US on the verge of Civil War as Trump heads to victory

With just a week to go before the US 2024 election, there are many who still feel that Kamala Harris has a strong chance of preventing Donald Trump from returning to the White House. However, while Harris is undoubtedly the less worse candidate, it is unlikely that she will make gains in the few days left before Americans head to the polls.

The threat from Donald Trump is clear to anyone with eyes and ears. But there are a number of reasons why he remains a strong contender in the race for the presidency.

Character over substance

Putting aside Trump's lack of vision and policy, he has managed to dominate the news agenda with bizarre comments and off the wall statements. From claiming that groups of Haitian immigrants are engaged in eating dogs and cats to strange ramblings about a dead golfer's penis Trump has controlled the narrative. Week on week the mainstream media have been more focused on Trump's latest faux pas than what Kamala Harris might be saying. And even when the democratic candidate does make headlines it has tended to be more on her reaction over Trump latest comments rather than her policies.

Fraught campaign

The Democratic Party has made several mistakes in this campaign. The first major mistake was not to put forward a serious contender in place of the incumbent Joe Biden. It was clear, even months prior to the campaign beginning, that he was not in a fit mental state. THen came the disastrous presidential debate in June 2024 [BBC / YouTube]. Even after the car crash of a presidential debate with Donald Trump it was weeks before he eventually stood down and handed the baton to Kamala Harris.

The debate on the 27th June triggered many democrats to suggest he might step back while media pundits poured over the growing evidence that Biden was clearly unfit for the job. By July 19, 2024, more than 30 senior Democrats had called for him to withdraw. Finally on July 21, 2024, Biden withdrew his candidacy via a signed letter posted on his personal Twitter account, writing that this was "in the best interest of my party and the country" While Kamala Harris 2024 launched her presidential campaign on the same day she only became official Democratic presidential nominee on August 5, 2024, nearly forty days after that disastrous debate.

Harris was clearly a better candidate than Biden. However there were far better potential candidates within the party than Harris, who had especially been sidelined during her time as VP. But time was pressing and there was no debate concerning the picking of a different candidate. After all, Biden's ill-conceived candidacy had already wasted weeks of campaign time and Harris now had only 90 days to convince the American public that she was the best choice.

There then followed further delays before Harris picked her running mate Tim Walz who had little if any charisma and was likened by some to being like a middle school governor, indeed he was a former school teacher [BBC]. His prowess at public speaking was also less than inspiring and he also failed to impress during a Vice Presidential debate with Trump's chosen running mate J.D.Vance.

It wasn't helpful either when it was revealed that he wasn't in Hong Kong at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre as he had previously claimed. When challenged on this Walz rambled on about something else entirely before being challenged once again. "I misspoke," Walz finally conceded [BBC]. 

A divided America

There are a number of key issues that affect many Americans. One specific issue is that of jobs, tax and the economy. Another is that of gun ownership. And there is also the issue surrounding women's rights and abortion.

Both candidates have spelled out their stance concerning all these issues. Both maintain that their plans for the economy will serve America the best while criticising their opponent for their plans. However even economists are divided as to who would be the best candidate concerning such issues.

Trump has said he is the best choice for the average American. "Together, we will deliver low taxes, low regulations, low energy costs, low interest rates and low inflation so that everyone can afford groceries, a car and a home".

He has also promised tariffs of up to 20% on goods imported into the US, and 60% on all goods from China. His rationale is that by making imported goods more expensive, US companies will be encouraged to make more goods domestically, so American workers will benefit in terms of millions more well-paid manufacturing jobs at home [BBC].  However, some economists fear a trade war could ensue which could trigger a global financial crisis.

Many Americans believe that grocery chains and food companies are ripping them off. Food prices are up by about 25% compared to before the pandemic, and some polls suggest American consumers' view of the grocery industry has sunk to a two-decade low.

Harris has promised to address this, saying "As president, I will take on the high costs that matter most to most Americans, like the cost of food".

Polls appear to indicate that Trump is trusted more on his economic plan according to polling released recently, as the American economy sits at a potential inflection point heading into the election [FT].

However when it comes to women's rights and abortion Harris wins over Trump.

One reflection of this is the lean of male voters towards Trump whilst women are leaning towards Harris.

Gun control is one of the most polarising issues in American politics, and whilst it hasn't been a key issue discussed during the debates and discussions leading up to the election it has concerned people on both sides of the political spectrum.

Harris says she favours the Second Amendment and said in the September 10th debate with Trump that she owns a gun. However this has not allayed fears that the Democrats will restrict gun owners rights. Indeed Harris has said she would "ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, require universal background checks, and support red flag laws that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people." On the face of it these seem sensible measures given the number of mass shootings in the US. But the right to bear arms runs deep in America, even the likes of automatic assault weapons.

Despite having two failed assassination attempts on his own life, Trump has stated that "no one will lay a finger on your firearms" if he wins the election [CBS]. 

Personality cult

While Harris's policies are, on balance, focused and level headed, many Americans are drawn more towards personality. While the political pundits fact check and dismiss much of what Trump says at his rallies, it means little to his supporters.

"I don't think he really means that," one Trump supporter says, referring to the former president's comments concerning dogs and cats, "He says things for effect."

Trump is a showman more than a politician. His speeches often last for hours and despite being 78 he shows stamina, even if much of what he says is untrue or has only a slim basis in fact.

For many that attend his rallies he has irresistible comedic value that finds the audience compelled to watch and listen for hours [FT].

Warnings and criticism

There are many former members of Trump's administration that have come out and criticised the former president. With just days to go before America goes to the polls John Kelly, the Trump White House's longest-serving chief of staff, said that he believed that Donald Trump met the definition of a fascist and that he was an existential threat to democracy [CNN]. In the days that followed more former aides broke cover to back up Kelly's comments [Guardian].

But it all seems too little too late. Why did these individuals not come forward sooner? Coming out this late in the campaign is unlikely to shift the balance and tip the scales in favour of Harris.

