Breaking down Brexit

Anyone with some sort of political acumen has an opinion on the primary issue dominating British politics, Brexit. It has hard to employ the word in any sort of discourse or context without feelings of dismay ascending, either because of the lies or connotations that come by implication to the word, these obviously include identity, nationalism and immigration. Whether or not one is a Brexiter, the issue has become heavily polluted, however the thing that I find most infuriating and most dangerous is that the EU debate, held over a year ago, was devoid of any holistic examination about the implications and consequences of the United Kingdom’s potential exit from the European Union. Only now are we seeing the consequences of this, as Prime Minister May struggles to gain any sort of traction in her quest to depart the institution.

Firstly, it needs to be acknowledged that the EU are a bureaucratic and aristocratic panel of unelected and undemocratic, sovereign representatives, existing purely to satisfy and satiate cooperate interests. They are largely responsible for the centralisation of capital and wealth in Europe and the West and have contributed to the dearth of progress in developing counties. Yet, despite this very sufficient ineptitude, the argument most heavily proliferated against the EU has been related to immigration. This may be a question for another debater article, but are there deeper structural powers at play here? Because, surely, if the EU’s politics was the problem, then the aforementioned reason would be a more prudent and politically legitimate issue to raise.

Moving on however, by implication of the EU’s political sovereignty, the EU are integral to every part of British infrastructure. As Britain continues to establishes it self as a champion of the single market, propositioned by the EU, essential facets of British society engrosses itself into the EU’s remit. This includes the foundations of society’s structures; trains, buildings, planning regulations all go through procurement processes laid down by the EU and this is essential to Britain’s economy in both a financial and functionality capacity. The importance of this is evidence, yet it begs the question, why was this not mentioned in the debate?

Furthermore, the EU is heavily engrossed in Britain’s research assembly. This is again by implication of having a political system that is so heavily engrossed into the EU’s productivity The UK is one of the largest recipients of research funding from the EU. Over the period 2007 to 2013 the UK received €8.8 billion out of a total of the €107 billion expenditure available to research, development and innovation in EU Member States, associated and third countries. This represents the fourth largest share in the EU. In terms of funding awarded on a competitive basis in the period 2007 – 2013, the UK was the second largest recipient after Germany, securing €6.9 billion out of a total of €55.4 billion. Why again, was this not mentioned in the debate?

 

Then finally, economics. Through access to the single market, London has been able to attract institutional and corporate investment from Europe and beyond these shores. Why again, was this not mentioned in the debate? Conversely, on a different dynamic, with an estimated population of 8,615,246 residents, London is the most populous region, urban zone and metropolitan area in the United Kingdom. London generates approximately 22% of the UK’s GDP, with 41,000 private sector businesses based in London (at the start of 2013). The lack of economic, political and opportunistic devolution in the UK is indicative of the EU’s operational structure. The single market is the most lucrative version of itself in a centralised system where money, labour and politics transpires in the same space, because investors would rather invest in one super-economy with extravagant returns (London), than invest in a split of many healthy economies around where the returns may be more stable but less spectacular. This surely, like my first elucidation, is a far more prudent argument to make against the EU, than a largely fabricated narrative about immigration (which I will clarify in another debater article).

Conclusively, the thing that I am most trying to infer here is that the current format of political destitution and reporting, from both the politicians and the media, needs renovation. In the context of Brexit; the state of political analysis was repugnant. The aforementioned issues, that both highlights the advantages and disadvantages of being an EU member state, was largely ignored and a narrative manifested itself that seemed to purely oppose the establishment or at least a perception of an establishment. Is politics not supposed to be about creating a better society? Well you could have fooled me!

Sexual harassment scandal plagues Westminster

Westminster is a place I largely admire. It is a place of great history, great tradition and great prestige. This week though, has not been a good week for Westminster. Allegations of inappropriate behaviour by MPs across the political spectrum have haunted Westminster. The scandal began when reports emerged of female researchers and aides using a WhatsApp group to share information about alleged sexual abuse and harassment in Westminster.

Whilst this story is ongoing, it is first important to remember two things. Firstly, all have to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Secondly, there is a major difference between two consenting adults engaging in a relationship and claims of sexual misconduct or harassment.

