Thursday 25th September 2025
Blog Page 249

How did we get here? Democrats, political power, and the fight for American abortion rights

Lucas Haskins
-
0
How did we get here? Democrats, political power, and the fight for American abortion rights

On the 24th of June, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decisions which for half a century had guaranteed women in all 50 states the rights of full citizens. Also on the 24th of June, “Blessed by God” former Ohio State Senator, failed Democratic Congressional nominee, and bête noire of Twitter centrists, Nina Turner, had her priorities straight. She tweeted to her half a million followers: “F*** the Democratic fundraising emails that will come from this.” 

To be clear, it was the Republican Party and conservatives who spent 50 years building a legal infrastructure with the express purpose of overturning Roe. It was the Republican Party and conservatives who played a patient legislative game, incrementally advancing towards Dobbs at both the state and federal levels by way of waiting periods, ultrasounds, and propaganda coups like the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. And, ultimately, it was Senate Republicans who wielded power bestowed by a minority of voters to seize the court for a generation. Democrats, by contrast, are the party of choice; indeed support for abortion rights has become arguably the litmus test for a prospective candidate; a pro-life stance is largely disqualifying. The contrast, therefore, between the two could not be clearer. 

Yet whilst six unelected augurs wave their hammers, strip away rights, and gut the administrative state, Turner elects to attack Democrats. And the worst part is that she is not alone; not remotely. There is a video of two pro-choice protestors in which one says that “My rights should not be a fundraising point for them [Democrats]”. It has been viewed over six million times on Twitter. 

This article is intended as a defence of the institutional Democratic Party, which possesses a better record than is commonly thought, and an attack on the Republican Party; the real enemies, now and always. But, much more, this article is intended as a reminder: legislative action in a democracy is only achievable if there are enough motivated politicians to carry it out. Democrats are neither derelicting their duties to their female constituents, nor do they lack the motivation to protect abortion rights. The problem is that there are inadequate numbers of Democrats in the relevant institutions. The corrective for this is not to throw toys out of prams and abandon faith in America’s sole non-insane party; it is to get more Democrats into essential positions through the democratic process. 

In short: political power has limits, the only solution for which is more political power. 

There are a lot of critiques of Democrats, but the most substantive is neatly typified by #BernieSanders2020 National Press Secretary, Briahna Joy Gray. Gray, in response to Michelle Obama’s statement on the Dobbs decision, tweeted: “Ok, but why didn’t your husband codify Roe?” It is, ostensibly, a fair question. In its telling the Court returned the decision on abortion rights to the democratic process in the form of the states, but this could have been negated by federal legislation on abortion rights. So, why was no legislation forthcoming?

The observant reader will have noted the word “ostensibly”. In reality, there were real constraints on what Obama could have done vis-à-vis abortion, contraints which do not factor into the fantastical world occupied by Gray et. al. First of all, Democrats held unified control of government for just two years of Obama’s eight year presidency. Unless Gray imagines that Republicans could have been prevailed upon to back abortion rights under a Democratic President, the window for Roe codification was 2009-2011. The problem there is that in 2009, Democrats were not nearly as unanimously pro-choice as they are now. In fact, on the 10th of November that year, 64 House Democrats, along with every single Republican, voted in favour of an amendment that would have prevented federal dollars from financing abortion services as part of the (later defunct) public option of Obama’s signature healthcare proposal, thus closing a possible loophole in the Hyde Amendment. For reference, the current House Democratic majority is six. 

The story was the same in the Senate. Initially, Majority Leader Reid opposed the measure and sought to avoid its language appearing in the final bill. However, Senator Nelson demanded the inclusion of his own amendment with the language to the same effect as that which had cleared the House. Seven Democrats voted with Nelson against tabling (de facto against providing the abortion services). Most of those represented some of the reddest parts of America, places like Nebraska (Nelson’s state), and Arkansas (Mark Pryor – D). Sadly, American politics is not faithfully rendered in The West Wing and soaring rhetoric about liberty or equality breaks like a wave against reality. To put it a different way; if Senators really do not want to support something, they will not. 

Furthermore, as Joe Manchin has since very publicly proven, it is not possible for a Democratic President to exert political pressure on a conservative Democrat in conservative America. Indeed, attempts to do so often backfire. When Manchin killed Biden’s flagship domestic legislation, Build Back Better, his approval ratings in West Virginia jumped around 15 points. 

The bottom line is that anyone who argues that Obama could have codified Roe through federal legislation at any point during his presidency is either mendacious or poorly informed. It should also be noted that legislating takes a long time; the ACA (Obamacare) was not passed until March 2010. It was therefore necessary to prioritise during that Congress. In January 2009, Roe was not under any imminent threat; there was not a majority on the Court for overturning the decision and at any rate a Democrat, Obama, had the power to fill any vacancies for at least four years. Moreover, in 2009 the priority had to be the economy, then facing the worst downturn since the Great Depression. This is all to say that it would have been deranged had a freshly inaugurated Obama decided to expend his political capital on an almost certainly doomed fight to pass federal abortion legislation. It also goes almost without saying that if Congressional Democrats were too conservative in 2009 for national abortion legislation, then they were too conservative in 1993 when Bill Clinton held his ephemeral governing trifecta.  

In a dark and bitter irony, there was an opportunity to protect abortion rights; perhaps for a generation, perhaps even forever. It came and went in 2016. That February, trenchant, pearl-clutching Antonin Scalia, an associate justice of the Supreme Court with strong views on the “homosexual agenda”, died. Then-Republican Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, the most boring wrecker of democracy one can imagine, refused to confirm Obama’s compromise pick, Merrick Garland, refused even to grant Garland a hearing. This provoked volcanic Democratic anger; it shattered norms of propriety and deference to the executive on judicial nominees, and it did so on self-serving grounds that turned out to drip with hypocrisy. 

Unfortunately, McConnell’s actions were also entirely rational from a Republican perspective. Replacing Scalia would have shifted the court to the left, substituting a 5-4 conservative majority for a 5-4 liberal majority. Given the importance of the Court, particularly in the light of an ossifying legislature, McConnell recognised that norms mattered a whole lot less than power. He could block Garland, so he did.

There was, however, one flaw in McConnell’s obstructionist ploy. It was widely anticipated that Hillary Clinton would win the presidential election looming that November. It was also widely anticipated that a narrow Democratic Senate majority would sweep in on her coattails. In this scenario, McConnell’s brinkmanship would have achieved nothing except, arguably, radicalising the liberal stance on the judiciary. 

Regrettably, none of those things happened. Clinton underperformed her polls, most notably in three key rust belt states: Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The Democratic Senate nominees also underperformed in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, narrowly losing races they had been favoured to win. That night in November nearly six years ago, Roe was doomed. 

What makes reflections on that cycle taste quite so sour is that Clinton was very clear that abortion rights were on the ballot. She shot up warning flares all throughout 2016. She pointed out that the continuation of the uneasy Roe stasis depended on the Court not shifting further to the right. At the top of the other ticket, Trump likewise made no effort to disguise that the race was in large part about abortion. Quaintly, during his first run, Trump was not regarded as particularly conservative; he had previously held comparatively socially liberal views, and had been a registered Democrat between 2001 and 2009. Evangelicals therefore showed no great initial enthusiasm to back him in November, and without that constituency, no Republican nominee stands a chance. Tapping Mike Pence was part of the effort to woo Bible thumpers, but Scalia’s open seat was the real gift. 

Capitalising on the opportunity provided by a Court vacancy, Trump took the unusual step of releasing a list of prospective Supreme Court nominees, one part in May and another in September. The intention was to signal to movement conservatives that a Trump presidency would deliver for them on judges, specifically on judges opposed to Roe. In an October debate with Clinton, Trump actually said this part out loud: “Well, if we put another two or three justices on, that… [the end of Roe] will happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro-life justices on the court”. 