Trump has mused in recent speeches and interviews about turning the US military on political rivals he has referred to as the "enemy within", comments that Harris has pointed to as evidence that the former president is "unhinged" and poses a danger to democratic values [CNN]. 

Kelly might have acted late in coming out as did H.R.McMaster, who spent 13 months as National Security Advisor in the Trump White House, with his recent book At War with Ourselves, but they aren't the first to bring attention to Trump's being unfit to hold office.

John Bolton, a former US National Security Adviser, was one of the first to express his misgivings about the former president in his book The Room Where It Happened published in June 2020. The book was a scathing and revelatory attack on Trump.

Bolton sys Trump had "no grand strategy" and displayed "a random walk" with "a total focus on re-election" [USA Today - YouTube]. 

Some four years on, Bolton's opinion has barely shifted. "Trump is unfit to be president," Bolton wrote in the new foreword to "The Room Where it Happened," his account of the 17 months he spent as Trump's national security adviser. "If his first four years were bad, a second four will be worse."

However, despite many Republicans jumping ship and endorsing Harris and criticism growing from former members of the Trump White House, the polls show an almost level pegging between the two candidates.

Polls

It has often been said there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. And polls too, could be taken with a large pinch of salt. With a week to go before the 2024 election national polls appeared to show Harris and Trump at 47% each [CNN].

However, for whatever reason, Republicans often under poll, as was explained by James Carville, who rose to prominence for helping Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992. Speaking on Bill Maher's Real Time in late August, Carville said, "I tell Democrats, some caution here. First of all, most quants [quantitative analysts] say we have to win by three in the popular vote."

"So when you see a poll that says we are two up, well actually you are one down if the poll is correct."

"Trump traditionally, when he is on a ballot, chronically under polls. They came back late in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2020 and it showed Biden winning these states by seven or eight points."

Polls are no exact science and while Harris has certainly done better than Biden in polls, it's not a slam dunk.

Moreover, it is not the popular vote that paves the way to the White House, but the winning of so-called 'swing states'.

Skewed electoral system

America's electoral system is hinged upon candidates securing what are called electoral colleges. Each of the 50 US states is assigned a number of college votes which translate to representatives. Some states have many college votes such as California with some 54 while others have just a handful. The number of college votes is related to the population and can thus change over time. This means that the swing-states, that can affect the outcome of the election, can change from one election to another [Vox - YouTube].

Trump did not win the popular vote in 2016, but nonetheless took the presidency due to taking more Electoral College votes.The current state of play appears to indicate Trump only needing to secure Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia in order to secure the presidency.

The strongly leaning states currently show Harris with 226 electoral college votes against Trump's 219, with the milestone being 270. But there are 7 states where polls don't show a clear winner; Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pensylvannia, North Carolina and Georgia.

The likely key states in this race are the aforementioned Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia. Trump won North Carolina in 2016 and while polls show a shift towards the Democrats, it may not be enough to tip the scales [BBC].

Another key state is that of Georgia where latest polls also seem to indicate that Trump has a slight lead over Harris [Newsweek].

Given the polls are correct, Trump would thus only need to secure Pennsylvania. However polls here show a divide of less than 1%, with latest polling showing Trump just 0.3% ahead of his rival.

However if the likes of Carville are correct, Trump may have a win here too. If Trump takes these three along with what are seen as Republican leaning states, Harris has little chance even if she takes the rest of the battleground states as well as traditional Democratic states [CNN].  

Possible outcomes

Few are willing to predict the outcome of this election, despite all indications showing a Trump win.

But what will the return of a Trump presidency mean? Some have opined that given Trump's right-wing leanings and praise of Hitler, that a 'Third Reich or sorts could emerge. Of course others have dismissed this as hyperbole.

However, Donald Trump has talked about using the military and the National Guard to control chaos on election day approaching on the 5th November. Asked if he was worried about violence by immigrants, he answered: "I think the bigger problem is the enemy within," continuing to say that "radical left-lunatics" could pose a potential problem on Election Day. "It should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or if really necessary by the military." In some appearances, the former President has named Representative Adam Schiff and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as "enemies within."

But would Trump really round up his enemies in something reminiscent of the 'Night of the Long Knives', a purge that took place in Nazi Germany from 30 June to 2 July 1934. Some certainly fear he might.

However, former White House national security adviser John Bolton has suggested that while a second Trump administration poses "dangers" for the country, former President Trump is "not capable" of being a fascist.

"I think his behaviour alone is troubling enough," he told CNN host Kaitlan Collins. "To be a fascist, you have to have a philosophy. Trump's not capable of that."

It might be true to say that Trump is not the brightest spanner in the toolkit, but that doesn't make him any less dangerous.

Trump deploys language to confuse, destroy, and obliterate any sense of meaning or common understanding. Indeed he has often failed to follow through on declared objectives. Barely any of the wall between Mexico and America got built, and Mexico has yet to receive the bill!

Fears of Civil War

Whilst the face of America will undoubtedly change when Trump wins, there could be a worse outcome if he fails to secure a second term.

One worse case scenario could be a call to arms by militias across America if they feel the election has been 'stolen' from them. Such a scenario could quickly spiral out of control and descend into civil war.

Is this fanciful? Well, some have already called for an insurrection should Trump lose. In June Ohio state Sen. George Lang said that civil war would be necessary if former President Donald Trump does not win the 2024 presidential election.

If Trump loses the election, former Trump-administration official Peter Navarro has declared that "the country will disintegrate."

But it's not just Trump supporters that are raising concerns. One in four Americans fear a civil war could break out following the presidential election, a new poll has found. A YouGov poll of 1,266 registered voters has found that 84% of citizens believe America is more divided today than ten years ago. And 12% of respondents claimed to know someone who "might take up arms" if they believed Donald Trump is "cheated" of an election victory. Five percent said they knew someone who would do the same for Kamala Harris [Daily Mail]. 

Such prospects will make January 6th look like a Sunday school picnic. 