At time of writing, the biggest casualty is former Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon, who was forced to resign after admitting his conduct had “fallen short.” This has not stopped further stories about Fallon, including reports of sexual assault, which he strongly denies. Additionally, first Secretary of State Damien Green is facing an investigation. The senior Cabinet Minister is accused of making inappropriate advances to a female activist and Conservative journalist. Furthermore, backbench Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke has seen the whip removed following “serious allegations.” The Times reports that according to a former senior Conservative Minister, seven members of the Cabinet are considering their position.

Labour too has faced a difficult week. At the beginning of the week a Labour activist claimed she was raped at a Labour Party event in 2011 and advised not to report the story. Later in the week, veteran MP Kelvin Hopkins was suspended over a sexual misconduct claim. Reports claim Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had previously been warned about Hopkins. Lastly, on Friday the Labour Party announced they were investigating Clive Lewis over allegations he groped a woman at Labour Party Conference. This followed swiftly accusations against former Minister Ivan Lewis who accepted his behaviour towards female women had been “unwelcome.”

Undoubtedly, these revelations provide further evidence Westminster needs a culture change. Powerful men for too long have been exploiting their position. They have abused young aides (mainly women) both verbally and physically who have felt powerless to act knowing these MPs had great power over their future career. This is a situation no-one should have to face. It has likely caused some to leave Westminster and others to shy away from jobs in Parliament. This is a wake-up call for Westminster and one they should heed. It is time for action.

 

 

What to do about Boris?

Boris Johnson is a politician who divides opinion; a marmite figure if you will. Not many sit on the fence when it comes to the Foreign Secretary. Boris is also a figure it is hard to keep out of the news. His ‘unique’ style and tendency to say the wrong thing at the wrong time makes him a journalist’s dream. Qualities that some might argue are not becoming of a Foreign Secretary.

This week Boris has found himself under pressure again following comments he made to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. The Foreign Secretary stated that a British-Iranian Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe jailed in Iran had been teaching people journalism at the time of her arrest. Her family and employer have always maintained she was on holiday at the time of the arrest. The Iranian judiciary and media have seized upon these comments and claimed he has now revealed the truth about her actions. Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe has already been sentenced to five years in jail, but could now see this sentence increase as a result of the remarks.

Mr Johnson has since apologised if his comments had “caused anxiety.” This apology of sorts does not go far enough for many and senior Conservatives have called for the Foreign Secretary to be sacked. Mr Johnson has also said that he is willing to meet the husband of Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe before he visits Iran in a couple of weeks. This is a trip which could have potentially serious ramifications for his future.

When considering whether the Foreign Secretary should be sacked, it is important to remember we don’t live in normal political times and he is not a normal case.

Presently, Theresa May has limited power. Two Secretaries of State, Sir Michael Fallon and Priti Patel have just resigned from the Government. Parliamentary arithmetic is difficult and Brexit legislation dividing the party is coming fast down the line. This is not an ideal time to sack your Brexiteer Foreign Secretary.

Furthermore, for all his faults Boris is a ‘Heineken politician.’ He reaches the parts of the electorate few other can’t. He was the Conservative candidate who won the mayoralty in Labour London twice. He was the spearhead behind Vote Leave’s success in the EU Referendum. This would be a man people could flock to on the backbenches.

When deciding her next move the Prime Minister has a lot to consider. Britain cannot afford to have a Foreign Secretary who endangers the lives of our citizens abroad. However does the Prime Minister have the authority to carry out the sacking and would she survive the resulting repercussions? It is an unenviable position for a Prime Minister already on life support to face.

Why has the Idea of a Second Referendum not Materialized?

What makes democracies flourish is scrutiny. Opposition to government brings out the best of the governing parties through scrutiny and compromise with government. The Brexit referendum broke this trend in a peculiar way.  Neither of the two main parties in the UK are ardently pro-EU, and Labour’s ambiguity in their stance towards Brexit makes easier the job of the Conservatives – who face less opposition from Labour in regard to the withdrawal from the EU than they ought to. The fundamental reason for this is down to the fear of alienating large swaths of supporters.

Since the General Election in June, Labour has maintained a narrow lead over the Conservatives in the polls, despite the divisions in the Tory party on the manner of the EU withdrawal, while failing to consolidate a strong lead over them.

