type here...
Home Blog Page 83

Saudi Arabia works toward a Wakandan future

Uwais Ilyas
-
0
Saudi Arabia works toward a Wakandan future

35-year cinema ban to end with Black Panther screening

Saudi Arabia is set to open its cinema doors for the first time since a ban was imposed by the ultra-conservative government in the 1980s. Black Panther has been selected as the first film to screen on the 18th of April at a new AMC cinema built in the country’s capital, Riyadh. The ban had been instigated to limit the free mixing of men and women in public and to avoid endorsement of taboo behaviour in public. However, this did not stop citizens from viewing western films in the comfort of their own homes. The grand mufti of Saudi Arabia (the country’s highest religious authority) has denounced the move and described commercial films as a source of “depravity”. Of course, this is only the beginning for the country, AMC entertainment has plans to open a further 40 cinemas in Saudi Arabia in the next five years, and to increase this to 100 by 2030: creating some 30,000 new jobs.

Technically the first publicly screened films in the country since the ban was lifted in January were the critically slated, Emoji Movie and the marginally better received, Captain underpants: The First Epic Movie, which were shown in temporary local theatres in Jeddah. The choice of Black Panther as the first film for adult audiences in a permanent theatre is rather unsurprising: the popularity of the film worldwide has clearly not escaped the notice of AMC, who hope to attract record numbers of Saudis out to see the film.

Michael B Jordan as Erik Killmonger

Wakanda and Saudi Arabia: more than a few similarities

The fictional country Wakanda, which features heavily in the film Black Panther, bears more than a passing resemblance to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia itself: a monarchy with vast wealth amassed from a single, widely coveted natural resource. Both countries have what are known as “command and control” economies – economies where the central government dictates production goals of raw materials: in Wakanda’s case, the indestructible metal Vibranium, and in the case of Saudi Arabia, crude oil. Wakanda also represents the Saudi dream: a strong economy with a futuristic mega-city, deeply in touch with its cultural roots.

Crown-prince Mohammad bin Salman (son of King Abdulaziz), sees himself as a reformer, much like the movie’s fictional King T’challa of Wakanda; keen to build bridges with the west. Mohammad bin Salman (MbS as he is known in the west), also hopes to vastly reform the backward gender laws in his country. Thus far, he has granted women the right to drive and relaxed laws on free mixing between men and women – setting the Kingdom on the path to becoming a more moderate theocracy. He has made special efforts to maintain good ties with western leaders- meeting president Trump very soon after his election and vocally sharing his tough stance against global terrorism- a theme that is also strongly echoed in the film. In fact, parallels have been drawn between Killmonger, the exiled terrorist son of Wakanda and Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda and ex-member of the Saudi ruling elite. The fact that the film presents the CIA as a helpful American aid in the form of the character of Everett Ross (played by the ever-affable Martin Freeman) interestingly ties in strongly with Saudi’s historically open cooperation and strong links with the intelligence agency.

Chadwick Boseman as T’Challa in Black Panther

More than a few differences

Despite all of the reforms proposed by the new crown-prince of Saudi Arabia, it seems that any comparison with the fictional Wakanda are hopeful at best. The Kingdom still has a very high unemployment rate at 12.7% and it is increasing (thanks in part to volatile oil prices). Saudi society still trails far behind the rest of the world (and Wakanda) in tackling issues such as gender equality and widespread poverty amongst the lower socioeconomic classes. It is also not quite the isolationist utopia the government would like it to be compared to. The Saudi government’s involvement in the war in Yemen and continued interference in countries such as Lebanon and Qatar show that it still has a long way to go if it is to achieve the moral commendation of Wakanda.

Saudi Arabia is in a state of revolution in all senses of the word. Its lifting of the ban on movie theatres is just one step on its way; diversification of the economy away from oil will no doubt also help, but MbS’ vision for the Kingdom is far more wide-reaching. Wakanda may be a Hollywood utopia, but it is a state that Saudi Arabia is moving towards.

The Centrist Party: A ‘New’ Alternative?

The Common Sense Network
-
0
The Centrist Party: A ‘New’ Alternative?

This article was written by Ruby Hinchliffe and Alex Davenport

 

New Centrist Party Emerges

by Ruby Hinchliffe

It has been revealed by The Observer that a new centrist party is emerging. Its year-long existence has been kept under wraps, until now, as we hear that the party has received £50 million in funding. Most of this backing has come from the multi-millionaire Simon Franks, the founder of LoveFilm and former Labour benefactor, who is ‘leading’ the party in its embryonic stages. The party is yet to have any official political backers, and has not yet received an official name.

Their tagline announces that they will “break the Westminster mould”, offering the most striking challenge so far to the current tribal nature of politics, which limits voters to just two mainstream parties: the Conservatives and Labour.

Founder of the as yet unnamed centrist party, Simon Franks (Source: Asia House)

The once-upon-a-time ‘centrist’ Liberal Democrats have practically disappeared now, winning just 12 seats in the last election. This lack of a third party option, paired with the polarisation of Britain following the Brexit referendum vote, has led us to a vast divide on the political spectrum. Indeed, former Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has said the formation of a centrist party is “highly likely”.

In Westminster, we have seen moderate Labour MPs become disassociated with their party since the return of the hard left under Jeremy Corbyn. We have also seen the alienation of more modern, pro-European Tories, by the Conservatives’ ‘Hard Brexit’ stance, and the recent rise of traditional Tory MPs such as Jacob Rees-Mogg.

An appetite for party alternatives is becoming apparent, and it stretches further than just parliament. The National Centre for Social Research found that, on average, more than 56% of the British public do not feel as though any mainstream political party represents the views of people like them.

 

So, what does a centrist party look like, and what stance has this particular centrist party decided to take?

The idea of a centrist position is that it draws from both right and left politics. Emmanuel Macron, the French president, made a successful ‘centrist snatch’ last year, and is now 11 months into his presidency. His policies aim to establish France as more business-friendly and self-sufficient, but they also aim to deconstruct the “French social model” that leads young people and ethnic minorities into historically high unemployment. His ideology prioritises both economic and social issues.

French President Emmanuel Macron (Source: NDTV)

In the UK, the Conservatives are far more orientated towards the economy, just as Labour are far more oriented towards social justice. There is little room for compromise.

This new centrist party has been defined by the following stances in The Observer:

  • Higher taxes on the rich
  • Tighter controls on immigration
  • More funding to the NHS
  • Improved social mobility
  • A focus on wealth creation and entrepreneurship
  • All potential candidates to sign strict term limits, preventing MPs from remaining safe in their seats for decades
  • It has also been said by one source that Brexit supporters are involved with the party

Their stances suggest that they are playing to a more centre-left audience. There seems to be a consensus that future candidates for the party will run in the 2022 election, and that the party will be formerly established later this year.

 

Those hoping for a new centrist party in Britain shouldn’t hold their breath

by Alex Davenport

On the surface, it seems like there is potential for this as yet nameless centrist party to make inroads into British politics. Indeed, some polling may suggest there is a demand among voters for a new party in the centre ground. A ComRes poll on the eve of last year’s general election found that 45% of respondents were in favour of the idea of a new centre party being formed. Meanwhile surveys consistently show both Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May languishing in the negatives with regard to approval ratings. It seems intuitive that with Labour and the Conservatives moving ideologically further apart, each with an unpopular leader at the helm, would be the best time for a party to spring up in between them and win voters from both.