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart described the closing days of the election campaign as a "What the f***" moment in American history. "Did we all just die during COVID and is this some surreal purgatory?" Stewart ponders following Trump's latest publicity stunt of cooking fries at a branch of McDonald's. "Or maybe it's a dream!" [The Daily Show]. Sadly not. This will be America's nightmare from which the rest of the world will catch more than just a cold.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

The Internet is becoming a tide of digital detritus

With the world apparently going crazy and with an axis of evil growing around the so-called BRICs, increasing tensions in the Middle East, no sign of peace in the ongoing war in Ukraine and a likely Trump presidency in less than two weeks, it is hard to find any sanity.

Online social media only seems to add fuel to the fire. Twitter, especially since Elon Musk's takeover, has become a turgid mess of conspiracy theories and the far-right battling with those that once inhabited this space. While Trump's so-called Truth Social has gained ground and risen in value, Twitter has lost nearly 80% of its value since Musk bought it. Threads, Facebook/Meta's answer to microblogging, has gained some traction but still remains a less dominant platform than Twitter. And of course there's Telegram, an encrypted service which facilitates users being able to post content that would be censored on any of the aforementioned sites. And then there's the slightly calmer world of Bluesky, set up by Jack Dorsey after selling his social network to Musk.

There are many who understandably want to jump ship from Twitter, especially given what Musk has turned it into. Users are continually plagued by Bots and spam. Reporting such accounts rarely results in those accounts being banned. And simply 'blocking' those same accounts won't actually block them in the same way, in as much as the blocked accounts will still be able to view your posts.

But jumping ship has many pitfalls. The main one is that many of the accounts and people one might follow may not be on Bluesky. And persuading those individuals to board another boat may not be easy. How many people do you know who still use a Hotmail or Outlook account despite the many advantages of having a GMail/Google account?

Musk's change to the way users are 'blocked' on Twitter/X resulted in a surge of people 'migrating' to Bluesky. The exodus of users fleeing to Bluesky was reportedly in excess of half a million users joining the service in a day.

It's not the exodus that has occurred. Many Twitter/X users also began setting up Mastodon accounts some months ago as it was speculated Musk's social media platform might collapse in on itself. So far that has yet to happen. And many of those Mastodon accounts have largely become dormant and inactive.

The biggest problem for many of those shifting to another platform is maintaining a presence on two or more platforms. Establishing a new presence on Bluesky is all well and fine but continuing to maintain a presence on Twitter/X now demands one to post everything to two accounts.

Why bother, one might ask oneself. Well, the issue is one of interaction with a base that one has established on Twitter/X. Simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater and only posting to Bluesky essentially cuts off communication with hundreds or even thousands of 'followers', many of whom are unlikely to move to Bluesky unless Twitter/X completely collapses.

This is an existential dilemma for many microblogging users. Even the Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey has left the board of Bluesky, the decentralised social network he helped start, and encouraged users to remain on his first site, now owned by Elon Musk and renamed X. In fact Dosey even deleted his Bluesky account entirely in September 2024, some four years after he founded the platform.

While maintaining a minimal presence on Twitter/X Dorsey has focused more on his new venture Nostr.

For old school social media users, Bluesky users will find it less based around algorithms. They may also find themselves less bombarded with bots, spam and ads, though this too could change.

The future however may well result in many old school users abandoning all these platforms altogether. It has very much become a minefield. Trying to navigate past the dross of 'suggested posts', ads and spam has become tiresome. Scrolling has become a time wasting exercise with little or nothing to show for it.

The same is becoming true of YouTube with having to negotiate past endless ads which adblockers are in a constant cat and mouse game to circumvent.

While the advent of the Internet was exciting, it has become more and more a frustration over the years as one tries to avoid pop-ups, ads and unwanted content.

While I am certainly not a Luddite when it comes to technology, the changing face of the online world is more a hindrance  than a help at times.

Google's retirement of platforms or attempting to force people onto paid subscription services has not helped. Google Music was great, but the free version of YouTube Music falls flat in comparison. The subscription free version of YouTube similarly is almost not worth the effort.

MySpace and Friends Reunited have been consigned to history while Facebook is also becoming less relevant as people want instant gratification with the likes of Tik Tok, SnapChat et al.

In this swirl of digital detritus, there is a growing number of people who, quite understandably, are beginning to abandon the online world and reaching for real books or playing CDs and DVDs.

While there are few that would wish a return to the early days of the Internet when we only had AltaVista and AskJeeves, the current state of the online world has become a digital tide of effluent. But sadly it's unlikely to get any better.

Oh well, where's that book I was reading?

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Labour still in denial over Brexit disaster

It's been a full two years since Liz Truss took the reins from Boris Johnson and helped wreck the UK economy in just a few weeks as PM. Trussonomics, with promises to cut tax, had dealt a hammer blow to the Tory party's long-held reputation for fiscal responsibility.

Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng launched their ill-fated "mini" Budget and their optimistically labelled "Growth Plan" it set out the largest set of tax cuts since 1972, and carried an estimated cost of £60bn. The plans came with little indication of how the government would fund the policies, and without official costing from the fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Already jittery markets were not reassured by Truss or her chancellor, and in the days that followed, UK assets sold off, and gilt yields spiked as prices fell. The yield on 10-year gilts soared by 120 basis points in the space of just a few days, and the UK pound fell to its lowest ever level against the dollar, hitting $1.04 on 26th September 2022. The drop in gilt prices reverberated through financial markets, and pension funds engaging in liability-driven investment faced a crisis when they were forced to sell assets to meet margin calls. The Bank of England stepped in, in the interests of financial stability, and purchased long-dated gilts to prevent a 'doom-loop' setting in. Planned quantitative tightening was temporarily suspended.

Perhaps most remarkably of all, this all happened within the space of just 45 days.

Truss left office in disgrace, but remains unrepentant. Meanwhile Rishi Sunak, a former chancellor himself, took up the reins as PM with a promise of "'integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level".

However in the nearly two years that followed he was unable to turn the boat around, managing only to turn it slightly away from Britain's ongoing economic downslide.

Britain's dire economic position is multifold. As Sunak continually pointed out throughout his disastrous election campaign, the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine and the resulting energy price surges had significantly affected Britain's economic position.