He was absolutely right. In their eight year presidencies, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton got two Supreme Court appointments each. In four years, Trump got three. In January 2017, he inherited an open seat, an 80 year-old Anthony Kennedy looking to retire, and an 83 year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a history of health problems, who ultimately passed away six weeks before Trump lost reelection. For these reasons, in the very plausible scenario in which Clinton won, the Supreme Court would likely be the precise inversion of its current iteration; 6-3 liberal, not 6-3 conservative. In such a world Roe would remain the law of the land, quite probably reinforced, and for the first time in decades rights would be broadly expanding rather than contracting.

2016 was a narrow race and in a narrow race one can point to any number of factors and claim that they were decisive; in a sense they all were. Perhaps Clinton lost because the Comey letter drove undecideds towards Trump, perhaps it was white non-college voters migrating from Obama to Trump, perhaps it was reduced African-American turnout, perhaps it was “Pokemon Go to the polls.” Honestly, it probably was not that; but it did merit electoral punishment. 

There was also another factor. 2016 was notable for an unusually high third party vote share. In 2012, Obama and Romney combined won 98.26% of the vote. For Clinton and Trump, the total was 94.27%. Trump’s share of the vote was 1.1% lower than Romney’s had been, and Clinton slipped 2.9% below Obama. The data is clear; in addition to voters switching from Obama to Trump, voters switched from Trump and Clinton to the Libertarian and Green parties. Jill Stein, the Green nominee, got 469,000 votes in 2012, and 1.46 million in 2016. This surge in Green support was driven by left-wing voters, many of whom had backed Sanders in the primary and were unwilling to vote for Clinton in the general election. 

In all three of the decisive states, the Green vote total alone was greater than Donald Trump’s margin of victory. In Michigan, Trump won by 10,704, Stein got 51,463 votes. In Pennsylvania, Trump won by 44,292, Stein got 49,941 votes. And, in Wisconsin, Trump won by 22,748, and Stein got 31,072 votes. 

It is quite hard to look at this, plus votes for the Libertarian, Gary Johnson, plus abstentions, and not at least to entertain the notion that unpragmatic voting by American leftists cost Clinton the election. Briahna Joy Gray, who as previously noted has been right in the trenches attacking her own party, voted for Jill Stein. In 2017, she tweeted: “@nprpolitics you guys are completely wrong re the importance of SCOTUS in support for HRC.” 

So, to recap: Gray supported Sanders in the primaries, did not support Clinton in the general despite Clinton’s focus on the Court, minimised the importance of the Court once Trump became President, and then, in a remarkable acrobatic feat, attacked institutional Democrats like Clinton for failing to prevent the predictable and predicted outcome of handing Republicans the presidency and the Senate. Briahna Joy Gray is, of course, an individual, and to cite her alone is irresponsible. Yet she functions very well as a case study; after all, in 2017 the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, published data showing that 12% of Sanders backers did not go on to vote for Clinton. That is 1.6 million ballots either not cast, or cast for Trump, Stein, or Johnson. 

This is not to exonerate Clinton. The former Secretary of State has been unflinching in her introspection. She wrote in the author’s note to What Happened, “I’ve tried to learn from my own mistakes[…]There are plenty[…]and they are mine and mine alone.” Nonetheless, the essential fact remains. There is a correlation between those who denied support to Clinton at what she clearly broadcast as the pivot point in the abortion struggle, and those who now blame and attack the Democrats for the Dobbs decision, and it is an infuriating correlation. 

If the end of Roe was locked in almost six years ago, one might reasonably ask how Democrats have prepared for this moment in the interim; they do technically control the legislature and the executive and have since January 2021. At this point, Nancy Pelosi is perhaps the most important figure to examine. 

Pelosi is the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Leader of the House Democratic Caucus. She is regularly excoriated by progressive media and Twitter circles, in addition of course to the entire American right. Consequently, her approval rating is – 12%. 

Pelosi is also the example par excellence of a bizarre phenomenon in American politics often satirised by the Twitter account “New York Times Pitchbot” in which equivalences get drawn, often by people on the left, between Democrats being cringe and Republicans being downright evil. Yes, Nancy Pelosi is cringe; no one can deny it. To mark the one year anniversary of the Jan 6th Insurrection, she introduced the cast of Hamilton to perform, quoting in the process the song, Dear Theodosia: “We’ll make it right for you. If we lay a strong enough foundation, we will pass it on to you, and we will give the world to you.”

This tiny, inconsequential absurdity was very widely reported, and much mockery ensued. In the process, a not insignificant number of people lost sight of the fact that one year previously American democracy came under siege, a siege aided and abetted by Congressional Republicans. 

A similar thing happened post-Dobbs. At her press-conference, Pelosi quoted from the Hebrew poem, I Have No Other Country, by Ehud Manor: “I have no other country even though my land is burning[…]I will not be silent because my country has changed her face. I shall not give up on her, I shall remind her and sing into her ears until she will open her eyes.” People were quick to jump on this; the critique was essentially that Democrats were providing poetry in lieu of action and women were going to die because of it. 

Yet this was entirely untrue and entirely unfair. Once again, rhetoric was dissected and substance brushed aside, reinforcing a narrative not reflected in reality. In September 2021, the House, the legislative body over which Pelosi presides, passed the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA). The bill sought to embed abortion access in statute and strip away the restrictions built up in red states over the preceding decades. The vote was 218-211. One Democrat voted nay. Nancy Pelosi, whose control over her caucus is legendary and certainly far superior to any Speaker since Sam Rayburn, lost only one vote on a controversial bill that was certain to fail in the Senate. Pelosi did her bit in protecting the right to an abortion; she can do nothing more than send legislation from the House to the Senate. 

The WHPA, as expected, died in the Senate this February. The analysis of what happened here constitutes the crux of this article. The great tumour slowly killing the Senate is an arcane procedural rule known as the filibuster which, simply put, means almost all legislation requires 60 votes to pass, a super majority, rather than a simple majority of 50 in the 100 seat chamber. The filibuster was both created and discovered almost by accident and, like most highly destructive things, went mostly unused for much of its history – the shameful exception to this being its efficacy in delaying the legislative progress of civil rights by several decades. 

In the political environment of the 21st century, it is essentially impossible for one party to boast 60 Senators. Off the back of two incredibly successful cycles (2006 and 2008), as well as a defection from the Republicans, Democrats and their Independent allies held such a supermajority; but this lasted for just 72 days in 2009. At no other point in the last 30 years has one party wielded such power, and this is highly unlikely to change any time soon. What this means, therefore, is that passing legislation necessitates bipartisan agreement. 

On the face of it, this sounds inoffensive. Defenders of the filibuster trumpet grand notions of agreement and compromise and argue that by forcing buy-in from both parties, tyranny of the majority is avoided and all legislation is moderated and mainstreamed. The corollary to this is the absurd and circular claim that any legislation which cannot achieve 60 votes is too radical and does not merit being passed. 

The flaw here is breathtakingly obvious. As Mitch McConnell figured out in 2009 (though the political winds had been blowing in this direction for a while), the minority party has all the power to obstruct the agenda of the majority. Not only does the majority’s agenda then not get passed, voters tend to blame those nominally in control of government for gridlock and punish them accordingly in midterm elections. The incentive structure of US government is thus as follows: use the filibuster to block everything you do not like, and get back into power for doing so. This works particularly well for Republicans because, particularly in comparison with Democrats, they are not actually that interested in legislating when in power. 

What this means is of critical importance: the filibuster does not produce compromise, rather it is used to kill almost every bill which it encounters. Voting rights, climate change mitigation, gun control, immigration reform; sweeping bills addressing all these subjects have had majority support, often from both parties, and fallen to the filibuster. 

As of 2022, Democrats hold a governing trifecta. Joe Biden is the President, Pelosi has a sliver of a majority of the House, and the Senate is divided evenly, 50-50. In the case of a tie, it falls to the Vice President, now Kamala Harris, to break the deadlock, giving Democrats an effective 51st vote. 

