumstances. That guarantee came to be known as the backstop, but agreeing a legal text proved very difficult.
So what exactly does this draft agreement say about the border, the backstop and the legal guarantees that underpin it? If a backstop is needed, it will – as expected – take the form of a temporary customs union encompassing not just Northern Ireland but the whole of the UK.The draft agreement describes this as a “single customs territory”.
Northern Ireland, though, will be in a deeper customs relationship with the EU than Great Britain, and even more closely tied to the rules of the EU single market.
Possible outcomes following the announcement of the Brexit withdrawal agreement
This month saw the release of Mike Leigh’s highly anticipated Peterloo. Peterloo tells the largely untold story of one of the worst massacres in British history at a democratic rally in Manchester’s St Peter’s Field. Having gathered in the hopes of improving parliamentary representation and suffrage, the crowd of 60,000-80,000 people found themselves charged upon and attacked by the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry. The estimations of fatalities have ranged between eleven and eighteen, with those injured fluctuating around the upper hundreds. Leigh has cited his own indignance at not being taught about this massacre during his school years as a key driver in his decision to make the film.
With most great films that address mass suffering, there is a focus on one individual in order to personalise atrocities that can otherwise be viewed in numerical and statistical terms. Leigh rejects this trope in a concerted effort to not value any one character’s experience at the expense of another, a tangible nod to the Mancunian unity felt keenly to this day.
While this decision is based in admirable sentiment, it ultimately leads to a lack of connection to the people involved, and multiple missed opportunities. One prime example being David Moorst’s character, Joseph. Seen in the opening sequence as a bewildered bugler at Waterloo, he provides the framework through which the brutalities of Waterloo and Peterloo are directly compared. It is painfully clear how deeply affected he is by war, and his suffering only increases when he finds returns to a home ravaged by industrialisation and the Corn Laws. Yet his true feelings regarding his situation are hardly explored, save from a brief seconds-long shot of him trying and failing to find work.
Maxine Peak (a still from the film Peterloo 2018)
The script itself is constructed with an expert hand, it holds a poetry that translates beautifully in both the pomposity of the upper classes and the rugged articulation of the lower. This is displayed particularly in the many rallying speeches we see delivered to the people of Lancashire throughout the first act. Leigh’s dedication to historical accuracy is distinctly clear in this area, almost to a fault. While it is true that Peterloo was a march inspired by words, the structure of rallying speech followed by rallying speech becomes repetitive. As with any over-communicated political slogan, the message loses impact, and the audience’s inspiration fades with it. It assumes an almost academic air and wrought up memories those scarce lessons when the teacher would allow you to watch a film – as long as they got to pick it.
What cannot be questioned, however, is the brilliance of the final act. With the massacre itself injected with a vibrancy of colour that directly contrasts the grim palette of the world presented previously, the film, rather ironically, comes to life when the life of many others is coming to an end. The massacre itself toes the line between realism and action with notable delicacy. Avoiding the usual bombasity of most action sequences, Leigh manages to communicate a sharp horror and sobering calm in equal measure. This is then followed with shots to the army general who skipped service in order to go to the races, and Tim McInnerny’s Cruikshank-esque portrayal of the prince regent who barely remembers Manchester’s name, which incites the first sharp sense of injustice on the behalf of the lower class.
It is, in some ways, a perfectly timed film. Just one year after the Manchester attack, and with the country’s democracy hurled into national question and debate over Brexit, this film should tap into many political frustrations being felt today. However, while the final payoff is beautifully crafted, this film requires a patience that I am sad to say I do not possess. By the time I reached the final moments, I was left wondering why my emotions had been neglected at first only to be deeply engaged in the closing scenes. What I was left with was a sense of being overwhelmed. Overwhelmed with information, the sheer length of the thing, and an enhanced discontent towards social inequality. Which, while I question the delivery, I suppose is what Leigh intended to inspire.
Ellie is a recent graduate in History and Politics from the University of Manchester. Originally from Bristol, Ellie moved to Manchester in 2015 and has no intention of leaving any time soon. She spent the final year of her degree as Editor of the university’s only historical publication, The Manchester Historian, and continues to present/produce weekly news videos for Manchester start up, Student Inspire Network. She has dreams of becoming a journalist and hopes to embed her passion for politics and popular culture in all of her work.
It’s long been a trope of left-leaning politics in the UK to criticise austerity and cuts to public funding. This occurrence is usually met with indignant criticisms of over-idealism and a move towards the dreaded ‘socialism’. When assessing the landscape of the past month’s headlines, however, it is clear that the true consequences and impacts of austerity have been displayed in all their ugly, naked truth. And not only have these outcomes come to the fore, but the foremost victims of austerity have become increasingly clear.
Public expenditure on the police force has dropped 18% since 2010. This continual decrease has resulted in a police culture based on prioritisation over need. They have been forced to focus their ever-diminishing resources on high crime such as terrorism at the expense of crimes considered to be of ‘lower impact’. While this prioritisatory approach has its benefits in maintaining the safety of the country as a whole, it is at the cost of individual safety and liberty of the youth, minorities, and women.
This comment in last week’s Question Time about Knife Crime calling for a ‘particular breed’ of human being ‘be dealt with like the cancer they are and exterminated’.
After the Question Time audience member said those who commit knife crime should be exterminated, Theresa May's new police force has been spotted. #bbcqtpic.twitter.com/HTKg89ZD1S
This discriminatory impact was presented clearly in British media over the last couple of weeks as London’s knife crime crisis took center stage once more. With Christmas still over a month away, knife crime in London is already at its highest since 2010 – with the majority of those involved, both victims and perpetrators, being young people. In a desperate situation such as this, discriminatory tactics such as stop and search thrive. And 2016 to 2017 saw black people being eight times more likely to be stopped than their white counterparts. London’s knife crime has become a microcosm of the disproportionately felt consequences of public cuts. Both young people and the black community are bearing the burden of responsibility and accountability for the crisis. But it is an irrefutable fact that cuts to police funding and the general hopelessness instilled in young people due to these cuts are a key component.
One prevailing voice that emerged following the revelation of the severity of London knife crime was that of senior police chief Sara Thornton. Though she did not aim criticism for the government for crippling her area of the public sector, she did not label cuts as the reason crime is on the up, she claimed that the police had to recognise less misogyny based hate crimes to free up resources. And all of a sudden, feminism too became a scapegoat for this government’s overzealous austerity.
Austerity doesn’t look like its going to end anytime soon, will the changes in the government and the focus on Brexit and other issues mean that policing if effected more than ever?
Ellie is a recent graduate in History and Politics from the University of Manchester. Originally from Bristol, Ellie moved to Manchester in 2015 and has no intention of leaving any time soon. She spent the final year of her degree as Editor of the university’s only historical publication, The Manchester Historian, and continues to present/produce weekly news videos for Manchester start up, Student Inspire Network. She has dreams of becoming a journalist and hopes to embed her passion for politics and popular culture in all of her work.