Inflation had risen dramatically at the point the pandemic hit and did eventually make a turn in late 2022 as Sunak took power. What Sunak also failed to overlook is that just as COVID hit, so did Britain officially leave the EU.

With it came extra costs, in terms of paperwork and customs declarations, and a gradual decline of much needed workers in a number of sectors.

Truss had come to power with a pledge to Save Brexit while Sunak, along with a number of others in his cabinet, maintained that Labour would reverse Brexit.

Some eight years after the EU referendum and four years since actually leaving the block, the reality of Brexit is becoming clearer.

While Trussonomics, COVID and the war in Ukraine have had an effect on Britain's economy, Brexit has arguably had a far more significant and long lasting impact.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimates that Brexit will cost the UK 4% of its GDP annually over the long term. This is equivalent to a cost of £32 billion per year to the UK taxpayer.

However Bloomberg found that Brexit is costing the UK economy £100 billion a year. 

There are few metrics that point to any Brexit benefits. Johnson's Minister for Brexit Opportunities was often ridiculed and lasted only a few months without any luck in finding anything significant [Wikipedia / BBC].  

Yet finding disadvantages and costs since Brexit is not so difficult. Lorry queues at Dover, Britain's biggest export hub, are a daily occurrence. The situation worsens during peak holiday times as travellers join queues often in excess of two hours. Much is primarily due to Brexit since as a third country Britain now has to submit to passport checks and stamps.

With de facto visas and biometric checks required in the coming months such scenes are likely to get worse over time.

The new Labour government have said they will spend £10.5 million to help ports prepare for the European Union's post-Brexit security checks for UK nationals entering the bloc and reduce the risk of queuing and disruption. But it may prove to be a small sticking plaster on what is a gaping wound.

This is an example of Labour's apparent inability to see the enormity of the problem. Fearful of scaring the Brexiteers away, Labour rubber stamped its manifesto with the bold statement that Labour would not rejoin the EU, the customs union or single market.

Yet it is precisely these factors that are impeding Britain's economic growth. Of course the rest of the world might offer some market opportunities, but even where Britain has managed to make deals beyond Europe, they are miniscule compared to the, now diminished, markets on Britain's doorstep.

Labour has talked of needing to repair a black hole in Britain's spending, and that overspending by the previous Tory administration has required them to make savings.

Yet savings announced so far amount to taking money from those who might least be able to afford it, that being pensioners, with Labour announcing that they will stop winter fuel payments to those not claiming pension credit or who are deemed to have significant assets.

The policy is expected to reduce the number of pensioners who receive the winter fuel payment from 11.4 million to 1.5 million, saving the Treasury £1.4bn this financial year [BBC]. 

That, according to Bloomberg's figures above, is 1.4% of what Brexit is costing the economy.

But there is of course no shift to rejoin. Only an attempt to 'move closer' to Europe as Keir Starmer met with his German counterpart Olaf Scholz in what was described as a "wider reset" with Europe [BBC]. 

Brexiteers and the right-wing press were overly excited claiming Starmer was about to undo or reverse Brexit. If only.

There might have been some remainers and rejoiners hopeful it was a change in position or that it might be a turning point in the road.

However, for anyone understanding the nature of the EU, Germany - nor any member country - can make a unilateral deal without it being signed off by the bloc as a whole.

Indeed in terms of clarification Starmer said that while he wants a reset in relations between the UK and EU, it "would not mean reversing Brexit or re-entering the single market or Customs Union".

Despite an element of positive thinking, Starmer was later criticised after rejecting a youth mobility scheme [Guardian].

Before the week was done and just days before MPs head back to parliament, Starmer spoke to reporters in the rose garden in Downing Street.

In his address he spoke of a "painful" Autumn budget and that "things will get worse before they get better" [BBC]. 

While this might have been welcome honesty, such a statement will do nothing for the economy. It might only precipitate further problems as consumers tighten their belts and stop spending, businesses put plans on hold and foreign investment errs on the side of caution.

So far there have been few signs of any direct reaction to Starmer's statement [BBC].

Liz Truss's mini-budget was delivered on 23rd September 2022 and within days caused turmoil. Rachel Reeves is not expected to deliver her budget until 30th October, the day before Halloween. There is already talk of increased fuel duty. And following leaks that Labour might declare war on smokers with an outdoor smoking ban, tax rises on tobacco might also feature [Sky News].

It remains to be seen what the fallout of Labour's fiscal policy is. But just short of 100 days in office they have made few friends, and quite a few enemies.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

No Change concerning electoral imbalance

Following Labour's landslide in the UK general election with less votes than the Corbyn party managed to achieve in 2019 there has been much debate over whether it is time to push for electoral reform. But would a move to proportional representation be beneficial and would it result in parties such as Reform UK being given a bigger platform?

Channel 4 News recently showed what the UK parliament might look like if the 4th July vote had been translated into seats under proportional representation. On the face of it Labour is certainly diminished with both the Tories and Reform UK taking a great deal more seats. However, if people were voting under a proportional representation system the electorate would likely vote very differently.

In July's election many people voted 'tactically' to 'get the Tories out' rather than with their heart and along party lines. Unless a staunch Lib Dem member, those who might have otherwise voted for the Liberal Democrats would in many constituencies shifted to vote Labour. This lending of votes gives a false impression that Labour had gained support amongst the British electorate.

There would have been many Tory supporters who were disillusioned with their party but unable to swing further right to Reform UK. This same demographic might have supported the Lib Dems but felt there would have been little point in areas where the Lib Dems only garner a relatively small level of support.

This may also partially explain the extremely low turnout which on average measured in at just 59.9%.

This of course does not fully explain what occurred on Thursday 4th July. Causes of voter apathy are multifold. There is of course a growing disillusionment with politicians on all sides. There is a growing feeling that whoever one votes for, nothing will ultimately change.