Yet, as anyone paying attention will have realised, 50, or 51, is a lot less than 60. Thus far, the reason that Democrats have been able to legislate in a partisan manner even a little bit is that certain fiscal bills are subject to a byzantine workaround called Budget Reconciliation which allows them to pass with 51 votes. Abortion rights, however, are not principally a fiscal matter and accordingly must clear the 60 vote threshold. This will not happen. Barring a once in a century political realignment, there will never be 10 Republican votes for legislation like the WHPA. Two Republicans (Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, and Susan Collins in Maine) actually support abortion rights and Roe, but both voted against the WHPA, accurately noting that the bill was more expansive than the original Roe decision.

With this explanation out of the way, we arrive at the actual Senate vote of February 2022. For cloture (the vote taken to break a filibuster, effectively functioning as a proxy vote on the legislation itself) on the WHPA, there were 46 “ays” and “48 nays”. Three Democrats and three Republicans did not vote. Based upon absolutely everything about the six non-voting members, one can confidently state that had they been present the Democrats would have voted “ay” and the Republicans “nay”. This would have produced a vote of 49-51. Therefore, one Democrat must have voted against the bill. This Democrat was the senior Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin. 

Manchin is a complex figure. He is both unfairly maligned by Democrats who do not understand his importance (holding the tipping-point Senate seat and representing a state Joe Biden lost by 40 points), and fairly criticised by Democrats who point out that he is a mercurial, capricious, often downright disingenuous negotiating partner. Manchin, as he clarified post-Dobbs, does actually support Roe and a woman’s right to choose, even whilst personally being pro-life. At any rate, Manchin’s vote against the WHPA, like the votes of Murkowski and Collins, was immaterial. The cloture motion could not have been broken, even with 52 votes. 

The conclusion one might draw from reading this article is that the situation is hopeless and unredeemable. Democrats can control the House, Presidency, and Senate, but without 60 votes, all of this comes to naught. Additionally, the Court is now comparatively youthful and the conservative majority thus appears locked in for the foreseeable future. This conclusion is inaccurate. There is reason to hope and there is one solution to the problem. 

Court-packing does not, in the near term, seem feasible. It does not have deep support in Congress and besides, if American politics were not farcical enough already, one can imagine a scenario in which Democrats construct a new, 13 seat Court, only to see it supplanted two years later by a 21 seat Republican Court. The only solution is to pass legislation at the federal level which protects the right to abortion, and the only way to do this is to get rid of the filibuster. 

Perversely, though the filibuster mandates 60 votes for legislation, Senate rules can actually be changed on a majority vote basis. The filibuster has been tweaked in the past, most recently by Democrats in 2013, to make appointing federal judges and executive branch nominees easier, and by Republicans in 2017 in order to get Neil Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court. The legislative filibuster, however, has only become a subject of contestation comparatively recently. 48 Democratic Senators are willing either to abolish the rule or to gut it further, and voted as such in January during an effort to pass voting rights legislation. The two Democratic holdouts are Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona), and Joe Manchin. They will not budge. It would be laborious and painful to recount the torturous history of Democrats trying to sway those two, so it must suffice to say that their minds are made up and essentially nothing will change them. 

The good news, however, is that two votes in one chamber stand in the way of national abortion protections. Joe Biden made this perfectly plain in his remarks on the 8th of July: “We need two additional pro-choice senators and a pro-choice House to codify Roe as federal law.” If, after the midterm elections in November, Democrats were to remain in control of the House and pick up two Senate seats, legislation rendering Dobbs essentially moot would reach Biden’s desk and be signed into law. The solution to a lack of political power is more political power.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely for reasons I described in an article in February. To summarise with the aid of newly available forecasting, 538 currently gives Republicans an 85% chance of winning the House and has Senate control at roughly 50/50 with 52 Democratic senators as far less likely. 

There are two winnable Senate races with anti-filibuster, pro-choice Democratic candidates (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania), but the electoral lift is undoubtedly a heavy one. Achieving the midterms result required to protect fundamental rights and freedoms would be historic and historically rare, particularly given polarisation and an economic outlook that, to the voters at least, appears bleak. 

But of course it is not easy. Republicans and conservatives have been organising towards Dobbs for half a century. Their incrementalism and their patience has been both impressive and chilling. The idea that this can be reversed or meaningfully assuaged by Biden and Democratic leadership overnight is fantastical and indicates a petulant unawareness that democracy and democratic success take thoughtful, long term work. In addition to work, victory against a well organised and highly focussed opponent requires unity. There is a pro-choice party, it is imperfect, it is often cringe, and many of its leaders do sort of suck. However, if said party gets more political power, abortion rights can be protected. If the opposition party gets more power, they cannot be. Not only that, there is no reason to think that the rights of women would not be further impinged upon by bolstered Republicans. On the 7th of July, The Hill, among other outlets, ran an article with the headline, “House Republicans weigh national abortion restrictions.”

Democracy is hard, and it is flawed. Democracy in America was ragged even before Donald Trump. And yet it does at least present a clear choice. On the one hand, each day that passes it feels more and more as though Republicans are engaged in a Rothesque “plot against America”; on the other hand, Democrats are a little annoying and are actually constrained by the political realities which Turner, Gray, and other parts of the left have never faced (since they do not and cannot actually win elections). Attacking Democrats at this juncture, rather than spending every hour reminding voters that Republicans are the enemies of democracy and personal freedoms, is a childish and petulant act of self-immolation, and should always be dismissed as such. 

The narrative of civil rights is one in which many Americans take pride. Martin Luther King Jr. is a mostly inviolable figure in America, commemorated today with a federal holiday originally signed into law by Ronald Reagan. Yet, for all that popular histories of the civil rights era centre protest, civic action, and stirring rhetoric, King himself understood that these components were wan without political power. From 1963, following Kennedy’s assassination, until 1965, King worked closely with President Lyndon B. Johnson. The two invoked the legacy of the dead Kennedy to gather both popular and congressional support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. King then supported Johnson during his towering election campaign that same year. And, in January 1965, several weeks prior to his State of the Union Address, Johnson informed King of his plans for the Voting Rights Act, requesting that King “find the most ridiculous illustration you can on voting, point it up and repeat it” in order to mobilise public opinion. That March saw the Selma to Montgomery marches and ‘Bloody Sunday’. One week later Johnson introduced the Voting Rights Act with the words: “And we shall overcome.” 

Productive social change requires the marriage of politics and protest. Even prior to the Vietnam War, King and Johnson had differences, but both acknowledged adjacent goals. King knew that the civil rights movement would only be successful once the political battle was won, and he knew that this necessitated incrementalism, passing one bill and then going back for another. It is a project that remains unfinished. King also acted in accordance with the truth forgotten by today’s left: legislating requires political capital, and when political capital is insufficient, more must somehow be acquired. The surest way to weaken your own position is to devolve into a circular firing squad. 

40 million women of reproductive age live in states in which abortion is either banned or threatened. The political fight over this issue is too urgent for too many people to countenance the present vanities and internecine squabbles.  

Image Credit: Gayatri Malhotra

Trashing: Only Eight Students Fined Despite Promised Crack-Down

Charlie Hancock
-
0
Trashing: Only Eight Students Fined Despite Promised Crack-Down

“You will be fined” if you’re caught trashing, was the message from Oxford University to students planning to celebrate the end of their exams by getting covered with confetti and foam. But despite warnings that the ban would be “strictly enforced”, only eight students were fined during the 2021-22 academic year.

The University says that trashing reinforces negative stereotypes about Oxford students by wasting food and damaging the local environment, and costs £45,000 to clean up each year. Trashing also violates clauses in the University Code of Discipline, which prohibits littering and “defacing property”.

Students who were caught would be fined £150, which would go to the student hardship fund. However, the Oxford University Student Union condemned the move, arguing the punishment would have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged students.

The “Exams: Celebrate Sustainably” campaign encouraged students to find alternate ways to celebrate. Suggestions included going to a pub or restaurant, or planning a day out with friends. The campaign received national press attention after Cherwell reported in May that the first three fines had been issued. One of these students said they had not been trashing, and had merely poured “roughly a teaspoon of lubricant” on their friend’s head. The student appealed, claiming they had not committed any offenses listed in the Code of Disciple, but was rejected.