The party could also take confidence from the success of Emmanuel Macron and his République En Marche (REM) party in France. The newly-formed liberal party led by Macron, a former cabinet minister for the Socialist Party, won both the presidency and a substantial majority in the French legislature. Much of their success was founded upon the electoral coalition they built, uniting young, liberal-minded voters and more affluent members of the middle class with their mix of socially progressive and economically pro-free market policies. This is the kind of broad appeal the British centrist party will hope to have when it starts putting candidates forward.

Yet there are several serious hurdles for this new party to overcome if it is to have success comparable in any way to Macron and REM. For one, the British electoral system makes it particularly hard for new parties to succeed. Our ‘first-past-the-post’ system is arranged so that whichever party wins the most votes in a particular seat automatically wins the seat, regardless of how much they win by or by how popular the party is outside the seat in question. This means that a party needs to build up a strong concentration of voters in specific regions to stand a chance of winning seats. A party that receives, say, 20% of the vote across the country may in theory not win a single seat if its support is distributed so equally across the country that it does not translate into success is any one constituency.

It seems unlikely that Franks’ centrist party would be able to – out of nowhere – win such strongly localised support bases that they genuinely challenge Labour and the Tories in specific seats, and would instead be likely to suffer at best a series of unhelpful second- and third-placed finishes with precious few actual victories to their name. Critics of Franks’ project point to the Social Democratic Party of the 1980s as an example of this: when four senior Labour politicians broke away from the party to form a liberal alliance, they took only 23 seats despite netting millions of votes in 1983’s general election.

Also, the evidence that there really is demand for a centre party is somewhat dubious. While polls may suggest that voters think it is a good idea to have a centre party, sometimes it is better to go on what people do than what they say. At the 2017 election, the proportion of voters supporting one of the two main parties was at its highest in a generation, with Labour and the Conservatives’ combined share of the vote reaching 82%. The main centrist alternative, the Liberal Democrats, won only 7.4% in comparison. Seen in this way, the British public do not seem desperate for alternatives to the two main parties, including those in the centre ground.

The ‘Lib Dem fightback’ failed to materialise for Tim Farron’s party in 2017 (Source: BBC)

This is not to say that Franks’ party is doomed to fail. If politics has taught us anything over the past few years, it is that we should never be too bold in our predictions. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a new party could change the status quo in one way or another. Even if this new party struggles to win any seats, it may succeed in setting the agenda and dominating the discussion on certain issues, as UKIP did so effectively on immigration and the European Union. Yet posing a genuine challenge to the big beasts of British politics is easier said than done.

Virgil Abloh at Louis Vuitton: Why he’s not the answer to racism and diversity in the fashion industry

Common Sense Contributors
-
5

By Tanya Mwamuka.

If you are as enthusiastic as I am about fashion there is no doubt you would have heard Louis Vuitton’s newest appointment; Ghanaian- American Designer, Virgil Abloh. Abloh has been was announced as the French luxury house’s newest artistic director for their menswear. Abloh’s first show is set to take place this June at Paris Fashion week.

So who is Abloh and what are his credentials? Abloh has been known for his unusual take on high fashion, marrying it well with street wear and urban culture. The 37 year old started on a very different pathway, receiving an undergraduate in Civil Engineering and a masters in Architecture. Alongside friend and rapper Kanye West, he began his career in fashion, interning at Italian fashion house Fendi. In 2011 Abloh held the role of art director for Jay-Z and Kanye West’s album Watch the Throne which he was subsequently nominated a grammy for. Shortly after in 2013, he launched Pyrex Vision, which brought him into the spotlight. Pyrex blended in the mass of streetwear brands, only distinguishing itself due to it being worn by celebrities such as Kanye West, Jay Z and Asap Rocky.

Pyrex Vision shorts Image courtesy of Highsnobiety Shoots

Pyrex Vision was quickly discontinued after one year despite its success, and his high end Milan based brand Off White was then born. Off White, being a hybrid brand, provided streetwear attire for both men and women with luxury price tags. At first it seemed to be a regurgitation of Pyrex with a different name, but with refinement year after year it gained respect amongst the luxury community, establishing Abloh as a serious designer.

Image: Off White AW17/18 collection

But has Abloh’s appointment changed inclusivity and diversity within the fashion industry? The fashion industry has much to say about this appointment, Edward Enninful amongst them noting “His appointment is a step in the right direction for diversity, as well exciting creative movement for the industry”. Much like the use of more inclusive models, there also seems to be a domino affect of people of colour gaining artistic control. This was recently ignited by the appointment of Enninful as Editor and Chief of British Vogue last August.

Edward Enninful

It’s easy to think that Abloh’s new position has solved the epidemic of racism within the industry but that simply isn’t true. The issue with labelling appointments like Abloh’s or Enninful as ”progressive” or “revolutionising” is that they hardly make a dent in actually solving these issues. The infrastructure of fashion is set-up to promote exclusivity and with the little bit of black influence whitewashed to fit what the industry sees as suitable. So instead of the industry delving deeper into the structure which fuels this, creatives like Abloh are used as front men. The industry appears progressive when really nothing is. In some ways this is almost comparable to Barack Obama’s win of the presidential elections. Many spoke of America entering a “post- racial” era, which is laughable when you consider the events which unfolded, showing it is in fact a polar opposite.

The real impact of Abloh’s new role: 

Yes, putting black creatives in artistic control is definitely a positive, but it’s p only scratching the surface in solving the racial issues and lack of diversity that persist. Fashion houses, influencers and creatives in power need to do better and be made accountable if we are to see real change. Abloh’s appointment as a way of resolving this has been very much exaggerated and if anything, Virgil’s streetwear background is the real reason, for me at least, which makes his appointment revolutionising.

His unique hybrid approach to design has opened the doors of luxury to a generation who have always felt alienated by its impenetrability. To think, Abloh has no formal fashion training, yet the king of collaborations has superseded anyone’s expectations. It’s no doubt that his quick rise to fame and influence in the industry is deserving for his new post. Congratulations Virgil, you truly have done something incredible.

 

Tanya is currently studying Biomedical Sciences at the University of Manchester and hopes to get into science journalism and media after completing her degree. She loves fashion and travelling and enjoys learning languages in her spare time; she’s currently learning French.

Champions League Round-Up

Common Sense Contributors
-
0

By James Miller

The fight to be amongst Europe’s finest four began on Tuesday night. After two days of quarter-final first leg games, Spain is in prime position to have at least two Champions League semi-final participants. This coming after some good performances by the Primera Division’s remaining teams.

Prior to the quarter-finals, three major Premier League sides suffered defeat, leaving only two to battle on. After Liverpool drew Manchester City, Spain’s remaining sides all avoided any possible meeting. The initiative was left for the Spaniards to firmly stamp their authority on European football’s finest competition.

On Tuesday night, the current holders Real Madrid haunted last season’s beaten finalists Juventus once more. Current Serie A leaders Juventus were set up against it after conceding early to that man, Cristiano Ronaldo. The Italians attempted to get back in the game but the class of ‘Ronnie’ prevailed. Ronaldo’s second goal was nothing short of world-class. It was purely delightful. So much so that Juventus’ fans stood and applauded.

 

At this point, Real Madrid were in firm control. However,  Juventus’ luck began to dissipate further, when Argentinian Paulo Dybala was sent for an early shower. The forward picked up his second bookable offence, leaving his teammates in all sorts of trouble. So soon after seeing his team concede their second, a moment of loose thoughts and the tie was almost out of distance. Even more so when Marcelo give Madrid a third away goal. Dybala, a hero of the last European Showdown against Spurs, quickly turned zero. All in all, this fixture proved to be another splendid Champions League performance from Ronaldo. Did you expect anything else?