This is almost certainly true with the first past the post system. British politics has, for at least 100 years, simply rocked back and forth between Labour and the Conservatives. And apart from a few brief periods where sitting governments have sought to form an alliance or pact, there has always been a majority with minor parties having very little influence on policy.

Those opposing proportional representation often point to Israel and its having to form tenuous coalitions. But Israel is an exception given it has a relatively small house and also a fractured politique.

But beyond Israel many countries that use PR have few problems. In Europe, the UK is one of only three countries not using PR. Belarus and France are the only outliers. Some 31 countries use a Party List Proportional Representation while five use a Parallel voting/Mixed system, two use a Single Transferable Vote and two use a Mixed Member Proportional Representation.

For Brits these terms may seem confusing. Certainly the First Past the Post [FPTP] is simple to understand, but in many instances across constituencies there are situations where more than half the electorate are represented by someone they didn't vote for.

The disparity and division is even more stark if turnout is low. In the case of the recent election voter turnout was as low as 50% in some constituencies with the declared winner taking as little as 30% of those who bothered to vote.

For example Basildon, which has an electorate of nearly 77,000, saw a turnout of 55%. This accounted for around a little over 42,000 actually turning out to vote. Of this the vote for the winning candidate and that in second place was just 22 votes and accounted for 30.6% each of those that voted. But of the overall electorate the winning candidate only took 16.7%.

Of course one could blame the 45% who, for whatever reason, didn't vote. But even putting that aside, some 69% of those that voted did not vote for the winning candidate.

While there is certainly an element of apathy on the part of voters, one major factor behind many people's not taking part in an election is due to the fact that their vote more often than not doesn't get recognised.

In this particular constituency the 5% of voters backed Green and the Lib Dems. Yet in our current FPTP system the Greens took 4 seats which represents a little under 1% of the seats in parliament. On average the vote for the Green party was between 4 and 6%. Though with strong campaigning and other factors the party beat all odds and gained 4 seats with a vote share of between 40 and 56%.

The Lib Dems' share varied across the country. In some areas their vote barely exceeded 1 or 2%. But in areas in which it secured seats it often took in excess of 40% of the vote.  Yet overall the number of seats secured in parliament, while much larger than in previous elections, did not reflect the number of votes the Lib Dems received overall.

According to the Electoral Reform Society the 2024 election was "one of the most disproportionate results in recent history", with Labour winning 63% of seats from only 33.8% of the vote. Should the UK have used a more proportional system, Reform UK would expect to have 93 MPs, the Green party 44, the Lib Dems 79, the Conservatives 154, and Labour would have only 220.

For those proposing a change to the electoral system , which have tended to err on centrist or fringe parties, such figures might be concerning, given such a system could potentially give a right-wing party headed by Nigel Farage 93 seats over his current 5. The Greens would also have gained significantly too, up from a meagre 4 MPs to 44. Meanwhile the Lib Dems would only have secured a handful of extra seats. The Tories would remain in second place and slightly higher than their current number of seats. But Labour would have no sweeping mandate as it would have no majority in the house.

Indeed in such a situation, such is often the case in places like Germany, coalitions or agreements are made, if not on a permanent basis, certainly for passing legislation upon which like-minded parties can agree.

Ironically it has been the right-wing press, and members of right leaning parties that have added their voice to the call for electoral reform. Ahead of the election many papers and politicians were raising fears of a so-called Labour-dictatorship with its likely super majority.

Of course it is very much sour grapes since it is unlikely those same papers or politicians would be calling for a rethink of the way elections are decided should the polls have been showing the Conservatives to be heading towards a landslide victory.

While for many people, Farage's politics are reprehensible, he makes a valid point when it comes to representation in parliament and how skewed the system is.

There are those on the left and among centrists that might fear a move to PR, given how Reform UK could seize a large number of seats - based on the 2024 election at least.

However, a PR system might prompt people to vote much differently. There would, for example, be far less tactical voting since every vote would count. Moreover, given this, many otherwise apathetic voters might feel more inclined to exercise their democratic choice.

Labour could, with its large mandate, push electoral reform through. However, it is unlikely so to do. It has made no commitment in its manifesto, and in previous questions concerning electoral reform Labour has always rejected the notion. Moreover, given its having received such a large majority on so few votes, Labour would be unlikely to facilitate a loss of such a mandate.

The word Change might have dominated Labour's manifesto, but they will be reluctant to rock the current status quo.

Unfortunately it will mean that in the medium to long term one can only look forward to the ping pong political charade that is first past the post.

Labour may not in a single term manage to turn the economy around or fix the multitude of problems left in the wake of 14 years of Tory chaos, Brexit, the fallout from the war in Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic. But the disaster of the Tory years will still remain fresh in people's minds in 5 years time, thus resulting in a likely second term for Labour. However, after a decade of being unable to fix Brexit Britain, a more moderate Tory party will probably return once again.

The only possible chance of breaking this cycle will be if Labour loses its majority when the country goes to the polls again in 2029 and are forced by the opposition to make a change to Britain's broken electoral system.

[electoral-reform / election24 / Guardian / YouGov / Guardian / Guardian comment / C4News - YouTube / Daily Mail / Independent (paywall) / 

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Western democracy at risk

Autocratic and authoritarian states, especially the likes of China, will feel confident that their methods of running a country are far more superior than so-called liberal democracies.

While China is certainly a totalitarian state with one party rule, it maintains stability and plans for the long term without the interference of petty squabbles from various political factions interfering with its long term goals.

And while there are few that would advocate a similar type of government in developing and established democracies, the chaos that has been observed in recent months and years in the US, Europe and parts of Asia only strengthens China's resolve that their system is better.

Squabbles

Political divisions and petty squabbles in Britain saw the Tory party tear itself apart leading to a referendum which resulted in the country leaving the European Union. This has itself divided a nation politically and arguably made the country economically as well as politically bankrupt.

Immigration was a pivotal factor behind that vote, even if mainly capitalised upon by the right wing politicians such as Nigel Farage who has led an anti-European campaign over many years. He has headed UKIP - the United Kingdom Independence Party - which later morphed into the Brexit Party, and now hopes to take a seat in parliament as leader of the Reform Party.