Despite the ban, numerous JCRs provide trashing equipment for students to use. Some of this equipment, provided by EcoTrash, claims to be biodegradable. The company says that in Trinity 2022 it sold over 4,400 bags of coloured powder, and 2,600 bags of biodegradable confetti.

A University spokesperson said: “’It is hugely encouraging that the vast majority of the student body chose to mark the end of their exams in a sustainable and respectful way.” They added that the University will continue to campaign against trashing in the 2022-23 academic year.

A similar campaign was run in 2020-21, but a request under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that not a single student was fined as a result.

Image credit: Robert Nyas via Creative Commons

Does “power makes all the difference”?

Meg Hopkins
-
0
Does “power makes all the difference”?

Sudhir Hazareesingh is a tutor in international relations (IR) and won the 2021 Wolfson History Prize for his book ‘The Black Spartacus’ about the life of Toussaint Louverture. Sudhir is what I imagined politics tutors to be like before arriving at Oxford: every sentence seems deeply considered and concisely delivers knowledge and opinion. Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I sat down with him to discuss some of the most significant events in international relations in the last year. 

We started with a discussion on Afghanistan and the importance of the US and UK’s withdrawal from the region for international relations. “It’s just stunning, and I’m still trying to take the measure of it. One often hears about these transformational moments which define an era, and this is just one of those moments – the significance is just so massive,” Sudhir tells me. The rushed withdrawal of US troops after their 20-year occupation of the country saw the Taliban take control of the state, bringing fear and repression. For the US, the whole episode is a disaster and Sudhir’s shock at the events and the ‘raw facts’ is obvious; ‘here is what’s been described as the world’s only superpower since the end of the cold war going into this country in 2001 with the express intention of shaping it in its own image, spending $2.3 trillion – which is a conservative estimate – and in the end gets defeated by a coalition of resistance groups, which don’t even have the tiniest fraction of the resources of the superpower. That is just staggering’. 

He is quick to point out how damaging this is to the ‘realist view of international relations.’ “Afghanistan, to me, seems to be a definite answer to that idea about power; it is also so much more. I’m struck by how much this is a post-colonial story”. The US entered Afghanistan with neo-colonial/neo-imperial aims with strong elements of cultural superiority, which have now “come crashing down”. Furthermore, “the behaviour of Americans in Afghanistan mirrored that of previous colonial authorities. There are absolutely fascinating parallels with the French war in Algeria”. Both the French in Algeria and the US in Afghanistan were dismissive of resistance efforts, ultimately leading to them being removed from the countries they occupied to colossal embarrassment. 

Whilst the situation is continuing, and some of the ramifications are still yet to be seen, Sudhir believes that “for our lifetimes it puts paid to the idea of any external intervention on the part of the Americans”. He points out how this is a mess that Biden inherited. However, “we should not exculpate him completely as he was Obama’s Vice-President and the Cost of War project has found that all the administrations involved, including Obama’s, lied about the extent of American involvement and setbacks”. For America, their reputation and power has been undoubtedly brought into question by their involvement in Afghanistan. “The idea that America can laud it over the rest of the world is now something the Americans themselves are having to reassess”. The Afghanistan-US episode has changed international dynamics. “As far as Asia is concerned, this is going to make the Americans humbler especially as the Chinese are increasingly powerful. Taiwan is the touchstone issue, and Biden has already been on the back foot there”. Biden often misspeaks, and on Taiwan, he stated that the US would defend Taiwan if China invaded, which contradicts the  longstanding US policy of strategic ambiguity. Overall, Sudhir hypothesizes that this incident will make US policymakers far more cautious and reluctant to commit troops. 

Looking forward, it is challenging to see what the future for Afghanistan might hold. As Sudhir notes, there is the issue that the Taliban is an organisation that we know “relatively little about”. “It is a kind of umbrella organisation, and under that umbrella, there are different currents and more pragmatic people who want to run their country efficiently, and in line with Islamic teachings but without going back to the extremes we saw before 2001, whereas other elements have been, for want of a better word, radicalised by the fight against the Americans who want something more fundamentalist”. We do not know how that “internal dialogue” within the Taliban will play out, significantly as it is affected by how the West and other countries like Gulf countries and Turkey react to the new regime. It’s clear that Sudhir sincerely hopes that it will take the more optimistic route, which is a possibility but depends on how the West chooses to respond to the new Taliban regime. “I think that it would be a mistake if the West and the UN pursued isolation, I hope that there is some kind of constructive engagement, but it will be very hard for that to come from America”. 

We moved on to the relationship between IR theorists and government. When asked how much governments tend to listen to IR academics, Sudhir’s answer is short but sweet “probably not enough,” he tells me with a smile. However, it does differ between countries; “paradoxically, the country that has the strongest relationship between academics and government in the United States. All the people who were the architects of the Vietnam war and the crime that occurred in the Vietnam Era were IR academics”. It’s obvious from his tone that Sudhir is dismayed by this involvement of theorists in Vietnam. There still exists a close reconnection between theorists and political elite, which “comes with a particular mindset. These are either soft realists or liberals. Either they believe in American unilateralism or that America should promote a liberal order that promotes and protects American interests. You won’t get anyone strongly critical of America”.

The connection between theorists and the political elite is far weaker when it comes to the UK. Reflecting on foreign policy under the Johnson government, Sudhir sums things up quickly – “like most things with the Johnson administration, it’s been a kind of hodge-podge; it’s very hard to get a clear sense of direction or purpose”. Linking back to Afghanistan, he points out the fact that Dominic Raab, the then Foreign Secretary, was on holiday and couldn’t be reached during the fall of Kabul. “He was not doing his job; there were people facing potentially deadly circumstances who needed to be  evacuated and protected, and the government was napping”. Despite his unwaveringly calm demeanour, his frustration at the lack of action from the government at the fall of Kabul is evident. That exasperation carries through into other areas of UK foreign policy. “Elevated politics is really lacking in all spheres of the Johnson administration. They are just stumbling from one thing to another. It is empty gesture politics which has gotten Johnson through his political career”. 

Lastly, I could not resist getting Sudhir’s thoughts on the independence movements within the UK. “It is a very important question. Because of Brexit and this implicit and explicit English nationalisation, independence movements are gaining support. Whether it is for maladministration or competence or cultural differences, the break-up of Britain is becoming a real possibility”. I asked him if he thinks it could be possible that we could see an alliance or unification of the Celtic countries in the UK. “It is possible. It could just be England on the one side, and all these other entities forming an alliance, and the politics of that would be a really good politics as these are progressive nations in general”.

Overall, international relations are at a crucial point of flux, especially given the developments of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Looking forward predications are hard to make but what is clearer is that realism looks increasingly limited in its ability to explain current events. 

The fall of ‘Super Mario’ – Draghi resignation now risks adding to Italy and Europe’s political turmoil

Oliver Hall
-
0
The fall of ‘Super Mario’ – Draghi resignation now risks adding to Italy and Europe’s political turmoil

In February 2021, former ECB chair Mario Draghi finally brought to an end a period of political stalemate in Italy.  All parties had finally accepted him as the leader of a coalition government and vital structural reforms finally seemed like they might be possible at the hands of a man almost universally trusted and respected – traits extremely rare in Italian politics.  Now though, with his coalition on the brink of collapse and his resignation rejected, the country finds itself in limbo yet again and adding to the seemingly ever-growing list of problems for Europe.

The coalition had been on shaky ground for a while and it was last week that the final domino finally fell.  The ‘Movimiento 5 Stelle’ or ‘Five Star Movement’ abstained from a flagship vote on the Prime Minister’s €23 billion aid package for families affected by the cost-of-living crisis with leader Giuseppe Conti claiming that the support was insufficient.  This left Draghi offering his resignation to President Mattarella, citing an end to the ‘pact of trust’ in his government.  His resignation was subsequently rejected and the country is now waiting for him to address Parliament ‘to provide a clear picture of the political situation’.