More Sevilla misfortune

On Tuesday night, another Spanish side took to the quarter-final stage of the Champions League. For the first time in the club’s history, had Sevilla reached the last eight. They welcomed German champions, Bayern Munich. Pablo Sarabia (the eventual Man of the match) initially gave the hosts the lead. The Spaniard missed a glorious chance prior to his actual goal but made no mistake after when he beat Juan Bernat to a cross by Escudero. A goal up, with things going well. Just five minutes later though, Jesus Navas deflected a Franck Ribéry cross past his own keeper meaning it was level at halftime. Sevilla may well have taken the lead again but for some great last-minute defending by Javi Martinez, just after halftime.

Bayern let their quality show, they took the lead in the second half with 68 minutes on the clock. It was Thiago Alcantara with the goal. The midfield man was in the right place at the right time. He got on the end of Ribéry’s cross managing to nod it down to make it 2-1. Another deflection, in off the keeper’s legs. Not that it will matter for Munich, who now have two vital away goals. Sevilla had chances to get something. Notably when Everton loanee, Sandro Ramírez called Sven Ulreich into action late on, but the side placed 7th in Spain’s top league fell short. When you consider mind that they are up against the runaway Bundesliga leaders, it is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.

https://twitter.com/iamnzonzi15/status/981290348491235328

Barcelona at Roma: Usual Business

Barcelona beat Italian side Roma 4-1 Wednesday evening. In truth, Barcelona weren’t as good as the scoreline suggests. There was a lack of rhythm that may well in the future, cost them. Luck favoured them on this occasion though. Especially, after early Roma penalty appeals were waved away. Then, without a goal scorer on the scoresheet, they found themselves 2-0 to the good. Two own goals, one just before and not long after halftime. Not what Roma will have been hoping for and Pique soon made matter worse tucking home from close range just before the hour mark. A commanding lead at this stage for Barcelona. In-form striker Edin Dzeko attempted to shed some light on Roma’s situation. The Bosnian striker pulled back an away goal, in the 80th minute. It wasn’t Roma’s only chance though, it was a game of chances to be honest Diego Perrotti missing a good headed opportunity early in the second half springs to mind but Barcelona had the more clinical edge. World class players. A man who had yet to score for Barcelona in the Champions League this season, Luis Suarez. He notched his first in the competition to round it off for a 4-1. The Uruguayan had previously seen an effort ruled out for offside seven minutes in.

Clenched fists & Jubilation amongst the Barcelona crowd as Suarez secures their fourth goal. (Image: Reuters)

An unlikely British saviour?

After finishing 4th last season, Jurgen Klopp’s side initially had to qualify at the expense of Portuguese side, Porto. Since then, the Reds’ ruthlessly dispatched fellow Premier League side, Man City. In what was a battle between the last of the British sides. Liverpool’s energy and sharp pressing, followed by counter-attacking play, caused Pep Guardiola’s soon to be English Champions all sorts of problems. Top scorers on Europe’s main stage this season so far, Liverpool went into the game with a total of 28 goals. At halftime, it was 31. The three goals came from the magnificent Mohamed Salah, Sadio Mane and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain. The latter’s goal was a screamer that two keepers couldn’t have saved. An outstanding first-half display put Klopp’s men in cruise control. It was then more of a professional performance during the second half. They successfully shut down Man City. A team who has obliterated many defences this season were left without a shot on target for the first time since 2016. Liverpool’s keeper Lloris will have been in the spotlight pre-match, but he was a mere bystander.

 

Coming of age?

In what was a magnificent display in front of a packed out Anfield, creating an unbelievable buzz. It was one of their own who really caught the eye. Young English right back Trent Alexander-Arnold, was sublime. Nothing short of outstanding. A player that had come under criticism just days ago after struggling to cope with Wilfried Zaha. He left that in the past, not allowing Leroy Sane a chance at goal. Brought through the Academy and given the trust of the manager, he certainly repaid it with a mature performance. Outstanding. Often defenders don’t receive the credit, especially when there is a 38-goal winger on the side, but the way Alexander-Arnold shrugged of a torrid first half Saturday, could simply not go under the radar.

 

Quarterfinal round-up in full:

Tuesday 03/04/2018
Juventus 0-3 Real Madrid
Sevilla 1-2 Bayern Munich

Wednesday 04/04/2018
Barcelona 4-1 Roma
Liverpool 3-0 Manchester City

The first leg of the Champions League quarter-final stage is complete. The second leg will be decided over the course of April 10th and 11th next week. Who do you think will advance?

Saudi Anti-corruption Purge Reaps Rewards For The Kingdom

Uwais Ilyas
-
2
Saudi Anti-corruption Purge Reaps Rewards For The Kingdom

Crown prince Mohammad bin Salman, (or MbS as he is commonly referred in the west), began an anti- corruption crackdown in November 2017 that imprisoned many of the Royal Family and others of the Kingdom’s (Saudi’s) elite within the gilded confines of the Ritz-Carlton near Riyadh. Since then, billions of dollars of reportedly “dirty” money and assets have been seized by the Kingdom.

 

Questionble motives

It was a bold move that propelled MbS further into the spotlight of the western media, leading many to  question his motives. So far there have been three widely posited reasons behind the arrests: there are those who see it as a legitimate move to increase transparency in the notoriously opaque financial dealings of the Kingdom’s elite. Others see it as an attempt by the crown prince to drum up desperately needed funding to further his revolutionary “Vision 2030”. Further, there are those who highlight that the move led to the combination of the kingdom’s security forces under the crown prince’s sole control, effectively making him the most powerful man in Saudi Arabia since his grandfather, the first King ibn Saud- a perfect motive.

 

The Crackdown: 381 arrests, 400 billion Saudi Riyals seized

Sheikh Saud al-Mojeb, Saudi attorney general and member of the newly formed supreme anti-corruption committee

Around 381 arrests starting in November 2017 included princes, businessmen and politicians and led to the freezing of over 2000 domestic accounts under allegations of bribery, money laundering and extortion. Member of the newly formed “Supreme Anti-corruption Committee”, Saudi Arabia’s attorney general: Sheikh Saud Al-Mojeb, speaking in January, announced that the three month long investigation was over. He went on to confirm that 400 billion Saudi Riyals had been “forfeited” by 325 individuals held at the Ritz-Carlton after examination of their assets by forensic accountants. The assets seized included real estate, cash, shares, securities and businesses. Many of those released were also asked to sign secret agreements with the royal family to secure their release.

 

Relationships Strained But Intact

Newly released billionaire and philanthropist Al-Waleed bin Talal

As of January 2018, 56 remain detained; being held and investigated  on graft charges. Of those released, perhaps the most well-known figure in the west is billionaire philanthropist Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. Amongst other interests, he is CEO and 95% share holder of Kingdom holding Company, a Forbes Global 2000 company, with investments in many large international companies covering a multitude of sectors. Al-Waleed has made a number of public statements emphatically denying all charges of corruption, he states that he is aligned with the government’s position against corruption and that there is no “bad-blood” between him and the crown-prince, his cousin. Many of those arrested were also related to the crown-prince, and echo al-Waleed’s sentiments regarding their relationship with the government. Prince Al-Waleed, released in January 2018, is widely regarded a moderate within the royal family and a strong proponent for many of the proposed reforms under Vision 2030. He has given interviews where he has stated that he was ordered to sign a secret agreement with the government to secure his release, but that there was no admission of guilt on his part regarding the allegations of corruption. He also denied paying billions to secure his release as others arrested at the same time as him were ordered to do.