While the parties have campaigned on several issues, much has focused on immigration and Britain's membership of the EU. Uncontrolled immigration - according to Farage - has led to the many problems that Britain has faced over the years. Moreover, the EU, he claims, has stifled Britain's ability to stop migrants heading to Britain's shores.

Rallying calls

Immigration has become the rallying call for the 'far-right' across Europe too. While Britain is struggling to solve the issue of 'small boats' landing on its beaches and the problem of dealing with processing them, so too is mainland Europe.

There are perceptions and realities concerning mass migration. It would not be untrue to say that some migrants have brought problems. Some have been found guilty of criminal activity following their arrival. Others have, however, integrated into society and contributed in a meaningful way.

There is of course a cost to all immigrants arriving 'illegally' - shorthand for not having applied ahead of time for asylum. All asylum seekers have to be processed. If their asylum case is approved they can stay. If not they may be deported. But both here and abroad funding for the processing system has been cut and the infrastructure intended to deal with the growing numbers has been gradually dismantled or not been increased to deal with the problem.

Dealing with immigration

Thus, as numbers of asylum seekers grow there has been a threefold problem. The first issue has been where to house them. Some have been placed in hotels, at specially built camps and at old RAF bases. There is then the need to process each and every person. This process has become problematic for many reasons. One issue is first identifying some of those detained given that many have disposed of their passports or ID, though it is unclear what percentage of asylum seekers have done this. Then there is the actual processing of their claims. This can take many months and, because the system has itself been slimmed down, takes far longer than it used to. The problem is further complicated by the fact that some asylum seekers may appeal the decision should it fail. And even if a failed claim is rubber stamped it could take months, if not years, to return the individuals concerned.

Putting aside the human costs, there is a financial cost. And while this might be relatively small in terms of a government's entire budget, it is nonetheless significant. As such many voters are drawn to the dog-whistle politics of right-wing politicians.

Dog-whistle politics

Listening to Nigel Farage supporters in Clacton recently many repeat the same lines that have become the stereotyped view of the closet racist.

"Immigration is out of control," was an oft repeated line from many with others saying that immigrants were the cause of people's inability to get a doctor's appointment. "It never used to be like this," said one Farage supporter in Clacton soon after the Reform Party leader announced his candidacy.

Ironically, this is from an area which is predominantly white British. Clacton has a population of 53,000 and yet 'foreigners' account for only 3,000 half of which were born in the EU [Demographics]. 

Thus any perceived problems brought with immigration are less likely to be due to personal experience than from reading tabloid headlines.

And the same is true across Europe with images of boats arriving on south European shores driving people's attitudes.

The immigration issue has been capitalised upon by the likes of Italy's Georgia Meloni, Hungary's Victor Orban and France's Marine Le Pen amongst others. And this culminated in a shock leaning to the right in the latest European elections. The most concerning win was in France where Le Pen's Rassemblement National party polled nearly twice the number of votes than Macon's Renaissance party and secured a third of the French seats in the European parliament. This prompted the French president to call a snap election which some French political pundits described as a risky gamble.

Overall the makeup of the European parliament has little changed, but there is growing concern that there is a growing shift towards the far-right with many young people amongst those drawn towards these right wing parties.

The political turmoil is not helped by the fact that the number of candidates can run into dozens. In the case of the recent European election there were some 38 candidates in France alone. Many barely polled more than 1% of the vote which highlights the irrelevance of many such candidates. Moreover, there was less than a 50% turnout, an apparent indication that many people feel either disenfranchised or politically apathetic.

Disillusion in politics 

Such opinions are common. Quite a number of individuals talked to in Clacton expressed disillusionment with the political system. "I've only voted once," a bouncer in a pub said, though he could not remember for whom he'd placed his cross. As for whether he'd vote in the upcoming UK election he said he had no intention of doing so expressing the view that all politicians lied and didn't keep their promises. Others admitted they were politically illiterate and probably wouldn't vote. Such attitudes came mostly from the young, some of which seemed to have little or no knowledge of those standing. "Who's Nigel Farage?" was a common response from eighteen to twenty five year olds with some only identifying him with the television program "I'm a Celebrity".

So what of Farage and his chances of taking a seat in parliament. Certainly there were many people on the street proclaiming support for Farage.  "Nigel Farage says it how it is. That is why I quite like him. He definitely stands for what England is," one young lad told the Daily Mail. Another local, a 74-year old construction training company boss, said that Farage "talks a lot of sense." But there were many that thought he was a narcissist and only in it for his own ends. Such voices were admittedly difficult to find. "He's a twit," one haulage driver said. Another was critical of his role in bringing about the EU referendum. "Well Brexit's going well isn't it," one woman, who works in retail, said. "Everything's more expensive, cost of living has risen," she said.

"He screwed over European politics and now he's going to screw over our own," said another lone voice. "He's here for his own self worth."

"I think he's a total snake and I think he's got nothing to do with Clacton," another told Novara Media.  

The immigration election

Farage has dubbed the 2024 election the immigration election, and this is certainly the focus of many of those who say they'll vote for him.

"I feel like a foreigner in my own country, that's what I feel like," one man, wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the slogan 'Don't judge a book by its cover', told a reporter. Of Farage he had only praise. "He's a man that speaks the truth and steps forward."

"Where are leaders with integrity? I believe Nigel's got that," another local, wearing a FCUK baseball cap, claimed. Another also had faith in Farage. "If you support him he'll make Clacton great." [Joe / Joe]

Dissenting voices

While many people in Clacton were supportive of Farage despite a few dissenting voices, outside the town voters were far more critical. One Londoner was of the view that he's certainly get lots of votes from "Blue rinse Tories" who are "racist, misogynist and xenophobes" [iPaper].

There are some political pundits and even some Labour politicians that have almost welcomed his winning in order to bring him to account as he sits on the opposition benches [LBC]. 