Aged 80 and now deep into his second seven-year term, Mattarella seemed to have found the perfect man for the job when he appointed Draghi last year.  Fondly known as ‘Super Mario’ in his home country he was able to unite parties from across the political spectrum with the expressed aims of ending instability and leading the recovery, both financial and social, from the COVID-19 pandemic.  Now though, Conti has seen his party’s support and size wane and many see this move as an attempt from him to force an early general election, currently scheduled for 2023, and revive his own support at the cost of the country.

If that is the case then the move is nothing short of grossly irresponsible, coming at an extremely dangerous time for both Italy and Europe as a whole.  The ECB is in the final stages of launching its long-awaited ‘antifragmentation package’ that will seek to narrow the splitting up of yields between indebted nations and the organisation’s most financially stable countries.  With the Italians currently looking likely to roll over €200 billion of debt this year and the ECB looking likely to raise interest rates even further on Thursday, political stability and cooperation are needed from the Southern nation now more than ever.  As much as these policies don’t sound flashy or exciting, they are central to the Bank’s programme to aid country’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and inflation crisis and any more delays will only make things worse for people across the continent.

Meanwhile, Italy itself finds itself at the forefront of the West’s cost of living crisis.  Here, the impact has only been made worse by its particularly heavy reliance on Russian energy and its close historic financial ties – exemplified by the split in the Five Star Movement itself earlier in the year after Conte questioned the government’s support of Ukraine in the current conflict.  The PM’s support package might have passed this time but a minority government that struggles to pass policy is more unsustainable and outright dangerous to its population now more than ever, in an era where decisions need to be taken quickly and pragmatically.

It is worth stressing that this is not the fault of Draghi himself.  He can hardly be held to account for the continued reluctance of Italian politicians to find a successor to President Mattarella and former Prime Minister Conte. 

The leaders of Italy’s biggest political parties must, now more than ever, put the interests of their people at the forefront of their minds.  While a general election and the infighting they inevitably provoke may now appear an enticing opportunity to many, it risks coming at the cost of further delaying the structural changes that the country needs and sacrificing the needs of ordinary people in the middle of a historic financial crisis.

Image:  CC 2.0:  European Central Bank via Flickr.

What future awaits the Conservative Party?

Karishma Khosla
-
0
What future awaits the Conservative Party?

Boris, what have you done?  

Why has Boris Johnson had to resign?  

Recent events from within 10 Downing Street have proven that the government cannot continue to operate with Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. The resignations of Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak on July 5th, sparked by a scandal with Johnson’s Deputy Chief Whip, and the chorus of pleas for him to step down from his own party catalysed the apparently inevitable resignation of Boris Johnson. The reality is that Johnson’s term, plagued with a constant stream of political misconduct – from the secret parties to Johnson’s handling of Chris Pincher – could not continue and, at last, Johnson’s leadership was toppled with one too many a scandal. But the problems facing the Tories run deeper still.  

Will there be an early general election?  

The next General Election is due to be held in January 2025. As a result of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, the only way to trigger an early election is if the current PM chooses to.  

Both theoretically, and in practice, there is no requirement that the new PM ought to call for a general election, as seen when Brown succeeded Blair in 2007. Thus, although many are seeing this political turmoil as requiring an early general election, the decision ultimately lies with the successor of the Conservative party. Currently, it seems unlikely this will happen as trust in the Conservative party is steadily collapsing and whilst more democratic, it won’t be in the party’s best interest to call for an early election.  

Who will be the new Conservative Party Leader?  

After his landslide win with 80 seats in 2019, Boris Johnson secured the PM role. However, why he clawed onto his title as Prime Minister for so long is most likely the result of his inability to recognise his flaws, and the feeble argument that he had a direct mandate from the people. Moreover, the lack of a clear successor was likely instrumental too.   

Consequently, there now appears a mass of contenders. One of the old favourites was the newly elected Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nadim Zahawi. His remarkable first action in office was to ask for Johnson’s resignation, perhaps a strategic move to win the trust of some of the Conservative electorate. While he had initially seemed a viable contender, the latest ballot has eliminated Zahawi. 

Instead, the odds currently seem to be leaning in favour of the past Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak. However, this could be a dangerous choice: despite his heroic attempts to save the economy amidst the pandemic, his far-right policy and strategy since have been damaging to the working class. His cuts to government spending and tax hikes have harmed both the economy and the standard of living; all the while, Sunak, as the speculatively labelled richest MP, has been accused of tax avoidance himself.  

Having already been thrown in the deep end once with his role as Chancellor of the Exchequer at the start of the pandemic, it is almost honourable that he believes he can restore faith in the Conservative Party. However, the unfortunate truth is that Rishi Sunak may win in the power struggle to find Johnson’s successor, but the man isn’t as good as his PR and this reality will be felt the hard way if he steps up. His slick marketing campaign and well-chosen moves, words and even the timing of his resignation create a façade for a man who most likely will not prioritise the wellbeing and needs of this country any more than we have seen Boris Johnson do.  

Alternatively, we have seen Penny Mordaunt and Liz Truss put their hats in the ring both with promises of tax cuts. Such policy changes will reverse the efforts of a defensive Rishi Sunak who claims he was channelling the money towards funding the desperate NHS.  

However, in my opinion, the underdog, Kemi Badenoch, is perhaps the best candidate. Although well-educated, Badenoch has a somewhat different background to the others having grown up in Nigeria. Formerly the Equalities minister, Kemi understands the struggles faced by the most vulnerable in our society. Her plans to have broad but focused tax cuts are indicative of her focus on not overpromising with the campaign slogan ‘It’s time to tell the truth.’ An honest politician? An honest Tory? Will she be the breath of fresh air this country needs or is she, albeit well-intentioned, too naïve to survive in the world of politics?  

Can the Conservative Party survive? 

Speaking from Downing Street, Boris thanked the millions of people who voted Conservative at the last election and said the reason he fought so long to remain in office was because “I thought it was my job, my duty and my obligation to you.” Frankly, Johnson’s recent actions and the lack of remorse in his resignation speech indicate the growing schism between his priorities and duties, and the needs of this country. Betrayed by Johnson’s dishonesty and ill-discipline, we must ask if any Conservative leader can be trusted to end the UK’s economic paralysis and successfully restore this country generally. 

Johnson’s disregard for the rules and his disrespect to the country and to the mourning Queen the night before Prince Phillip’s funeral could perhaps be traced to his membership of the exclusive Bullingdon Club during his Oxford days, with their notorious reputation for trashing restaurants and student rooms alike. Moreover, Johnson’s consistent wanton disregard for the interests of the nation in both his departure and in government, illustrates the dangers of allowing him to remain in the role as caretaker PM. Such a choice will cause further irreparable damage to the Conservative Party, the economy and this country, but crucially the policy changes we require should not be decisions taken by such an untrustworthy character.   

In his resignation letter, Sajid Javid recognised that “sadly … the public are concluding that [the Conservative Party] are now neither [popular or competent]” and unsurprisingly many are fearful for the future of the party. However, with a general election over a year away, there could be a possibility that the Conservatives regain the country’s support if they select the right successor. This calamity could be a second chance for the Conservatives, as the prospect that the party would be facing a terminally damaged Johnson at the next general election has collapsed. His departure gives the Conservatives a chance to reset and attempt to present a new face to the electorate; an opportunity to claim that the problems with this government all start and end with Johnson. This argument is increasingly difficult for them, but it is certainly one they will attempt to make so the question will be whether the electorate are convinced. Afterall, the Conservatives saw off the threat of Corbynism, broke the deadlock on Brexit, saved jobs with the furlough scheme and delivered the rollout of the vaccination programme, but has this all been overshadowed by the constant scandals?  

The current political volatility could be indicative that after 12 years, the country may return to a Labour government following the next general election. Starmer described Johnson’s resignation as “good news for the country” but it will be interesting to see if the Labour leader himself can recover the UK economy from the “profound” damage caused and the worst cost-of-living crisis in decades. However, the opposition party is waiting to see who emerges from the Conservative leadership contest – whoever does will surely lead the Tories into the next election. It will then be necessary to see how well Starmer is able to critique the fundamental approach and ideology and, crucially, convincingly set out the alternative.  