Labour’s relative success in this election was founded on a mixture of former UKIP, Liberal Democrat and Green voters. This varied coalition has brought Labour into a strong political position in parliament and aided the collapse of the Conservative majority. The Labour party has long awaited success in the polls, and it appears that they are (on face value) succeeding in that regard. This however, makes Labour’s newly established popularity fragile, if one is to assume that Brexit is a major electoral issue. The support is delicate due to Labour’s mixed messages on Brexit – Corbyn made a career of being a left-wing Eurosceptic; Sadiq Khan and Tom Watson not ruling out a second referendum; and Corbyn resisting calls from Labour members to remain in the Single Market. The Brexit ambiguity that is projected by Labour therefore fails to alienate its pro-remain (students, and former Green and Lib Dem) voters, while keeping Britain’s ‘working-class leavers’ happy (estimated to be around 15 percent of the population).

A radical deviation to either ‘Brexit’ or ‘Remain’ politics would certainly risk Labour’s lead in the polls. This may explain the silence from the strongly pro-EU Labour MPs such as Owen Smith (now in the shadow cabinet), which begs the question: is Labour prioritising its party interests over what many of its MPs believe will damage the UK with Brexit?

Either way, Labour will eventually have to come out of its shell and show a firmer stance in this regard. This will not necessarily harm the party – a plurality of people believe that Brexit will damage the economy, and life more generally. If the damages of leaving the EU become as clear as they were described during the Referendum, then surely a vote on the final deal obtained by the government would not be an unpopular move.

Universities must remain bastions of free speech

Free speech and open debate are qualities we rightly hold in high esteem in this country. The university system embodies these qualities. They provide a place for students to explore their political views and beliefs and debate with fellow pupils. This environment is precious and to be protected fiercely.

So why do these initial points need to be made? The answer can be found in a letter sent this week by Conservative MP and whip Chris Heaton-Harris. Mr Heaton-Harris had written to every university asking for the names of the academics teaching about Brexit. Later it has been claimed Mr Heaton-Harris was acting in his capacity as an MP and not acting on behalf of the Government, with the letter designed for academic research.

This has not spared Mr Heaton-Harris a fierce rebuke from both the political and university sectors. Universities Minister Jo Johnson said the letter “probably shouldn’t have been sent.” Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake believed the letter was “a poorly disguised attempt to shut down debate on Brexit.” Professor David Green, vice-Chancellor at the University of Worcester believed the letter constituted a “British McCarthyism”, with Chris Patten, the chancellor of Oxford University going further saying the letter was an “extraordinary example of outrageous and foolish behaviour – offensive and idiotic Leninism.” There is a possibility now that Mr Heaton-Harris could face an official standards inquiry, after it was claimed that the letters were sent on taxpayer-funded Commons paper.

Brexit is the prevalent issue of our day. Both young and old, university educated and non-university educated have an opinion. It is a conversation that did not end after the referendum and probably will not end for some considerable time. All need the space and the freedom to reach their own conclusions. It is important that we trust our students to reach these positions on their own, even if they are not positions the Government is adopting.

It is unclear whether this was a clumsy attempt to put pressure on universities, or simply part of an ill-thought out academic process. Regardless, it crossed several lines and is not acceptable. The Government should not be in the position of being seen to influence university syllabuses. The condemnation should serve as a warning to any within the political system who would seek to direct our universities and students in a particular political direction.

 

The Harvey Weinstein Culture

Over the past few weeks, I’ve watched on silently at the news concerning Harvey Weinstein, frustrated and disgusted yet equally unsurprised. The world appeared aghast. Harvey Weinstein isn’t the first of his kind. And the type of behaviour he displayed was and is not uncommon in a multitude of industries, ones I have worked in myself before.  Whatever the industry, there will always be a Harvey Weinstein. What we need is to eradicate the culture, to lose the phrase “it happens”. Our work starts there. The moment we refuse to accept it at the norm, that’s the point at which we can begin to work on eradicating it altogether. There are far too many cases of sexual harassment forgotten about, never mentioned, never reported, slipped under the rug.

The fact is, that despite being 2017 and all the progress we’ve made in a number of areas, we’ve also regressed. If a woman speaks out about sexual harassment in the workplace, it is HER that is looked upon unfavourably and it is HER that is feared for all the wrong reasons. Fear that she may cause an embarrassing lawsuit of some kind. But wait a second, what about the sexual predator that harassed her in the first place? Are we forgetting we have greater reason to be afraid of him?

There are laws in place to protect exactly the type of behaviour that women were subjected to by Weinstein, yet when women seek protection through such laws, they are often denied it and subsequently ostracised.

To be a feminist, you’ll agree, you don’t need to stand up on a pillar, wave about your flag and rant and complain about men. You just, at times like these, need to be brave enough to stand up for yourself. To recognise that the world isn’t defined by what some men who hold the most senior positions in certain industries believe; that the only way you can be successful is to respond positively to their sexual advancements. Your sexuality, your beauty, the way you dress, all of these things are not and should not be the reason for your promotion. Dress to power dress, not to please.

Yes, the world rallied round all the women who were mistreated by Harvey Weinstein. But the point is not support in the aftermath. Its the fact that the world and the film industry allowed this to happen in the first place! Your actions would have greater impact in the moment. If something isn’t right, doesn’t feel right, doesn’t seem fair, I urge you not to be afraid to just at the very least make clear your basic human rights. As a woman, I am disappointed that we are still not yet being completely valued for our achievements and instead are seen in almost tunnel-vision fashion; as sexual objects. Rather than as remarkable individuals, with the power to achieve and to be successful in whatever we may desire. But I am equally, if not, more disappointed, as a human being, that we are letting one another down. More than 50 women have come forward about Harvey Weinstein’s actions. Its 2017, this is just not acceptable. Not acceptable in a world where we’ve come so far in terms of healthcare and protection and security. A world in which to become a vet, you require more than 5 different checks. And this is exactly the same world in which Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted and harassed over 50 women. How on earth did he slip the net? How could we, did we, let that happen? I ask you then, where is security, law and order, and protection when we need it most? It seems our own systems are failing us.

And the truth is, it starts with us. Failing to report something only serves to condone the behaviour of the likes of Harvey Weinstein. We are failing each other. Always speak up. No matter how frightening the situation, integrity can never be a bad thing.

Let’s not live in a world where we make reporting a sexual crime, or any crime for that matter, a taboo. We have worked hard to create the democratic, civilised society we live in today and as the years go on, it’s in real danger of slipping right through our fingers.

Planning for a “No Deal” Brexit remains sensible!

Newspaper reports have suggested Brexit Secretary David Davis has ordered officials to step up preparations for the possibility of a failure to strike a deal with the EU which Davis would then present to the Cabinet. Labour has reiterated they will not accept a “no-deal” Brexit and that claims the UK could walk away from the EU without a deal are “irresponsible.”

However, surely this is simply sensible planning from the Government? Firstly, as a negotiating party there is a duty to prepare for all outcomes. A “No-Deal” Brexit appears to be gaining traction. (JP Morgan claims the chance of this occurring now sit at 25%.) Secondly, most would argue that to be taken seriously in any negotiation you have to show you are willing to walk away. Failing to do this provides the opposing side with a distinct advantage.

Crucially, though, and this point must be made clear, preparing for a “No-Deal” Brexit does not mean this is a desirable outcome. The call from Brexit pressure group Leave means Leave for Theresa May to walk away from negotiations should EU leaders refuse to start trade talks is irresponsible and dangerous. A “No-Deal” Brexit is not ideal for the country. It fails to provide economic and security agreements and provides no level of certainty. It would also be a significant negotiating failure which would have clear political consequences. So, yes it should be prepared for, but not sought for.

The reality is these negotiations are at an early stage. There is a lot to happen yet. Given that no country has tried to do what we are doing, it is clear this was going to be complex. The idea there wouldn’t be complications or disagreements along the way was simply ludicrous. Clearly, the mood music is not great at present. This does not mean that we should despair.

It is palpably in both sides interests to strike a deal. A “No-Deal” scenario hurts both the EU and the UK (yes it would hurt the UK more than the EU, but the EU will want to avoid unnecessary damage!) That is why it is likely both sides will reach an agreement at some stage. But, until that deal is agreed then the Government and the UK must have a back-up plan. And hopefully that is all this is and will be.

 

The Nordic Model and Compassionate Capitalism

The term “Nordic Model” refers to the broad spectrum of social, economic and political culture associated with the countries of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland. These policies are relatively left-ward leaning in nature, which results in the unique Scandinavian mix of social democracy and free-market economics. This leads to a highly unionised labour force, an emphasis on collective bargaining under government mediation whilst simultaneously commiting to private ownership and free-trade.

It is typical of Scandinavians to accept a high level of taxation with the expectation that these taxes be used to support high quality public sector services such as hospitals, schools and transport infrastructure. It helps that these countries have some of the lowest corruption rates in the world: Sweden at rank 4, Finland at 3 and Denmark at 1 on the Corruption Perceptions Index (p. 22, Transparency International, 2016). Additionally, these countries enjoy some of the lowest levels of inequality of any region in the world because of its “universalist” approach to building a welfare state.

So, my question is; is it better to focus single-mindedly on a metric of political success that puts so much emphasis on GDP and economic growth, when to instead focus on a more compassionate capitalism can lead to more personal contentment and happiness? Our answer becomes all the more important once we note the fact that Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Finland take up four of the top five places in the World Happiness Index (UN, 2017). Just what kind of society do we want to build? One which works towards the increase of arbitrary numbers and statistics, or one which values the experience of those who live within its borders?

“Corruptions Perception Index 2016″ Transparency International, 2016, accessed at: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016 (on 16/10/2017)

“World Happiness Report 2017″, United Nations, 2017, accessed at: http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/HR17.pdf (on 16/10/2017)

Osborne is right over May leadership!

George Osborne, former Conservative MP and Chancellor of Exchequer, now editor of the Evening Standard, threw another grenade into the ongoing conversation about the leadership of Theresa May on Thursday evening. Speaking at an event hosted by The Spectator, Osborne firmly stated there were “very serious challenges” facing the Conservative Party under the leadership of Theresa May.

The political and personal differences between the two are well-known, but if we ignore them and just assess what Osborne said, does he have a point?

Expanding on his main hypothesis, Osborne argued that “closing your eyes and hoping leadership questions go away, or exalting people to unity doesn’t work in politics.” This is a fair assessment. Although, many Conservative MPs have not voiced their concerns about Theresa May in public, it does not mean these concerns don’t exist and aren’t bubbling away and waiting to burst out at an appropriate time. The latest polls indicate Corbyn has now drawn level with May in the best Prime Minister ratings. This will only exacerbate the debate in the Conservative Party.

Osborne also added that it was no good for the Conservative Party to say “oh, I wish we could all stop talking about it” and that you couldn’t talk to a member of the Cabinet without the issue being raised. This adds weight to claims made by Grant Shapps during his aborted coup that there were Cabinet Ministers who wanted Theresa May to call a leadership contest. The Sunday Times also reported that at least three Cabinet Ministers had discussed the need to replace Theresa May. This cannot be merely labelled a ‘Westminster bubble’ issue, this conversation is dominating the highest levels of Government.

Osborne also remains defiant about the belief that the Conservative Party are at their best when they are “positive about the country’s future”.  This is a clear critique of the direction he believes Theresa May is leading the Conservatives in. The performance of the Conservative Party at the General Election raised legitimate questions about the brand of the Conservative Party and what voters believed about them. The damage caused by that campaign and the need for the party to change their image again will only persist whilst Theresa May is leader.

Projecting false senses of unity, insisting conversations aren’t happening and lastly pretending all in the party are happy with its current direction will not close this debate down. Leadership conversations in politics are notoriously messy, but until the Conservative Party have this debate, most crucially about their future direction as a party (and that includes their leader) they will not progress. Surely that is not in anyone’s interest?

A Tale of two Conferences

The Conservative party is in disarray. Its lack of unity, its continued Brexit bemusement and its uncertainty over leadership came to a crescendo at their conference in Manchester last week. By contrast, the Labour party is inexplicably in the ascendency: a strong and stable leader in Jeremy Corbyn, a vibrant and unified atmosphere, appearances for notable intellectuals and social progressives and even an increasingly coherent approach to Brexit, outlined at the Labour conference in Brighton. The two conferences represented a decisive shift of the centre ground in politics, towards the left.