However, anyone who is familiar with parliamentary protocol will know that many politicians rarely get a chance to speak bar a few questions if the leader of a party during PMQs. Thus Farage is unlikely to bring much debate to the house of commons. He's unlikely to do much for the people of Clacton either. But just as he left what he called a gravy train of the European Parliament so he is likely to get on another and rake in many thousands plus expenses as a Reform UK MP.

Emboldening the far-right

There is a danger that it could embolden him and others like him further. Certainly, despite the low turnout at the European elections, the far-right parties in Europe have become emboldened by the strong results in their favour.

The young that have voted for them in vast numbers, and are also likely to vote for Farage, seem to have forgotten their history. Farage claimed many young people did not know what D-Day was about as the country marked 80 years since the invasion. Yet it seems that many people have also forgotten how the far-right came to power in Weimar Germany in the 1930s and how Hitler eventually took control and abandoned democracy.

Farage and his ilk had during the Brexit campaign prophesied  that the EU would collapse. However many far-right parties are looking not to follow in a repeat of Britain's leaving the EU than to consolidate power through it [Le Monde].

Across the pond one waits with bated breath for the US presidential election in November which looks almost certain to put Trump back in the White House, a man that has already spoken about making considerable constitutional changes.

Rise of populist politics

There are surely many that will say that democracy will win and that people will come to their senses. But populist politics are taking hold as countries struggle financially, the cost of living rises, and immigrants and foreigners are made scapegoats for societal issues.

Even if western democracies don't collapse and become autocratic fascist dictatorships, it seems almost inevitable that political chaos is just years away.

None of this bodes well to persuade the likes of China to embrace democracy. China won't relish such chaos since it will affect its important markets. But it will nonetheless merely look on and exploit the situation where it can.

Education and democracy

"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education," Franklin D Roosevelt once said.

Such lines have been repeated in contemporary times too with Serj Tankian warning that without education, a path to autocracy is almost certain.

In his 2012 song Uneducated Democracy he pens, "Without an education there is no real democracy. Without an education there is only autocracy."

A democratic society is fragile and ripe for exploitation. A successful democracy relies heavily on the abilities and intelligence of the populace.

Given the uneducated views expressed in the last week on the streets of Clacton, the future is far from hopeful.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Damp start to election campaign

The election campaign started off as a rather damp squib with Rishi Sunak's soggy announcement as he was drenched by rain and drowned out by D.Ream's 'Things can only get better'.

But one week in and it's been a rather damp start to a six week campaign.

The Lib Dems have focused on the state of Britain's water supply and the literally shitty state that water companies have left the waterways, rivers and seas in.

Tim Faron, a former Lib Dem leader, told BBC Radio 4 they would radically overhaul the UK's water industry.

Meanwhile the current leader Sir Ed Davey conducted a bizarre interview with Sky News while perched on a waterboard in order to highlight similar issues, although the message was somewhat lost as one was focused on whether Sir Ed would end up as wet as Rishi Sunak last week.

The Tories meanwhile have hardly capitalised on putting out their message. The only major policy raised since last week has been a call to arms with the suggestion they would reintroduce National Service.

After only two days of campaigning Rishi Sunak took the weekend off [Guardian]. Meanwhile other MPs apparently resigned to the fact that the Tories are a busted flush have gone on holiday.

Hard man Brexit Steve Baker, the Northern Ireland minister, has been accused of giving up after jetting off to Greece instead of campaigning in his marginal constituency.

Baker defended his decision not to cancel his holiday plans, stating, "The Prime Minister told everyone we could go on holiday and then called a snap election. So I've chosen to do my campaign work in Greece." [Mirror]

Starmer launched his election campaign on the back of the simple slogan 'Change'. Yet this has been capitalised upon by Labour's political opponents pointing out just how much Starmer himself has changed and that what one wants in a potential PM is stability.

One case in point is Brexit on which Starmer has flip-flopped from a remain position through a people's vote position and now a 'make Brexit work' position.

On the fifth day of campaigning he said there was "No case" for going back into the EU.

Sir Keir Starmer was at an Airbus factory in Hertfordshire fielded questions from the public and reporters.

Speaking to the latter, he was asked whether a Labour government would review freedom of movement with the EU.

"We haven't got it any more, and we're not going back," he said. "There is no case for saying we go back into the EU."

He referred to the outcome of the 2016 referendum, despite having later campaigned for a second one.

But Sir Keir said he thinks "we can get a better deal" with the bloc.

He called for a "closer relationship", especially on trade and defence.

However, the EU as late as last June said the Brexit deal cannot be renegotiated with a new PM.

Whilst there would be a review of the deal Britain left with, the European Commission Vice-President Maros Sefcovic has said the EU would likely look at it in 2026 and warned that it would only cover the "implementation" of the deal rather than wholesale changes. Sefcovic also said customs checks at the border would likely remain but stressed the TCA had not been used to its "full potential" [iNews].

This would be a blow to any party that made a claim to renegotiate issues that have seriously affected trade and movement of goods. The tailbacks of lorries at Dover and stacking of lorries on the M20, as part of Operation Brock, is now so commonplace that it's rarely even reported anymore. In fact the tailbacks at Dover are almost daily and are further exacerbated during busy holiday periods when Britons seek to head to the continent for a vacation.

Indeed this Bank Holiday weekend saw massive delays at the port of Dover with motorists stuck in queues for up to five hours. The situation has become normal in Brexit Britain and barely got a mention in the papers though the BBC website did highlight the issue [BBC]. There have been calls for a review into the problems [BBC]. But everyone knows it primarily comes down to Brexit.

There are however only three parties that have even promoted the idea of moving closer to rejoining the EU, the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and the SNP, although the Lib Dems are a little reluctant to mention the subject [Politico].

Election coverage has also been extremely sparse. In particular, TV news coverage of election campaigning has in places almost been non-existent.

On Wednesday one might have blinked and missed Rishi Sunak's visit to Penzance in Cornwall. It was unclear from the brief clip shown of Sir Ed Davey on the BBC where the Lib Dems were even campaigning. And as for Labour, Starmer had seemingly disappeared as a row over Diane Abbott grew.