Given the insurmountable evidence of continual abysmal behaviour from the Conservative party, there is no doubt in my mind that they will not execute the job well. Despite his being better intentioned, I still have doubts whether Starmer would do a better job. Regardless, there is a vacancy behind that gloomy black door at Number 10 and the race is on to see who wins… and how long they’ll stay!  

Image credit: CC-BY-SA-4.0

Tips for being sustainable when travelling

Heather Needham
-
0
Tips for being sustainable when travelling

Sustainable travel

With the biodiversity and climate crisis at the forefront of many minds, students are trying to lessen their negative impacts on the environment when they’re travelling abroad for study, work, or leisure. Travelling can leave huge footprints on the environment.  Therefore, if we visit a destination abroad, we should do our bit to reduce this impact by educating ourselves, being more eco-friendly and environmentally conscious.

Here are my top tips for being a more sustainable student abroad:

Learn about your chosen destination 

There are many green cities with sustainable policies that you could choose as your destination. Sustainable cities might have car-free zones, bike lanes, vast green open spaces, use renewable energy, and recycle waste to reduce carbon emissions and impacts on the environment. Learning about the different environmental issues facing the country you plan on visiting, as well as the sociocultural laws and customs, will make you more informed about how to pack and be more respectful. No country or area has the same environmental and sociocultural considerations. You can get to know the country that you’re planning to visit by reading the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) Travel Advice which details guidance for over 190 countries.

Did you know that taking long-haul flights can produce more emissions than people generate in a year? This is the reason why you should try selecting a destination where you don’t need to travel by plane and instead arrive by other low-carbon means of transport such as trains or buses. For instance, in Europe, you can travel far across the continent via the train network. However, sometimes flying can be the only way to reach your chosen location – if that’s the case you should try get a direct flight in order to minimise your carbon emissions.

How can I be more sustainable when packing?

You can be more sustainable and environmentally friendly through the items you pack for your trip abroad. On my most recent trip to Krakow I took a reusable water bottle and tote bag to ensure that I wasn’t buying or using any unnecessary plastic items. Water can be expensive to buy in other countries, and plastic bottles are bad for the environment as they take decades to degrade. Some cities like Paris have public water fountains where you can fill up your water bottle free of charge. When I was in Colombia, I saw people using collapsible water bottles that are perfect for travelling with minimal luggage as they take up hardly any room. Another handy tip is to bring your own refillable coffee cup – lots of places abroad offer discounts if you have one. Packing reusable containers can help reduce your plastic waste.

Moreover, some countries have a plastic bag tax and have banned plastic items such as straws and wipes. Therefore, we can do our bit by not importing these products into the country and instead bringing environmentally friendly alternatives. Other items that can be swapped for more sustainable versions include reusable razors, bamboo toothbrushes, bars of soap, shampoo and conditioner. Some toiletries can be damaging for the ecosystem or economy of countries. For example, organic, non-toxic, and reef-safe sun cream doesn’t contain chemicals that damage marine life and therefore, can protect our oceans.

If you’re unsure about what you are allowed to import to your new destination, check out the FCDO Travel Advice to inform yourself of the rules and regulations. I used this website to read about how much liquid I could bring in reusable containers and the size of bottles permitted in different size luggage bags for my recent trip to Tenerife. Here it’s clear that by swapping your normal daily habits for more environmentally friendly alternatives, it can make being a sustainable traveller possible.

How can I be more sustainable with my purchases?

You can stay in sustainable accommodation, reuse, and recycle as much as possible, limiting water use, turning lights off and unpluging devices when they are not in use. Buying local food not only supports local businesses and is more sustainable, it is also one of the best ways to expose and immerse yourself in another culture.

Instead of taking private taxis, you can opt for more low-carbon emission alternatives such as trains, buses, trams, and subways, as well as emission-free transport like cycling and walking. One of the highlights of my trip to Amsterdam was navigating the city by bike. Not only was cycling the best way to explore the canals of UNESCO World Heritage, it also was low cost and had the lowest impact on the environment compared to other modes of transportation. The city is covered by well-designed cycled lanes – no wonder Amsterdam is nicknamed the ‘cycling capital of Europe’. Other well-known cycling cities include Barcelona, Berlin, and Copenhagen.

As well as choosing more sustainable forms of transport, you can select environmentally friendly recreational activities that have no impact on wildlife or ecosystems. In Tenerife, I had the opportunity to snorkel with turtles and observe them up-close in their natural habitat – it was a magical experience! I was impressed with how the organisers encouraged us not to touch or disturb the turtles in any way to reduce damaging impacts on them.

Image credit: Leah Kelley via Pexels.

Mo Farah – How Britain’s greatest athlete enhanced his legacy even further

Oliver Hall
-
0
Mo Farah – How Britain’s greatest athlete enhanced his legacy even further

Mo Farah is a four-time Olympic gold medallist, the only man in history to achieve a historic long-distance ‘double-double’ by successfully defending his 5000m and 10 000m titles in 2016 and is undoubtedly among the greatest athletes ever to represent Great Britain in any sport.  I, like much of the British public, have long admired him for not only his remarkable talent but his kind and down-to-earth nature in the face of adversity on and off the track.  However, by openly revealing that he was trafficked illegally to the UK as a child servant on Tuesday morning he somehow found a way to gain even more respect from me and those around the world.  His athletic achievements are nothing short of extraordinary, but these latest revelations couldn’t have come at a more important time and will only enhance his legacy yet further.

The sad truth is that our country’s politics has never been more divided.  In the midst of a leadership election for a Prime Minister that very few seem to truly want we are a nation still reeling from the messy outcome of Brexit and the Union is in more danger than ever.  Despite being the foundation of much British success throughout time, immigrants are facing more unjustified hate and backlash than ever.  At the same time, light is only just beginning to be shone on the huge number of child slaves and servants in the United Kingdom, brought here by human traffickers from all over the world.  This is why Mo Farah’s story is more important now than ever and why his openness is even more admirable than it might at first seem.

I am a runner, a big runner.  It’s one of my true passions and that is perhaps why I have always loved Mo so much.  Also a member of the generation defined by London 2012, I was lucky enough to be in the Olympic stadium to see him win the 5000m on that famous night.  Farah’s relentless drive in the face of adversity whilst also managing to focus so much on his family has endeared him to me even more over the last decade.  There is perhaps no athlete that I love more and I firmly believe that his four Olympic gold medals, six world titles and six European Championship medals will see him go down in history as one of the greatest athletes we have ever produced.  On Tuesday, my respect for him rose even higher.

Farah announced that he was illegally trafficked to the UK as a child and exploited as a servant.  His real name is Hussein Abdi Kahin and, at the age of nine, he was flown to the UK by an unknown woman and made to work for a family he lived with, caring for their children and completing domestic tasks.  In the BBC documentary in which Farah tells all he also reveals that his father was killed in Somalia in 1991 during the period of extreme civil unrest, ‘tearing his family apart’.  A few years later, he was sent to Djibouti to stay with other members of his family and shortly later child traffickers took him to the UK. 

The documentary shines a remarkable light on child trafficking into the UK with Farah giving extraordinary insight into the truly traumatic experience.  He talks of his initial ‘excitement’ of flying for the first time, shows the viewers copies of his fake visas, and tells of how he has spent much of his life dwelling on the guilt he feels for assuming the other Mohammed Farah’s name and identity.

Last year, the ONS reported a nine per cent increase in the number of reported child slavery victims in the UK, rising to a staggering 5 500 potential cases.  Modern slavery cases also rose by 27%.  And yet still experts assert that the true number of victims is far higher than these figures suggest.  Covid-19 lockdowns and outdated reporting mechanisms mean that in a country where public awareness of child slavery is low, more young people are at risk than ever.  Farah’s hope in revealing his story is that people sit up and take notice and reaction in the immediate aftermath at least shows some promise that the general public might just be shocked into awareness.