 

The Economic And Social Repercussions

Vision 2030, the far-reaching and complex new direction for Saudi Arabia, revolutionary to the point of being dubbed the Saudi Arab Spring – image courtesy of Al Arabiya English

“Vision 2030” is a bold venture that would see the Kingdom dragged into the 21st century and has been announced as a cure to the Kingdom’s ‘addiction’ to oil. Non-oil revenues under Vision 2030 are targeted to hit around 600bn riyals (£120bn) by 2020 and 1trn riyals by 2030. However, in the month before the arrests, Saudi Arabia’s economy had been struggling, with unemployment rates rising and oil revenue forecasts looking worrying. The anti-corruption drive led by MbS has not only helped the coffers of the Kingdom, but the social fabric of the country seems to be strengthened by the apparent lack of tolerance toward corruption.

Many critics in the west have drawn parallels between MbS’ latest power move with those of Putin and his actions against russian oligarchs during his rise to power. However, many cite the fact that the money raised has bolstered MbS’ ability to deliver Vision 2030 (a highly progresssive agenda) as reason enough to allow tolerance for his boisterous use of state machinery. With the full consequences yet to play out, it’s not certain whether this gamble will pay off for MbS, though it certainly has done some good for the Kingdom as a whole both socially and economically.

Time For America to Drop Out of the Electoral College?

Alex Davenport
-
2
Time For America to Drop Out of the Electoral College?

What do Andrew Jackson, Samuel J. Tilden, Grover Cleveland, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton all have in common?  If you guessed that they all share the unfortunate fate of losing presidential elections despite winning the popular vote, you’d be absolutely right. There’s a fun piece of trivia to go and share with your friends, they’ll absolutely love it.

The five losing winners in clockwise order starting top left: Jackson, Tilden, Cleveland, Gore, Clinton (Source: NBC)

Under the country’s voting system, known as the Electoral College, voters do not directly vote for a president. Instead, each state is given a certain number of Electoral College ‘votes’, from 3 in sparsely-populated states such as Wyoming and Montana up to a mammoth 55 in California, with a total of 538 votes to be won.

Yet in all but two states (Maine and Nebraska, if anyone’s interested) these votes are won on a winner-takes-all basis, meaning that if you win fewer votes than your main rival in a specific state, no matter how close it is, you end up leaving that state with a big fat zero to your name. What this can mean, as Donald Trump showed in 2016, is that if your wins in key states come at fine margins, while in the states you lose, you lose heavily, you can win millions of votes less than your opponent and still take the presidency.

The Electoral College is certainly a divisive system, particularly in the context of the results of recent elections. One man can’t even make up his own mind about whether it is a “disaster for a democracy” or “genius”.

To a lot of Americans, and even more non-Americans, the idea of winning more votes than anyone else but still not winning the election seems patently ridiculous, since the whole point of an election is to let voters choose who wins. How can the winner not win? The unusual logic of the USA’s Electoral College system can rarely be seen in other walks of life: if England score more goals in a World Cup match than the team they are playing against, they are the winners of that match (unless the Russian government decides to tinker with the result – maybe it’s not so different from American elections after all…).

Now this objection to the Electoral College has taken on a legal basis, with a coalition taking four states (Massachusetts, California, South Carolina and Texas) to court over their winner-takes-all systems. The justification for these challenges is that the voting system denies Americans their constitutional rights of being equally represented, with some votes counting for more than others. For example, voters in a swing state with lots of electoral college votes have a much greater chance of influencing who gets to be president than voters in a tiny state which always votes for the same party.

For many, the main defence of the system is the argument that the country should not tamper with something designed by the Founding Fathers. The most obvious retort to this is that if everyone had stayed completely faithful to the Founding Fathers slavery would still be permitted, women would not have the vote, and near anyone would be allowed to carry guns around as they pleased (okay, bad example).

The Founding Fathers, designers of the USA’s unusual voting system (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Perhaps that is a bit unfair. The Founding Fathers’ original motivation for their voting system is understandable. In trying to build a stable political system, they needed to ensure the rights and independence of individual states were not trampled under a ‘tyranny of the majority’, instead allowing states to choose their leaders together. The problem is that their intentions have long been made redundant anyway. Under the original Electoral College, voters did not even vote on the president at all. Instead, they chose wise people representing their state to choose the president for them. But then pesky democracy came along and made sure these wise electors voted for the president they had been expressly instructed to by their voters. The electors now seem like a slightly pointless middleman, while even if states’ rights as a whole are protected they are at the expense of individuals who don’t back the winner in those states.

There is also the potential for things to go very wrong with the system depending on certain outcomes. For example, what if a genuinely popular and influential third-party candidate (not you, Gary Johnson) came along? Such a candidate winning even a handful of states in a close race could result in deadlock, with nobody getting the 270 College votes needed to win. In such a case, the Senate would decide who wins without any recourse to the will of the people – surely not a satisfying outcome for democracy.

It would be surprising if the legal challenges turn out to be successful. Either way, though, maybe it is time for the USA to abandon its historical anomaly of a voting system.

Shooting at YouTube HQ – Massacre after Massacre. Will things ever change in America?

Mike Omoniyi
-
4
Shooting at YouTube HQ – Massacre after Massacre. Will things ever change in America?

You probably opened this article with a healthy level of cynicism; this is, after all, not the first time you’ve heard about a mass shooting in America. In fact, if you pay close attention, they happen every day. The New York Times reports that serious shootings happen in America on average more than once a day. That is how often shootings that leave four or more people wounded or dead occur in the United States, according to a compilation of statistics. The shooting at YouTube HQ yesterday was, therefore, the latest instalment in a sequence of mass shootings that have become all too common in the USA. This came days after one of the largest national campaigns ever for gun control which begs the question – are we on the brink of change regarding gun law in America?

A Crisis At YouTube

Yesterday’s shooting took place at a beacon of American industry and ingenuity. YouTube’s office in Silicon Valley, better known for wide-open spaces and creative designs, is now an active crime scene. Police have named the suspect as Nasim Aghdam, 39, and say they are still investigating a motive.

The suspect is reported to have approached an outdoor patio and dining area at the offices in San Bruno, near San Francisco, at about lunchtime and opened fire with a handgun.

San Bruno Police Chief Ed Barberini said officers arrived at the offices at 12:48 (19:48 GMT) local time to find a “chaotic scene,’ with numerous people fleeing.

Images broadcast on local TV stations showed employees leaving with their hands raised. Other footage showed evacuees forming a queue before being individually frisked by police.

YouTube product manager Todd Sherman reported live on Twitter of people fleeing the building in panic as the shooting unfolded.

The three people wounded in the attack were taken to Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. Officials said a 32-year-old woman’s condition was serious, while a 27-year-old’s condition was fair. A fourth person was also taken to hospital with an ankle injury sustained while trying to escape, Mr Barberini said.

Have I read this before?

If all of this sounds familiar, it’s because it is. Shootings are common in America and a contentious gun debate has been raging for many years. Like any subject that weaves its way around corpses, gun control discussions easily ignite the worst parts of us. Whether it’s a descent into name-calling, insults, ad hominems and similar lazy, childish tactics, or a dismissal of anyone other than those on “our” side, attempts at objectivity are often scarce. However, many of us, including myself, are in the advantageous position of ignorance: it is advantageous since it means we have no excuse not to encounter and contemplate the best arguments on both “sides” of the debate.

Gun picture stats – Sources: 1. CIA World Fact Book 2. UNODC 2012 3. Small Arms Survey 4. Everytown Research (as of 11 November 2015) 5. Gun Violence Archive 6. Home Office, Police Scotland.

Those that support gun ownership often advance the argument that if that only “good” people acquired guns, were well-trained, and were regularly checked up on by independent bodies (the same way we are tested for drivers, for example) there would be few problems with gun ownership. These people use guns responsibly and it sits well within their constitutional rights (more on this later). But, this argument is merely a chimaera. It is not remotely close to the state of affairs in the USA. Mass shootings are on the increase, gun show loopholes are growing and the refusal to implement greater background checks means that situations are far from ideal.  The problem is deciding who should and should not own guns: the kind of universal liberty that gun owners claim to support would be undermined if the state picked and chose exactly who was eligible for gun ownership. This is not to mention the fact that even “good” people can become enraged, drunk, and out of control, and easy access to a gun can escalate a mere drunken brawl to the kind of murder spree we have seen in recent years.

A spectator into American democracy might be wondering why things haven’t changed despite obvious and solvable problems in the current system.

Since the public want change, why don’t things change?

Public outcry over these issues is certainly not new. However, there has been renewed vigour over old campaigns and momentum seems to be on the side of those lobbying for change.

Polling indicates that public support for such a move is at its highest point in two decades – although Republican support is soft, making an act of Congress less likely.

March for our lives

Just five weeks ago, a gunman killed 17 of their friends and teachers at school and changed the course of their lives. In the wake of this, the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School led a historic march for gun control, what they called a March for Our Lives.

A GoFundMe campaign to support the rally raised more than $1.7 million in three days on top of $2 million in private donations from Hollywood personalities including George and Amal Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg. A few days later, more than 42,000 people had donated nearly $3.5 million to the online fundraiser.

More than 800 groups marched in cities across the US and internationally, including in London, Madrid, Rome and Tokyo.

You’d be forgiven for thinking such widespread support for gun control should lead to change – isn’t that the crucial hallmark of a good democracy? One that changes when, the values and the opinions of members in demos change? Well you are wrong.

If we look at the facts and public opinion, the direction America should move in is clear. However, it is important to note that facts don’t line the pockets of local senators, the NRA does.

The NRA

NRA stands for National Rifle Association. The group was founded in 1871 as a recreational group designed to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis”.

These days they are better known by the left as the authors of everything evil or as a “domestic terrorist organization.” In October, actor Lucas Neff of the Fox sitcom “Raising Hope” tweeted that the NRA was a “domestic terrorist organization,” following a shooting at an Oregon community college.

In 1975, it began attempting to influence policy directly via a newly formed lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. In 1977, it formed its own Political Action Committee (PAC), to channel funds to legislators.

The NRA spends about $250m per year, far more than all the country’s gun control advocacy groups put together. But the NRA has a much larger membership than any of those groups and disburses funds for things such as gun ranges and educational programmes.

The NRA has lobbied heavily against all forms of gun control and argued aggressively that more guns make the country safer. It relies on, and staunchly defends, a disputed interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which it argues gives US citizens the rights to bear arms.

It vociferously opposes most local, state and federal legislation that would restrict gun ownership. For example, the NRA recently has lobbied for guns confiscated by the police to be resold, arguing that destroying the weapons is, in effect, a waste of perfectly good guns.

Likewise, it strongly supports legislation that expands gun rights such as “open-carry” laws, which allow gun owners to carry their weapons, unconcealed, in most public places.

The Constitution

The Second Amendment has become a badge and bumper sticker, a shield for gun activists and scripture for much of the American right. But like other cherished texts, it is not as clear as many make it out to be.

This right is inherited from the militias who rebelled against the British during the American Revolution of 1776, and it allows Americans to own and use a firearm to this day

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is this that gun supporters argue gives them an inalienable and undeniable right to own firearms.

However it is worth considering the context of this section of the constitution. The Founding Fathers wanted to protect their newly independent nation from the tyrannical rule of the ‘old world’. With the constitution in one hand and a rifle in the other, pioneers claimed the Wild West, and a new kind of citizenship was born.

This is a far cry from arguments advanced by gun advocates today. In fact, some gun rights campaigners go beyond the constitution, with former vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin stating on the campaign trail that “Jesus would fight for our Second Amendment”.

On the other hand, President Barack Obama has admitted that he views his failure to pass “common sense gun safety laws” as the greatest frustration of his time as president.

‘Times They Are a Changing’

The more cynical reader might look at the situation in America and deem it hopeless. They may argue that gun ownership is far too entrenched in the American identity to change and that any hope that things may change is nothing but false. To those people, I might offer a statement made by then-presidential candidate Obama on the campaign trail: “In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.” The truth is that those who want regulation in the form of common sense background checks have a fight on their hands. Whilst legislators may be too stiff-necked to change, the March For Our Lives campaign showed thousands of young people, personally affected by gun violence and aware of the ills that exist in the system. These children will be legislators, senators, campaigners in the future. This means the NRA may slowly lose its grip on legislators and over time attitudes and values may change. Maybe the times ‘they are a-changing after all’.

Spurs Finally Break Curse at Stamford Bridge

Common Sense Contributors
-
0

By Jireh Antwi

The April’s fools Premier League Game between Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur at Stamford Bridge ended 3-1.  What looked to be another Chelsea victory halfway through the first half, quickly turned around to be an awakening call for possibly the new best team in London being Spurs.

Chelsea took the lead with a goal from Morata as Victor Mosses with time and space whipped in the ball that went over Hugo Lloris’ hands and centre back Davidson Sanchez unto Morata‘s head and into the back of the net. This makes Morata the player with the most goals scored from headers this season with a tally of 7.

 

Eriksen’s strike to equal the scores is a contender for goal of the season, from first glances it seemed to be placed into the top corner, however, it actually went over Willy Caballero swerving and dipping. Upon refl he should have done a lot better in hindsight. It came from a poor clearance from Victor Moses as he tried to be too clever, allowing Davies to pass the ball inwards to Eriksson who was just outside the box. 

Eriksen celebrates his goal to level the scores – Photograph: Glyn Kirk/AFP/Getty Images

The game in the second half was an amazing watch for a neutral fan as Spurs upped the intensity and were relatively quickly rewarded.  Dele Alli scored 2 in 4 minutes (62nd and 66th minute) to seals Chelsea fate. His first goal was truly a beauty, with a long ball pass between 2 centre backs from Eric Dier in his own half, you would have thought what could Alli do there? Well frankly with a worldly first touch and a quick strike into the goal it was a spectacle to behold with a celebration in front of the Chelsea fans to go along with it. His second goal showed composure as he picked his shot and placed it into the net coming from a couple of deflections from Caballero against Son’s strike who was able to get past Marcos Alonso to be through on goal. With now a 100 premier league games under Dele Alli’s belt he’s managed to score 36 goals and 25 assists.

Dele Alli celebrating his wonderful first goal putting Spurs – Photograph: Glyn Kirk/AFP/Getty Images

Surely questions about him being out of the England starting eleven will be more pressed. And his critics would have to be silent. Comparable to the player who’s keeping him out at the moment Jesse Lingard who is also on form at the moment, who would be better for England in the summer?

 Antiono Conte from the touchline giving out his instructions – REUTERS  

All the records Chelsea once had, have been broken under Conte – Tottenham hadn’t won a game at Stamford bridge in 28 years, Manchester United hadn’t won in 5 years against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, nor had Lukaku and Messi ever scored against Chelsea.

It is clear that Chelsea are desperately missing the defensive influence of David Luiz, who still seems to be out of favour with the Chelsea Manager. With Christensen frequently making more mistakes as time passes it might better suit him to have a rest and work on the mental side of his game since he is still a fairly young player with great potential which he’s already showing.

Conte’s late substitutions of forwards Olivier Giroud and Hudson-Odoi also seemed indicative of someone who’s not interested in attempting to look like he wanted to win the game or keep the fans happy. There are several rumours that he’s ready to go back to Italy to be with his family so possibly his decisions have been influenced as such. Although the blame can’t all be put on him as he made it very clear that he needed more players and depth to his team to maintain their winning ways but the boards reluctance to allocate such funds and support were not enough for Conte’s standards and in turn Chelsea standard. Furthermore, it’s becoming more apparent that transfers aren’t actually discussed with him nor does he get an influential say.

Now Chelsea’s chance of ending in the top 4 and securing a Champions League place is hanging in the balance with being 8 points from fourth which Tottenham Hotspur now occupy.  It looks like a rebuild of the Chelsea team is needed or at least they power through the remainder of their matches otherwise the Europa league could be knocking on their door by the end of the season.

 

Joshua Vs Wilder: Time to be Undisputed

Common Sense Contributors
-
6

By James Miller.

The battle for bragging rights in Boxing’s heavyweight division is firmly on after Anthony Joshua was victorious once more in Cardiff at the Principality Stadium. In doing so, Joshua extending his record to 21-0. Saturday night, British sensation Joshua went the distance for the first time in his career as he beat Joseph Parker via unanimous decision inflicting on the Samoan-New Zealander his first defeat, whilst also adding the WBO world heavyweight title to his collection. Joshua known as ‘AJ’ unified the division, now leaving him in possession of three major world titles out of four. He currently holds the WBA, IBF AND WBO world titles. The quest now will be to become undisputed world heavyweight champion. The man in his way… Deontay Wilder.

The American Wilder holds the final piece that Joshua will be looking to add. The WBC world heavyweight championship. Speculation over a potential bout for the titles has been lingering for a while now and it certainly intensified after Joshua claimed in a post-fight interview Saturday night, “Get him in the ring and I knock him spark out” referring to Wilder. Both teams have seemed to indicate in the past that they feel their potential opponent is trying to avoid the fight. Joshua’s promoter Eddie Hearn, accused Wilder of ‘not wanting it’. While in a video back in November 2017 of Wilder addressing Joshua, he questioned whether there was a hidden agenda on the Watford man’s part. Although now however, it does look like the talking may soon stop after the American confirmed he accepts the challenge put forward to him by ‘AJ’ Saturday night.

They will each be eager to prove that they are the best. Obviously, both fighters will still have years left in the ring but a loss for either could be a huge setback, with the looser being left empty handed. The heavyweight division is reaching its most exciting times in recent years, neither will want to be left red faced with a chance for substantial glory.
This is definitely the fight that will be the main talk in the upcoming months, but it is certainly far from a sealed deal. The financial aspects of course must be agreed but there could still be other complications regarding other possible fights. There are of course question marks as to whether Dillian Whyte might be made a mandatory for Wilder to defend his title against. Just last week Whyte claimed a brutal knockout victory over Lucas Browne, he then went on to send a message to the WBC world heavyweight champion in stunning fashion. Whyte was clearly hyped up after his emphatic win as he screamed, “I’m ready, let’s get it. Deontay, let’s go, no more excuses. Forget Joshua, Joshua’s not going to be ready in time. Let’s do this. June, live at The O2, let’s get it. I’m No 1 baby. Let’s go, let’s go.

A week is a long time though in the business industry and yesterday Whyte took to social media to suggest that he is now highly interested in a potential fight with Alexander Povetkin, which could open the door for Joshua to face Wilder. The Russian was also in action Saturday night on the undercard of Joshua against Parker, as he claimed a knockout victory over David Price in the 5th round. Povetkin was rather comfortable in his battle against the colossus Price, outclassing the lethargic scouser in truth. If Whyte could put in a good performance against Povetkin, he would surely do his chances of a future world championship challenge no harm. The Russian’s only career loss to date came against the one of the greats; Ukrainian Wladimir Klitschko (the only man to knock down Joshua). It certainly would be a huge test for Whyte.

A King Returns

Another thing that may put the almost inevitable clash between the two champions on the backburner could be the return of the ‘Gypsy King’ Tyson Fury. Another man, eager to stake his claim as the best heavyweight on the planet. Known for his awkward approach, silky style and entertaining nature, Fury is yet to feature since he unified the division back in 2015 after beating Klitschko via unanimous decision. Fury who stands at a massive height of 6’9, was banned due to testing positive for elevated levels of nandrolone in February 2015. He voluntarily vacated his titles in 2016, turning his attention to his own personal recovery after a tough time suffering from mental illness. He said at the time the decision to vacate was “only fair and right”. It had seemed that maybe Fury may not return at all but that has now been put to bed after he announced via Instagram back in October 2017 that he was coming back for the ‘Bronze Bomber’ Wilder and Joshua. The Mancunian accepted a back dated 2-year doping ban, leaving him free to resume his return to the ring. Providing he was successful in regaining his boxing licence, which he was. Since then, the attention has really turned to his physical state after he was pictured alongside former Boxer Ricky Hatton, in what has to be described as a poor condition. However, Fury has been working vigorously to step up his attempts to prove himself as the best again. The ‘Gypsy King’ is certainly confident of his chances ahead of his return and is out for a fight with Joshua or Wilder himself.

Tyson Fury (left) is dedicating himself to getting back in fighting shape as he looks to make a comeback. (Source: @gypsyking101/Instagram)

The next few months promise to be intriguing, as negotiations for heavyweight fights continue. Will the fight to become undisputed world champion be next for Joshua, what do you think?

 

James is a sports enthusiast from Teesside, who is currently studying sports journalism in Manchester at UCFB. He has a fond interest of sports, and music. James enjoys discussing varied opinions and trying to understand different interpretations. He currently writes as a Journalist for TCS Scribe.

Twitter: @_JimmyMiller

Languages Post-Brexit: Are We Très Screwed?

Common Sense Contributors
-
1
Languages Post-Brexit: Are We Très Screwed?

by Oli Dixon

In May 2000, a report published by the Nuffield Foundation condemned Brits for their ‘deplorable monolingualism’, whilst also claiming that our approach to language learning would require a major overhaul if we were to change this.

Just eighteen years later and, for want of a better expression, we’re just as shit at languages as we’ve always been. Well, to be brutally honest, we might actually be a bit worse now. For in spite of the British Council’s not-so-rousing call-to-arms that we should all make learning a new language our New Year’s Resolution, entries to Modern Foreign Languages degree courses have dropped 15% in the last decade alone and there are now approximately 100,000 fewer GCSEs taken in languages than in 2005.

But with the seemingly inevitable withdrawal from the Single Market threatening us with having to go out and fend for ourselves in the big wide world, the discussions surrounding our ongoing linguistic incompetence have been cast under a far more serious light. Why are we so bad at languages? And is our complete lack of language competency actually going to become a real cause for concern? Given that you’re reading an article written by a current languages student, you’re probably thinking that you’ve got yourself in for your daily dose of ‘Brexit bashing’ and ‘snowflake doom and gloom’. Fortunately for all, I’m going to try and take a more nuanced stance than that. You know what? I reckon we might just be okay.