Elected as Britain's first black female MP in 1987 she has in the last few months become a thorn in Labour's side.

Abbott was suspended from the party in 2023 after suggesting Jewish people do not face racism and her comments were deemed anti-semitic by the Labour leader [BBC].

Just over five weeks out from the general election, she had the whip restored to her, paving the way for the veteran MP to run for Labour again in her Hackney North constituency.

However, reports quickly emerged that she had been barred from standing in July's election. Sir Keir Starmer denied this was the case, saying, "No decision has been taken to bar her going forward."

Yet Abbott was out on the street saying she would stay on as an MP for "as long as it is possible".

Confusion over Abbott's being allowed to stand appears to stem from an unknown Labour source who briefed journalists that Abbott would be barred from standing again in her Hackney North and Stoke Newington constituency despite the whip having been returned to her.

Starmer meanwhile has not been seen resulting in an almost Where's Wally moment for the Labour leader.

This is certainly not a good moment for Labour in what is a relatively short election campaign.

Most people have likely made up their minds - if the polls are to be believed - though there will be many floating voters out there.

Yet none of the parties has yet released their party manifesto.

Last week's election launch ran with headlines of Things can only get wetter. Given the rather wet election campaign thus far, this was rather apt.

[pictured - election parody posters]

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Rats leave sinking ship as UK election set for 4th July

Following Rishi Sunak's ill-advised calling of an early election, two more MPs have thrown in the towel. Michael Gove has said he won't stand for his seat in Surrey Heath, and Andrea Leadsom has also stood back from standing in South Northamptonshire.

The Conservative party has more than 150 seats, and rising, with no candidate. That is a lot of candidates for CCHQ to find before 7th June and a lot of wasted campaigning days. It does rather indicate Sunak called the election before his party was ready. Seventy eight have stood down with Gove and Leadsom being the latest. And some political pundits expect more to leap off the ship this weekend.

There appears to be much underlying anger within the party that Sunak made an almost unilateral decision to call a summer election without, apparently, even informing his cabinet [BBC / Economic Times]. Whilst this is speculation, the fact that his Foreign Secretary David Cameron had to cut short his visit to Albania and Defence Secretary Grant Shapps had to shelve a planned foreign visit reinforces this theory.

Many people in the party thought they had until Autumn to decide their position. With Sunak's early and unexpected election announcement, they are now feeling the party is over.

The election launch was not helped by Sunak's apparent impulsive decision to call it on Wednesday, the only day when veteran anti-Brexit protester Steve Bray and his supporters is in London with his loud speaker blasting sounds of satirical tunes in the direction of No.10.

Sunak would have known this as he left for PMQs at 11:30. He should also have been aware that the weather forecast was for continual rain throughout the day.

But just as King Canute couldn't hold back the tide, Sunak could not stop the heavens from opening up and carried on regardless. Shortly after five p.m. he went outside to deliver a nearly ten minute dialogue whilst being drenched by rain and blasted by the sounds of the 1997 Labour theme, Things Can Only Get Better by D.Ream, from Steve Bray's speaker at the end of the street.

It was already raining as the PM stepped towards the lectern. But as he continued through his speech the rain increased and by the end his suit was completely ruined and soaked - no doubt it was consigned to the dustbin shortly afterwards.

It wasn't perhaps surprising that many headlines in the papers the following day focused on the weather.

References to a damp squib were made while the Telegraph referenced the D.Ream song with 'Things Can Only Get Wetter'.

The Daily Mirror meanwhile went with a prediction of Drown & Out.

The more serious headlines still thought his election launch was ill-advised.

Many thought it was a 'gamble' and that Sunak had 'bet the house'.

Labour might think they've got it all sewn up. But complacency is not advised in Britain's divided post-Brexit society, still in turmoil as it endures a cost of living crisis.

Labour, at least according to polls, are likely to take the keys to No.10 as it sits some 20 points ahead of the Tories

But while the Conservatives will lose votes many traditional Tory voters may shift to the centrist Lib Dems or the more right leaning Reform Party. Indeed both parties are particularly focused on campaigning in Tory constituencies.

Wales might see a shift away from Labour especially after anti-motorist policies and growing dissatisfaction in the Labour administration in the Welsh parliament. Plaid Cymru could do a lot better than usual.

Scotland could win something back for Labour after problems the SNP has suffered with internal squabbles and scandals.

There is also a question concerning turnout with concerns from all sides it could be as low as 60%.

There is also concern amongst many traditional Labour voters who see Starmer as being little different from the Tories.

A cartoon published just one week before the election announcement in the Evening Standard alluded to just this with Starmer complaining a portrait of him with a red background wasn't blue enough. There is also the issue surrounding Gaza, which has proved contentious as Starmer holds with Israel's right to defend itself and won't concede to far left demands to call for a ceasefire in the region.

At the end of it all there are only two certainties. One, that there'll be a change of government. But, two, nothing will really change.

The country remains politically divided. Moreover, it is arguably bankrupt which will leave a new Labour administration in a difficult position to do anything to solve Britain's many problems.

Sunak has pointed to the pandemic and the war in Ukraine as well as rising energy prices as being challenges that Britain has faced and something that any government in power would have faced. This is partially true. But the elephant in the room which he has consistently ignored is Brexit which has seriously affected Britain's economic position.

Labour too has also ignored the B-word and failed to discuss how the country might improve trade with Europe post-Brexit.

Only the Lib Dems have suggested they wish to realign and build a closer relationship with the EU and rejoin the single market and customs union. Whilst not mentioning the subject of rejoining, it is in fact code for doing just that. Remember the 4 pillars? The cornerstones of the single market are often said to be the "four freedoms" – the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. These freedoms are embedded in the European Union's treaties and form the basis of the Single Market legislative framework.

The UK is still perhaps a long way off of rejoining the EU unless the5re is a major see-change in people's thinking and a huge swing towards the Lib Dems. But a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, the most likely outcome of this election, is perhaps a small step to Britain's rejoining the bloc and rebuilding its place in the world.

tvnewswatch, London, UK