Amongst the tragedy of the story, there were too rays of hope and kindness.  When Farah was first allowed to attend school in year 7 it was his PE teacher, Alan Watkinson, who noticed that sport transformed a previously ‘alienated child’ who barely spoke English.  He then referred him to social services and that led to Farah being adopted by a Somali family.  The teacher went on to help him apply for Britain citizenship, allowing him to compete in competitions in Latvia where he made his name on the athletics circuit and would eventually become the Olympic champion’s best man.

Farah’s story is one of incredible tragedy but also one of resilience and hope in spite of adversity.  Many tell athletes to ‘stick to sport’.  Tackling social and political issues has never been made easy for them and history is full of sportspeople facing backlash for standing up for what they believe in on issues ranging from human rights to anti-racism protests.  By telling his story world he has shown just how important it is for those with a platform to speak up and as a result, I only hope that people will begin to take notice of the silent victims of child traffickers in our country, perhaps thinking twice next time they deride immigrants for ‘stealing jobs’ or ‘clogging up resources’.  Mohammed Farah is a great athlete but above all, he has shown himself to be a truly special human being.

Image: CC 2.0: By Marco Verch via Flickr.

The Trade Union Scare

Laura Koscielska
-
0
The Trade Union Scare

The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) conducted industrial action on Tuesday 21st, Thursday 23rd, and Saturday 25th June, in order to pressure employers into improving pay and working conditions of their workers and prevent significant job cuts. The reaction of the media was hysterical – it was neither faithful to the idea of keeping the public well-informed, nor was it fair to the trade union and workers themselves. In the end, this response became a small-scale ‘trade union scare’, which points to a wider demonisation of workers undertaking industrial action and trade unions as a whole. 

I am able to understand why someone might feel mildly suspicious about the term ‘strike’ – a big portion of this attitude in Britain seems to have come from the events during the miners’ strike of 1984–1985. It was a chaotic dispute accompanied by violence, which echoes through our heads to this day. It is, however, immensely unfair to assume that every strike is inherently ethically problematic, which is what some media did in the case of recent rail action conducted by the RMT. 

Kay Burley, the Sky News presenter, naggingly questioned Mick Lynch, the general secretary of the RMT, about what the workers running the picket line will do when someone attempts to cross it. Shortly after, she made a reference to the miners’ strike, to which Lynch responded: “Does it look like the miners’ strike? What are you talking about?” The interview felt aggressive — overall, it seemed as if Burley tried to provoke an emotional reaction from Lynch and make him appear in the wrong. 

On another occasion, Richard Madeley from Good Morning Britain asked Mick Lynch whether he is a Marxist, because, supposedly, if he is one, then he is “into revolution and bringing down capitalism”. Lynch responded: “Richard, you do come up with the most remarkable twaddle sometimes. I’m not a Marxist, I’m an elected official of the RMT, I’m a working class bloke leading a trade union dispute about jobs, pay and conditions, and service, so it’s got nothing to do with Marxism, it’s all about this industrial dispute”. This question appeared bizarre, both because of its use of loaded language, as words such as ‘Marxism’ and ‘revolution’ have strong ideological connotations, and irrelevance to the matter. 

Lynch was also intervewed by Piers Morgan on his talk show Piers Morgan Uncensored, where Piers seemed to have tried to undermine the credibility of the unionist by pointing out that his Facebook profile picture is The Hood, an evil character from the 60s science-fiction series Thunderbirds. Morgan insisted: “Well I’m just wondering where the comparison goes, because he was obviously an evil, criminal terrorist mastermind, described as the world’s most dangerous man who wrecked utter carnage and havoc on the public.” After this odd interview, many people on Twitter and Facebook decided to make their profile pictures The Hood in display of solidarity with Lynch. 

Apart from provocative questions and statements of certain journalists, the most condemnable part of the overall discussion around recent rail strikes is misinformation, which is evident in framing the issue only in terms of salaries of train drivers. It can be found all over the internet and television. The average salary of a train driver is nearly £60,000 and so strikes are unnecessary, we are told. But it is worth knowing that train drivers were not included in this dispute for the most part. Strike action organised by the RMT included signallers, maintenance workers, ticket collectors, and cleaners, whose salaries are lower to those of train drivers. Additionally, most train drivers are represented by a different trade union, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF). 

Another example of trying to juggle data is citing an average pay of rail workers. This is what Grant Shapps did in one of his speeches, where he claimed that “The average train driver earns £59,000, the average rail worker earns £44,000, the average nurse, £31,000”. The £44,000 figure includes train drivers and does not take into account other workers involved in the dispute such as cleaners, making it unreliable in reference to the RMT strikes. According to the RMT, their workers’ median salary is £31,000, which is much lower to the average salary mentioned by Shapps. 

These events show that there seems to be a prejudice against trade unions and strike action. There is a lot of emotive language and misinformation aiming to hurt the workers’ cause. However, the response of the media is somewhat understandable – the disruption in transportation was heavy and certain voices pointed at the effects that strike action will have on individuals. For example, the principal of Hereford Sixth Form College stressed that industrial action will affect exams and professor Robert Thomas said that it will lead to loss of lives due to a further delay in cancer treatments, as oncology services are at a particular breaking point.

Mick Lynch responded to professor Thomas’ argument by saying that rail workers are not responsible for problems within the NHS and emphasised that the union keenly wants a settlement of the dispute. Industrial action is entirely preventable if employers and workers come to an agreement.

However, it is also worth asking: how can workers respond to unjust circumstances and work conditions if their demands are largely ignored? It is iniquitous to offer someone a wage that does not keep up with inflation and meet their basic costs of living. It is also unfair to act disloyally towards employees who kept railways running during the pandemic. 

The media discussion around rail strikes was mature enough neither to understand striking workers, nor to be honest with the British public. Strikes are not the end of the world and trying to portray them as such is a massive overreaction. Although Mick Lynch is claimed to have won this media battle, it is worth carefully thinking about the prejudices that striking and unionising workers have to face in moments like the recent industrial action.

Image: SoThisIsPeter, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

The Complicated Legacy of Shinzo Abe

Iseult de Mallet Burgess
-
0
The Complicated Legacy of Shinzo Abe

I was in class when Shinzo Abe was assassinated in a city I had visited several weeks prior. The incredulity was palpable in Japan – not least because of the paucity of murders of any kind here, and the use of a gun in a country with among the world’s most stringent gun controls. But perhaps the most staggering thing of all was the target: Shinzo Abe, Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, was one of the most consequential – and controversial – leaders in postwar Japanese history. 

Politician and kingmaker, Abe sought to rewrite Japanese history at the expense of atonement. He was intent on reconfiguring Japan’s place on the international stage – a goal inherited, perhaps, from his father and grandfather’s nationalist politics. Abe was indeed born to occupy the highest ranks of Japanese political power. His maternal grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, was a fierce nationalist and suspected Class A war criminal who led Japan from 1957 to 1960. Abe’s father, Shintaro Abe, served as chief cabinet secretary. Both Abe’s father and grandfather were hugely influential figures in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) – the conservative party that has ruled Japan with few interruptions for 70 years – as was Shinzo Abe himself. 

Abe’s first year in office in 2006 was marred by scandals and missteps, and his sudden resignation in 2007 followed a heavy loss for the LDP in the upper house legislative elections. In 2012, however, the LDP returned to power, and Abe to prime ministership – he remained in power until 2020, largely unchallenged due to his influence in the LDP.

As Prime Minister, Abe sought to reassert Japan’s presence in international affairs. He cultivated strong relationships with such world leaders as Donald Trump and Malcom Turnbull, but exacerbated tensions between Japan and its East Asian neighbours with his blatant revisionist views – particularly after his 2013 visit to Tokyo’s Yasukuni Shrine, a controversial symbol linked to Japan’s militarism during WWII. Abe’s unwillingness to fully acknowledge Japan’s aggression and atrocities during WWII ultimately enshrined his status as a highly controversial figure, particularly to China and South Korea, which had suffered under Japan’s militarism during the war. 