Theresa May and the Conservatives recognise this convergence. It was almost pitiful to see the Conservatives borrow the language of the left, with ‘a country that works for everyone’ emblazoned on every wall. It appears the Conservatives are also desperate enough to reprise a Labour policy from the past promising an energy price freeze (Mason,2017). Conservative efforts to remedy their estrangement with the young was symbolised by an increase to the threshold at which students would have to pay back their debts and a planned freeze on tuition fees increasing again. In a further effort to detoxify Tory perceptions among the youth, there was a promise of a £9bn boost for affordable housing to help younger generations get on the housing ladder (Bush,2017).

As Theresa May coughed and spluttered her way through a painfully unconvincing speech, (disrupted by Simon Brodkin brandishing a P45), Jeremy Corbyn delivered a commanding speech with an unexpectedly clear position on membership of the customs union and the single market, the protection of EU citizens, and a more predictable commitment to a national education service, pledges to control rents and regenerate council housing (The Guardian,2017) – policies proven to be popular with the electorate (Curtis,2017). Corbyn had the confidence of a man aware that he had conquered the mainstream media, dirty Conservative politics, an embittered Blairite coup and two landslide leadership elections. He seemed aware that he has more than earnt his place.

The most exciting and busiest Labour conference for years stood in stark contrast to the anxious and half-hearted proceedings at the Conservative conference. Despite the demonization of Momentum, it has rejuvenated the Labour party, which now has over half a million members (Waugh,2017). With the overwhelming support of young people and ethnic minorities, Momentum has provided a platform for the apathetic and the hopeless to believe in politics once again. Furthermore, its social media campaigning has revolutionised Labour’s communication capabilities. Be in no doubt, that with a return to its grass roots, full support from the unions and with honest, principled politics informing policy, the Labour party could win the next election.

The pinnacle of excitement at the Conservative conference came from the adoring fans of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Ruth Davidson, those extolled as possible successors to Theresa May. They were relentlessly quizzed on their respective positions on leadership. Boris Johnson, another potential leadership candidate accused of destabilising the party, gave a hopelessly jingoistic speech about the lion of Britain roaring despite occupying an isolated and economically impotent place in world politics. He was also sharply reprimanded by Amber Rudd for not applauding the ailing Prime Minister during her speech. Johnson even had just enough time to describe his vision for Libya; he predicted that it could become the new Dubai, as long as we ‘clear the dead bodies away’ (Elgot & Mason, 2017).

Only days later, everyone’s favourite Grant Shapps claimed that an internal plot calling for May to stand down was imminent, and it had the support of over 30 MPs and ‘one or two’ frontbenchers (Bush,2017). It seems that May has been granted her wish of emulating Thatcher, but sadly it may only be in the way she is forced out by a dispute over the EU, by members of her own party. Corbyn, on the other hand, is busy preparing for the future and busy digging graves: one for Theresa, one for austerity and one for New Labour. And over the clear and aerated soil, he has planted a red rose with stronger grassroots, ready to blossom once again.

Bush, Stephen, ‘Five thoughts on Conservative party conference’, The New Statesmen (2017) https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/10/five-thoughts-conservative-party-conference

Bush, Stephen, ‘Could Grant Shapps’ plot to bring down Theresa May succeed?’, The New Statesmen (2017) https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/10/could-grant-shapps-plot-bring-down-theresa-may-succeed

Curtis, Chris, ‘Corbyn’s policies really are popular with centrist voters. But he still isn’t’, The Guardian (2017) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/28/jeremy-corbyn-policies-yougov-centre-ground-labour

Elgot, Jessica & Mason, Rowena, ‘Theresa May faces calls to sack Boris Johnson over Libya comments’, The Guardian (2017) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/03/sirte-can-become-a-holiday-destination-if-it-clears-the-dead-bodies-says-johnson

Mason, Rowena, ‘Theresa May’s speech to Conservative party conference: key points’, The Guardian (2017) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/04/theresa-may-speech-conservative-party-conference-key-points

Waugh, Paul, ‘Labour Party Membership Soars By 35,000 In Just Four Days – After ‘Corbyn Surge’ In 2017 General Election’, The Huffington Post (2017) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-party-membership-soars-by-
33000-in-four-days-since-general-election_uk_59400feee4b0e84514ee930f

The Guardian, ‘Corbyn’s conference speech: the verdict’ (2017) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/27/jeremy-corbyn-conference-speech-verdict-panel-guardian