Warning: the following video is a very uncomfortable watch.

As I sat on the tram a few days ago heading into the Eastern German kindergarten where I’m working until August, I noticed the woman to my right cracking into a German grammar textbook on a freezing Monday morning. Talk about a grim way to kick off your week, right? But that’s not the point. In actual fact, instances like this are not all too uncommon in Germany at the moment. Because between 2011 and 2017­­, the country received more than 1.5 million first-time asylum requests, with a recent survey of refugees of the country suggesting that around 85% would like to stay indefinitely (thelocal.de). Translation = that’s a lot of people who need to learn German if they want to integrate well into their local societies.

Keeping this example in mind, I would argue that, fundamentally speaking, it is necessity that is the true mother of invention when it comes to learning languages. Because no matter how much we love to complain that we ‘just don’t get them’, being British doesn’t just make you inherently bad at learning languages – you can kid yourself all you want, but you weren’t destined to bottle your GCSE French listening at birth. Here’s a quick hypothetical scenario to add a bit of context: if WW3 were to break out and somehow force you to rebuild your life in Brazil, necessity would require you to improve your Portuguese, and I’m almost convinced you would do that, no matter how terrible you claimed to be at languages.

Now the last thing I want to do is to oversimplify what is, in reality, quite a complex subject – it’s crucial to realise that our national language shortcomings can’t just be pinned down to one single factor, and so we can’t just expect a single solution. There’s no doubt that, at least in relative terms, we fund languages less than many of our European neighbours, but no matter how much government money we blindly pump into backing language classes across the country starting from nursery, you can’t just ‘buy’ a generation of young Brits akin to the young Germans who learn English as avid fans of Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, and Sherlock. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure none of us have ever felt left out of a conversation at school for not being up-to-date on the latest episode of a German TV series. Let’s be honest, the closest most of us have been to German language exposure in our social lives was when people started adding subtitles to the Hitler rant scene from ‘Der Untergang’.

This video has without a doubt been huge in fostering German listening skills up and down the country.

 

So how does this all tie into language-learning Brits post-Brexit?
You see, while I don’t want to give the impression of enabling the annoying culture of defeatism that certainly contributes to our problem, we should equally recognise that there are valid reasons for our predicament. For in spite of the rise of Mandarin and it being better to sell in your customer’s language, English shows no signs of losing its place as the language of international relations and business. We may severely understate the benefits of language on a personal level (it’s really fun eavesdropping on people when they don’t think you can understand them), but the fact of the matter is that there haven’t been any burning economic/political motives for having lots of Brits capable of speaking lots of other languages for a very long time.

However, with ambiguous agreements looming and plenty of new deals to be made, it’s very foreseeable that we will need more and more British linguists. Concerns that polyglots are required imminently are very real and will have to go unanswered right now, but fears that we’re facing longer-term difficulties because of our linguistic incompetence are a step too far.

We might not be too great at languages right now – and the gestation period for a new generation of internationally mobile linguists is certainly not overnight – but with a well thought-out, well-funded, and multi-faceted approach that attempts to engage all levels of society, Britain could without doubt turn its ‘deplorable monolingualism’ around. One thing is clear though: this sort of dramatic change of fate will not just come about spontaneously; it will only happen if it is driven by real necessity. Though too much complacent self-righteousness is dangerous and insular, for the time being, it has to be said that our inbuilt mastery of the English language remains the ace up our sleeve at post-Brexit negotiation tables across the globe.

Let us know what your experiences with language learning are? Did you think your language lessons were notably worse than other lessons? What about the future? What do you think the best language would be to learn right now for British schoolchildren?

Oli is currently volunteering in a kindergarten in Eastern Germany as part of the third year of his Modern Languages degree at the University of Cambridge. In his free time, Oli is a keen sportsman – and especially loves football – but a lifetime of supporting England and Derby County has instilled within him a cautious pessimism. His wider interests are varied, spanning all the way from Music to Philosophy and Technology.

Did ‘Cheating’ Sway The Brexit Result?

Alex Davenport
-
0
Did ‘Cheating’ Sway The Brexit Result?

Allegations of misconduct during the European Union referendum campaign have been levelled at Vote Leave (the official campaign for leaving the EU). Whistleblowers Shahmir Sanni and Christopher Wylie have accused the organisation of breaching spending limits set under UK electoral law during the campaign by hiring a data analytics company with links to the controversial Cambridge Analytica.

For the referendum, the UK’s Electoral Commission imposed spending limits of £7 million on the official campaign groups for each side. However, other unofficial campaigns groups were also permitted to spend a further £700,000 on the condition that they did not directly co-operate with the official campaigns. Sanni has claimed that Vote Leave used this latter regulation as a loophole through which to exceed the £7 million limit, by channelling funds to an officially separate campaign group which in practice was under the control of Vote Leave.

Sanni was a leading member of the unofficial group in question, BeLeave, and was using it to target young, liberal-minded voters. According to him, Vote Leave received a donation of around £1 million late in the campaign, but it was of little use to the organisation, which had nearly reached its spending limits. Instead, he claims that the money was officially donated to BeLeave so it could still be used, but in fact Vote Leave leaders still controlled what was done with the money by spending it on employing Canadian analytics company AggregateIQ (AIQ). If true, this would represent a clear violation of the Electoral Commission’s regulation against co-operation; if BeLeave was truly independent, it would have been able to do what it pleased with the money.

To add to the controversy, Christopher Wylie, the former Cambridge Analytica employee who recently spoke out about the company’s activities, has told UK MPs of the link between Cambridge Analytica and AIQ. According to Wylie, AIQ was in essence a Canadian “franchise” of Cambridge Analytica, with both companies drawing upon the same databases when conducting their analyses. As a result, Wylie’s testimony threatens to implicate AIQ and by extension Vote Leave as being complicit in the kind of data harvesting of Facebook users’ profiles of which Cambridge Analytica stands accused. Wylie suggested AIQ may have used similar data to target “5 to 7 million people” who could be won over by the Leave campaign.

Both Wylie and Sanni have suggested that Vote Leave’s alleged misconduct could plausibly have altered the result of the EU referendum, with Wylie telling MPs that “I think it is completely reasonable to say there could have been a different outcome of the referendum had there not been, in my view, cheating”.

Whistleblowers Shahmir Sanni, left, and Christopher Wylie (Source: New Statesman)

Many pro-Remain figures have used these scandals to argue that the vote to leave the EU was invalid, and should be re-held. Gina Miller, the activist who led the legal challenge against Brexit being enacted without the approval of parliament, has written that if the referendum had been decided in a court of law, the recent revelations about the result would demand a retrial. Similarly, Labour MP Ben Bradshaw tweeted that the referendum result must now be called into question.

Leading members of Vote Leave, however, have protested their innocence and even poured scorn on the story. Dominic Cummings, the campaign director for Vote Leave, called Wylie a “fantasist-charlatan” and suggested his testimony changes every time he gives it. Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, meanwhile, have both denied their involvement in any misconduct and reaffirmed their beliefs that the referendum was won fairly and legally.

We are likely to gain a better idea of the truth of these explosive claims following the conclusion of an Electoral Commission investigation into them. If they do turn out to have any factual basis, though,  the fundamentals of British democracy may be called into question.

Blue Passports; an Icon of British Identity

Common Sense Contributors
-
1

By Dolline Mukui.

A deal is in the works for blue post-Brexit passports to be manufactured in France.

Gemalto, a franco-dutch firm will take on the £490m contract and according to the Home Office it will save taxpayers around £120m.

This is not Britain’s first blue passport; the first one was issued in the 1920’s whilst the burgundy passport was only issued in 1988. Some may say that Brexit simply represents the return of Britain to its own history and roots and so there needs to be a patriotic stance to signify this change. Brexiteers and Tory ministers have called for the blue comeback and that is what they are going to get. The blue and gold passports are therefore meant to convey Britain claim to their sovereignty.

Our current burgundy passports are issued by the British company De La Rue in Gateshead.

The chief executive of De La Rue has recently said ‘‘I’m going to have to go and face those workers, look at them in the whites of their eyes and try and explain to them why the British government thinks it’s a sensible decision to buy French passports not British passports.”

He also added “I would actually like to invite Theresa May or Amber Rudd to come to my factory and explain to my dedicated workforce why they think this is a sensible decision to offshore the manufacture of a British icon.”

If the passport is intended to translate that British people are powerful and taking control over their country without interference, then should Theresa May not make decisions that would affirm that to British nationals?  Simply stating that it’s saving taxpayers money, although it may be the truth, is deflects addressing the real problem people are considering. Is it not a contradiction at its very core to leave the EU yet become dependent on a service by a EU country that speaks to the very image of our ‘independence’.

Former cabinet minister, Priti Patel seems to agree with those who are shocked by the decision. She told The Sun “This should be a moment that we should be celebrating. The return of our iconic blue passport will re-establish the British identity…But to be putting the job in the hands of the French is simply astonishing. It is a national humiliation.”

A spokeswoman for the Home Office stated that “We are running a fair and open competition to ensure that the new contract delivers a high quality and secure product and offers the best value for money for customers.

She added “All passports will continue to be personalised with the holder’s details in the United Kingdom, meaning that no personal data will leave the UK.”

We have already seen a number of decisions that are questionable leading up to Brexit but we shouldn’t be shocked when more trade deals are presented.

The new passports will be issued from October 2019.

Dolline recently graduated with an MA in Broadcast Journalism. She is a ITV Breaking into News finalist whereby she reported on the Manchester Arena attack. Currently she is a voluntary co-host/contributor on show called a ‘Chat with Elle Celeste’. She also has a blog, where she talks about her life and travels.

Twitter: @ceraz_x

The Manchester United Conundrum

Common Sense Contributors
-
1

By Jireh Antwi

Two weeks ago Manchester United were knocked out of the Champions League at Old Trafford by Sevilla; a club that had never won a champions league game in England previously, with three draws and a defeat.   

With the first leg being a goalless draw, Sevilla were in the prime position to take the game at Old Trafford. It would have been a simple affair for United, if Sevilla hadn’t managed to score the first goal. Essentially meaning that United’s chances of progressing to quarterfinals became exceptionally slim. However, it got much worse than that for Mourinho’s men. Sevilla managed to score another goal in quick succession. Both goals came from Wissam Ben Yedder when he came on as a substitute at the 72nd minute mark. Two minutes later and United had conceded followed by a second goal which narrowly crossed the line coming from Yedder with a corner kick just 4 minutes later. Game over.

 

All throughout the game , Sevilla looked more in control.  When you’re away from home this is less likely to happen, but Sevilla dominated the midfield with Steven Nzonzi, Franco Vázquez and Éver Banega masking sure their team was always primed for a counter attack or given the final passes to allow their strikers to take shots on goal, on total they had 21 shots on goal and 6 on target compared to Manchester United’s 17 with 3 on target.  

Jose Mourinho’s tactics with his initial team selection seemed very off for a must win game. It was almost like he was overestimating his team’s abilities in seeing the game out. On paper, United line-up was very capable and initially, such a tactic was plausible. A similar line-up managed to secure a win against staunch rivals, Liverpool a few prior days to the Sevilla match. However, in this game the team selection already had fans screaming with despair. Mata, Pogba, Martial were all on the bench and the likes of Fellaini and Lingard in the midfield meant things didn’t pan out the way it should have. With no lack of pressure and initiative going forward, Sanchez constantly getting dispossessed, things became very frustrating, very quickly. With the only goal coming from Lukaku at the 84th minute, which was 12 minutes too late, United’s Champions League hopes faded away. 

Sevilla were arguably the weakest team in competition yet managed to partially dominate a team that has overwhelming quality in their squad and starting 11 and spent 300 million in transfer fees under Jose’s reigns. Jose’s 12-minute monologue after the game looked to be damage control as he referred to United’s lack of success in recent years as ‘Football heritage” that is making his role more difficult. Adding more salt to the wound, Jose reminded everyone that 

“ we were knocked out by a side that’s had more success in Europe than United”, continuing on to say that “several Sevilla players could play on his team and he cannot name them”.  (Source: Independent)

 

Even with the 2-0 win over Brighton in the FA Cup with goals from Lukaku and Matic, it seemed United’s performance didn’t scream dominance. Jose left the match very unhappy with how the team played, citing certain players and the training he went over 2 days prior to this match. Luke Shaw, being one of the players Jose was eluding to, came off at half-time and was substituted for a much older Ashley Young who doesn’t provide a vast amount of difference to Shaw. Jose Mourinho’s said “we didn’t play as I wanted them to play we didn’t play as I prepared the team to play”, “a few other guys I saw them scared to play. I cannot say much more. It is in relation with personality, is relation to trust”.   

How Jose can get the best out of his starting 11 and improve his individual players is yet to be seen. There’s several players that aren’t yet at the Manchester United quality, however, there’s a difference to what fans think those players are and what Jose Mourinho thinks those players are. Certain players are sure to feel the pressure and look for an exit to another club. Despite positive performances from United players on their international duties. The burden ensuring the Red Devils’ long-term progression still looms over Mourinho’s head.

I have a dream that enough is enough! – Yolanda King.

Emmabelle Nwadikwa
-
2
I have a dream that enough is enough! – Yolanda King.

Yolanda Renee King, the 9-year-old granddaughter of Martin Luther King jr took to the stage during the March for our Lives protest to speak out against gun violence in America. She surprised the crowd by coming out to deliver a speech amongst the students impacted by the constant gun violence and stood with Jaclyn Corin, a survivor of the Parkland shooting.

Yolanda Renee King speaks out at the March for Our Lives rally that took place in support of Gun control.

“I have a dream that enough is enough”

Her 2018 speech beautifully echoed what were arguably the most famous words spoken by her grandfather whilst also including a fantastic twist of her own. She said “My Grandfather had a dream that his four little children will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream that enough is enough and that this should be a gun free world, period.”

She then went on to encourage the crowd to join her in an affirmation as she exclaimed “Spread the word! Have you heard? All across the nation, we are going to be a great generation.” After making them repeat it as though they “really really” meant it, twice, she hugged Jacylyn and the two of them left the stage together. Yolanda wasn’t the only King family member there. Bernice King, activist and daughter of Martin Luther King shared posts of herself at the rally on social media, expressing that her niece “truly represented the King family.” The 9-year-old also expressed in an interview with CNN, alongside her father Martin Luther King III, that her school practices a variety of lockdown drills and that “it’s unfortunate that people have guns and they use them to hurt people”. Her speech can be watched here:

1...828384...91Page 83 of 91

Editor Picks

Must Read

Hot Topics

About Us

Our mission is to make democracy healthier by creating spaces for people who disagree to have fruitful dialogue.

Contact us: hello@tcsnetwork.co.uk

Follow Us

© Copyright - Newspaper theme by tagDiv