Abe’s most cherished goal was to revise Japan’s ‘pacifist’ constitution; a goal he never achieved. Abe was clear that much of his effort in this regard was to exonerate the name of his grandfather. Nonetheless, he did, in 2015, manage to pass legislation allowing Japan to take part in overseas combat missions alongside allies. This was hugely controversial, sparking anti-war protests that hadn’t been seen in Japan since the 1960s Anpo demonstrations. 

The success of Abe’s economic program – ‘Abenomics’ – was dubious. It was intended as shock therapy for Japan’s moribund economy after more than two decades of deflation. As political branding, Abenomics was a success; certainly, the word made its way into the global lexicon. The policies themselves, however, fell short of Abe’s own economic target, and exacerbated economic inequality. Japan slipped back into recession in early 2020.  

For all Abe’s flaws, the LDP did manage to win six straight elections under his leadership; the length of his tenure enabled Abe to establish long-standing relationships with world leaders in a way that other prime ministers have had difficulty matching. Beyond his perception as a hawkish nationalist, he was pragmatic and savvy in foreign affairs. He did, in many ways, make Japan an important player in global policy. His tenure also generated momentum in Japan’s foreign policy, and Prime Minister Kishida’s assertive response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine can be considered a result of Abe’s legacy. 

Abe’s death will undoubtedly have shaken the LDP’s long-term policy agenda; the party has lost a centre of gravity. But beyond that, it is, in some measure, a symbolic loss for Japanese people in a society of such scarce violence.

Image: Ajswab, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

“Colorful Queer & Bright”: Jasper Soloff Reflects on His Creative Style

Jack Twyman
-
0
“Colorful Queer & Bright”: Jasper Soloff Reflects on His Creative Style

Jasper Soloff isn’t afraid to call Hollywood out on its false virtue signalling regarding queer representation. In a comment on Instagram in May, the 26-year-old Los Angeles based director and photographer decried the casting of the upcoming movie adaptation of the Casey McQuinston novel  Red, White and Royal Blue. It followed the systemic pattern prevalent in the entertainment industry that sees Hollywood ‘profit from Queer storylines, but not cast queer people’. Soloff has photographed many notable cultural icons such as Billie Eilish and Pete Davidson, and he is open about the role his queer identity plays when he approaches his work which has featured in Vogue, GQ and Cosmpolitan. We began with a discussion of his  journey to creating such self-assured and dynamic content production:

Jack: Can you give readers a sense of who you are and how you got to be where you are today?

Jasper: I started photography while I was studying at Sarah Lawrence College, NY, originally using black and white, which I really loved, and then progressing onto colour. It was just a great way to express myself, but I felt that I really started owning my personal artistic style when I went to Central St Martins in London where I studied fine art; I started coming out more with my sexuality, being braver and had reached a new stage of my life where I was ready and open to showcasing that within my work.

I communicated being gay and queer through the colours I was using in my work – with a very energetic and ‘out’ style – playing with makeup, gender-bending, clothing, really just expressing myself and taking lots of self-portraits. This was when my learning was progressing into me from student into an artist.  

After London, I came back to New York, and that’s when I started shooting pictures of a lot of my queer friends, mainly through run-and-gun shoots on my rooftop. I had my first celebrity client soon after with Brandon Flin, who was dating Sam Smith at the time, and the photos went viral on the internet. So I think that was just when I realised that this creative style I had developed could become a commercial success. 

That was the beginning of the ethos that I bring to my work, which is about showcasing queer talent and identities and to really showcase them as strong people, and their brilliant individuality; its really been a great tool for me in that regard. 

Realising sexuality is a big part of any queer person’s life journey growing up – and you call your work a form of expression: ‘colorful queer and bright’ –  is this what initially attracted you to the field?

I was initially attracted to the field when I was a dancer as I thought that it would be a really great way for me to capture movement. But that soon progressed onto identity and personality and the ways that photos can evoke feeling and the way it can be used as a form of expression. Like dance, film could be used as a tool to express and be yourself and I could use photography to capture those moments in time and document them. I think that the honesty of the art form is really cool because you really get to learn about someone when you are photographing and directing them in a film. It’s unique in that I feel like it’s an incredibly vulnerable experience to be captured on film or photograph. You learn so much about people, the way they interact with a camera and it’s my goal and job to make the subject feel comfortable, as that’s when the most honest important work happens. 

Growing up did you find many people on screen that you could relate to? Is the lack of this something that inspired you?

There was definitely a lack of representation within the queer community. I was really attracted to musical theatre, and I especially loved Cabaret and Chicago: The Movie Musical. I was inspired by the way that filmmaking could be a medium of expression through movement and dance, acting and singing. It was always so vibrant and fun and the creativity that surrounded it was so beautiful. Filmmaking could capture expression so dynamically, especially in Chicago and also the end-scene in Cabaret, with that character super fluid in their sexuality; it was really cool to see and made me feel that ‘Oh maybe I could be creating work like that someday. But definitely growing up there was a huge lack of queer representation for me, especially people who I could really look up to in the queer community like actors or singers even, it was just hard to find. 

How have you navigated being in the media industry with your identity – can it be polarising at times?

Luckily I feel like I’m hired for my identity, rather that it being something that I am forced to hide, because they know that I am out, and queer and that my work expresses and showcases that. So while personally I haven’t really had an issue I do think it is really difficult for a lot of people to be open in their jobs. This is a really sad reality as it is such a huge part of a person’s identity. If you can’t feel confident that, as a queer person, you will be treated as an equal in the workplace then we as a society need to address that immediately. Everyone deserves to feel comfortable in the place that you are working, especially when that too is such a huge part of all of our lives.

What particularly frustrates you about seeing straight actors continuously cast for queer storylines? 

What particularly frustrates me about gay actors playing straight roles is that straight actors have such a plethora of roles that they can play authentically. The power that we have as queer people to play roles that are about our lives is extreme. Growing up if you don’t see people who are openly gay playing openly gay roles on TV, its really hard to see that there’s a silver-lining to our struggles. If we’re continuously looking up to straight actors playing gay roles, its really unhealthy to believe as a child that ‘Oh one day I’ll gonna grow up to be like him’ because one day you find out that actors actually straight. I feel that there are so many people in the entertainment industry who are queer and we should be rewarding queer people by allowing them to play a truthful storyline that aligns with their identity. 

You work with people from a variety of backgrounds and have worked with drag race winners – drag race is such a huge cultural phenomenon and media presence – how far has representation come and how far is there still to go? 

We have come a long way in representation, particularly in the entertainment industry, but there’s always just so much more that we can do to make people feel included and make people feel loved. This is needed especially so that they can look up to the people on TV shows and in sports and feel like they can see themselves. There’s very few openly gay athletes and this representaton really matters in the media because so many more lives will be saved if we can look up to people and see ourselves in these successful figures.  I think this is always going to be something that can be a place where we can grow from. 

From an outsider looking into the US it seems the politics there is becoming more regressive – are you apprehensive for the future? 

I think that a lot of politicians focus on the wrong thing. Right now there’s a huge gun violence problem in America and yet Texas is busy passing laws banning drag queens from performing in front of  minors – it’s just really disturbing to see that. I hope that we can see through this hateful rhetoric and come to a place where we realise that these are just distractions. There is no point to being hateful towards the queer community; it doesn’t help anyone in anyway. Instead, we should be focusing on the real issues which would include regulating  guns and saving lives in America, not banning queer peoples’ self expression..  Guns will soon have more rights in America than gays and women, and I honestly can’t help thinking that we are beginning to live in a dystopian nightmare. 

What advice would you give to another queer person hoping to enter the entertainment industry?

My advice to content creators and artists is to really just be themselves unabashedly. You become stylized in your work  by focusing on who you are as a person and how your perspective differs from the people around you; just stay strong in that. As a queer creator I can say that a lot of my success has been attributed to being honest and not being afraid to say ‘This is who I am’. I know that while I may have lost jobs for being who I am, I wouldn’t have been able to come this far without being unapologetically authentic. So really, just be yourself. 

1...248249250...2,522Page 249 of 2,522

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley