The politics blog

US President Donald Trump has halted funding for the WHO (World Health Organisation).

On Tuesday Trump told reporters, “I am directing my administration to halt funding while a review is conducted to assess the World Health Organization’s role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus”.

Trump also questioned the organisation’s relationship with China, stating “American taxpayers provide between $400m-$500m per year to the WHO, in contrast, China contributes roughly $40m a year, even less”. Trump also stated, “As the organisation’s leading sponsor, the US has a duty to insist on full accountability”.

Without a doubt, this development is significant. Three outcomes arise as a result of Trump’s decision to halt funding to the WHO. Firstly, the WHO’s capability to help other countries to tackle the coronavirus crisis is reduced. Secondly, relations between the USA and China worsen. And, thirdly, doubt is cast on the ability of states to cooperate within multilateral institutions, such as the WHO, which has implications for the future dynamics of the international system.

Unsurprisingly, leaders and officials around the world have criticised Trump’s decision to halt funding for the WHO. Critics have argued that this decision will inhibit the WHO’s ability to support countries in their fight against the coronavirus crisis. Critics have also suggested that this decision was an attempt by Trump to deflect criticism regarding his administration’s response to the coronavirus crisis and to place blame for the crisis onto the WHO and China.

It is obvious that Trump, in announcing this move, was attempting to deflect the criticism he was receiving regarding his response to the coronavirus crisis. So, it is important to avoid the trap of focusing on this story instead of continuing to examine and scrutinise Trump’s ongoing response to the coronavirus crisis. 

However, it is equally important to avoid the trap of focusing on Trump and failing to scrutinise and hold to account both the WHO and China during this ongoing crisis. Both the WHO and China are influential actors and their actions will inevitably affect events regarding the ongoing coronavirus crisis. Regardless of one’s opinions about Trump’s actions and his comments regarding the WHO and China, one cannot dispute that he is right to scrutinise these actors throughout this crisis.

It is only right that the WHO and China, alongside Trump, are scrutinised and held to account. Such scrutiny of all relevant parties is necessary to ensure the best outcome for all of us as we navigate through this ongoing crisis.

EU Finance Ministers recently agreed on several common financial measures to protect countries in the EU that have been particularly affected by the coronavirus crisis.

The measures, yet to gain final approval by the respective EU countries’ leaders, includes a joint employment insurance fund worth 100 billion euros, 200 billion euros of liquidity made available for companies via a European Investment Bank instrument and also 240 billion euros worth of credit made available for members to spend on tackling the virus. The measures were agreed after finance ministers failed to find an agreement on Wednesday.

This is a significant development. Had finance ministers failed to find an agreement, the long-term viability of the EU project would have been brought into jeopardy. Indeed, the Italian Prime Minister, Giuseppe Conte, was right to state in an interview with the BBC that the EU could fail over the coronavirus outbreak.

A failure to agree on these financial measures would have been substantial because it would have shown that cooperation and cohesion are lacking among the EU member states. As the failure to agree on a deal earlier in the week and the continuous disagreement over so-called coronabonds shows, even during a crisis affecting the whole bloc member states still struggle to put their respective interests above those of other member states and the EU project.

The disagreement over so-called coronavirus bonds, which is essentially a disagreement over debt-sharing among member states, is particularly interesting. One would have thought that the EU member states would have been desperate to do everything possible, including debt-sharing, to ensure all member states survive the fallout from the coronavirus crisis. However, some states, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Austria, have shown that they are reluctant to share in the financial burden of bailing out other member states during this crisis. This is surprising as one would presume that debt-sharing is a price worth paying if it supports other member states and, as a consequence, helps support the EU economy and helps ensure the viability of the EU project.

Given that the viability of the EU has been threatened by Brexit and the rise of nationalism in some member states, it is surely in the interests of countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Austria to support other member states through this crisis, even it involves debt-sharing because it will ultimately help ensure that the EU does not fall apart.

Of course, debt-sharing is controversial among nationalists in some member states. Yet, the reluctance of countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Austria to agree to debt-sharing is perfect ammunition for nationalists throughout Europe who could use it to argue that the EU does not serve the interests of their respective countries.

The difficulties in finding an agreeable financial solution to help member states overcome the coronavirus crisis is not surprising. Far from it, it highlights one of the inherent difficulties the bloc has always faced: how member states can reconcile their own economic and political interests with those of the EU.

Although the EU has survived crises before, such as the 2008 financial crisis and Brexit, the coronavirus crisis will again test its viability. No doubt Italy will remember that, in addition to the help it received from EU member states, other countries, such as Russia and China, also came to its aid.

The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the difficulties the EU faces in holding itself together. The current structure of the EU enables member states to prioritise their domestic political and economic interests over the interests of the bloc as a whole, which seems untenable leading into the future.

It appears that the long-term viability of the EU hinges, in part, on further integration among member states so that the respective political and economic interests of member states do not trump the political and economic interests of the EU. If such integration does not occur, the EU will face the same problems again when the next crisis occurs and will spend the rest of its existence struggling to hold itself together.

Keir Starmer was announced as the new Leader of the Labour Party on Saturday and Angela Rayner was elected as The Deputy Leader of the party.

The election of Keir Starmer should come as welcome news to Labour supporters as he is likely to boost Labour’s chances of winning the next general election. Also, the coronavirus crisis, while an obvious tragedy, provides the opportunity for Keir Starmer to demonstrate his leadership skills, his ability to hold the government to account and his political nous. However, moving forward Keir Starmer will find it difficult to unite the party and to forge a foreign policy regarding the EU that appeases both Leave-voting Labour supporters and Labour supporters and MPs sympathetic towards the EU.

Keir Starmer has shown a capacity for leadership both during the leadership campaign and immediately following his leadership victory. He has been bold in emphasising his desire to rid the Labour party of anti-Semitism and in acknowledging the need to change the party moving forward if it is to win a general election. He has also demonstrated his political competence in recent years, especially as Shadow Brexit Secretary, and can lead an effective opposition that will rigorously hold the government to account and keep it on its toes. His show of leadership and competence, if sustained, could be enough to create the image of Labour as an effective party fit to govern the country. Yet, the challenge for Keir Starmer will be selling the party’s popular policies while avoiding the negative media attention that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell attracted when proposing similar policies.

Of course, the announcement of Keir Starmer’s victory takes place during the current coronavirus crisis. Yet, contrary to James Forsyth’s suggestion that the coronavirus crisis may overshadow Keir Starmer’s leadership victory and his subsequent 100 days as leader, the coronavirus crisis could play to Keir Starmer’s advantage. Although an obvious tragedy for everyone, the crisis provides an opportunity for Keir Starmer to demonstrate to the public that he has the skills to be the Prime Minister and that the Labour party is competent enough to be in government. Throughout the following weeks, the opportunity is there for Keir Starmer to demonstrate his leadership skills, his ability to constructively criticise the Government and hold it to account, and his political nous by producing sound policies that will help to tackle the coronavirus crisis and help produce an exit strategy. Indeed, he has already taken advantage of this opportunity. For example, his article in The Sunday Times yesterday provided wise comments regarding the coronavirus crisis, such as the need to ramp up testing, to have a vaccine programme in place, to ensure that NHS staff have the proper equipment and to ensure that the government produces and publishes an exit strategy. These comments show foresight and are welcome in the fight against the coronavirus crisis.

However, as mentioned, Keir Starmer does face some key challenges. He will inevitably struggle to unite the party, despite his claims he can do so. For any large political party, the Labour party included, it is difficult to ensure everyone is consistently on message and to tame internal critics. As well as this, Brexit will continue to cause problems for the Labour party, even under Keir Starmer’s leadership. Keir Starmer, and his new Shadow Foreign Secretary, Lisa Nandy, are sympathetic to the EU project and will no doubt want to maintain close alignment with the EU moving forward. It remains to be seen how Keir Starmer can forge a foreign policy regarding the EU that appeases both Leave-voting Labour supporters and Labour supporters and MPs sympathetic towards the EU. Although one would assume that the Labour party has learned its lessons since Brexit and the recent general election, it seems unlikely that Labour members and MPs sympathetic to the EU will easily give up the argument for close alignment anytime soon.

Come what may, Keir Starmer looks set to lead an effective opposition that will hold the government to account for the remainder of Boris Johnson’s premiership. And, worryingly for the Conservatives, it does seem that Keir Starmer has the personality and intellect to win the support necessary to propose a serious challenge to them during the 2024 general election.

There has been much talk lately about how the world might change after the coronavirus pandemic has passed, ranging from discussions about our work habits and travel habits to discussions about our welfare system and the environment. Yet, there has been less discussion about how the coronavirus pandemic might change the current dynamics within the international system.

The coronavirus pandemic has the potential to change many aspects of the international system, such as the global economy, migration patterns, and international institutions. More specifically, the coronavirus pandemic could alter the dynamics of the international system and could alter relations among states.

The role of China during this crisis is worth considering in detail. As is well known, China has the second-largest economy in the world and is a significant actor within the international system. As is also well known, it has been trying to expand its influence in the international system for some time. Therefore, its response to this crisis is important because it is likely to impact how it is perceived by other states. A change in how China is perceived following the crisis is significant because it could alter the current dynamics of the international system.

Following the coronavirus crisis, China’s reputation could improve or it could decline. If its reputation declines, this is unlikely to significantly change the dynamics of the international system. However, if its reputation improves this could set China up to assume a leadership role within the international system, which could have wide-ranging implications.

One might argue that China’s reputation may decline as a result of how it has dealt with the coronavirus crisis. For example, some may argue that China originally concealed the true extent of the virus when it first broke out and that China may have manipulated the statistics regarding the number of infections and deaths within China. Those that believe this may argue that these actions will result in China being regarded as irresponsible and secretive. If this is how China is perceived after the coronavirus crisis then its reputation may decline and it would be less likely its position within the international system improves.

However, in contrast, one might argue that China’s reputation will improve after the coronavirus crisis has passed due to the perception that it dealt with its coronavirus outbreak fairly efficiently and due to the support it has offered to other countries. That China was able to manage the crisis within its own country fairly effectively is impressive because it was the first country to have to manage an outbreak of the coronavirus. Indeed, it was not fortunate enough to have time to prepare like other countries. So, having managed the crisis within its own country fairly effectively, it has demonstrated to the world that it can manage unexpected national crises fairly efficiently and quickly. Of course, one may argue that the techniques that China used to manage the coronavirus were forceful and perhaps inhumane, but that does take away from the efficiency with which China dealt with the problem.

Also, as mentioned, after dealing with its coronavirus outbreak, China supported other countries in their fight against the coronavirus. For example, it has donated equipment, supplies and medical aid to other countries. As reported in the Guardian, China has previously donated coronavirus testing kits to Cambodia, sent planeloads of ventilators, masks and medics to Italy and France, pledged to help the Philippines, Spain and other countries, and deployed medics to Iran and Iraq. And, yesterday, it was announced that China has provided 300 ventilators to the UK and it has donated 1,000 ventilators to the State of New York. In addition, yesterday Justin Trudeau announced that Canada will receive “millions” of masks from China within the next 48 hours. China’s decision to provide support to other countries is more impressive given it has faced criticism recently from other countries and leaders. One pertinent example of this criticism is Trump’s ‘Chinese virus’ comment. By offering resources and aid to other countries, China has highlighted to the world how well equipped it is and also that it is willing and able to help other states during a crisis. These two factors, its resources and willingness to help, signal to the world it is capable of assuming a leadership role within the international system.

So, China’s reputation may improve as a result of its response to the coronavirus crisis. If China’s reputation does improve, this would be significant as it could enable China to assume a leadership role within the international system. What the coronavirus pandemic has shown is that there is a lack of leadership in the international system and a lack of coordination and cooperation among states. While states have largely adopted similar responses to tackle the coronavirus crisis, there has not been a distinct and coordinated response from states nor has there been one state that has assumed a leadership role throughout the crisis. Importantly, following the coronavirus crisis, states around the world may deem that China’s response to the coronavirus crisis was effective and supportive and they may start to look to China for leadership moving forward.

Of course, it remains to be seen how China’s reputation will be affected following the coronavirus crisis as this pandemic is still ongoing. Yet, if China’s reputation does improve following its response to the coronavirus crisis, this could have wide-ranging implications for the international system.

The BBC reported today that google will publicly track people’s movement over the course of the coronavirus outbreak. Find more information about the story by reading the original article here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52138076.

According to the article, Google will publish details of the different types of places people are going to on a country-by-country basis in the UK, as well as similar data for 130 other countries. The information will be taken from location data gathered via the Google Maps App or one of the firm’s other mobile services. The data will be used to show how busy different types of places, such as retail and recreation areas, grocery and pharmacy shops and public transport spots, are in comparison to how busy they were prior to the lockdown.

This is certainly a significant development. The role of big tech companies, such as Google and Facebook, in our society have come under scrutiny in recent years due to concerns about how our data is gathered and used for advertising purposes and due to privacy concerns. Yet, this development shows how big tech companies, such as Google, may be able to harness their data gathering tools and information for the greater good; in this instance, to help tackle the coronavirus crisis. Yet, it is necessary to consider whether this development is positive or negative and whether it is something we should be worried about leading into the future.

Regarding the positives, one may highlight that this is a positive development because it will aid the fight against coronavirus, which, arguably, is good for all of us. The information produced from the data could help ascertain how well we are sticking to the new guidelines and laws, which is useful information for the government and public health officials. Indeed, google itself has emphasised the benefits that that the information can provide by suggesting it can be used by public health officials to help manage the outbreak. For example, the information could shape recommendations regarding business hours or could inform delivery service offerings. The data could also help facilitate the provision of public transport. For example, it may indicate when there is a need to add additional buses or trains in order to allow people room to spread out for social distancing.

Further to this, one might well argue that it is better for the government to use the data provided by google to see how we are adhering to the new rules and guidelines than it is to employ other means to achieve the same goals. The argument here being that the use of data to track our movements is better than the potential alternatives. Such alternatives could include using the police to more closely monitor our movements, which may feel physically uncomfortable for some. Proponents of this argument would suggest it is preferable to have our movements monitored via Google’s data gathering tools than to have them monitored by the police because this would entail more police presence in our daily lives. Of course, the tracking of our movements via Google’s data gathering tools is as morally questionable as the police physically doing the same thing. However, it may be a less bitter pill to swallow.

In addition, one may believe that big tech companies are able to play a positive role in our society and may see this development as positive as it could improve the reputation of big tech companies. For example, if Google is successful in helping in the battle against coronavirus, it could convince people that big tech companies have a positive role to play in society and are needed to help tackle large scale problems.

Yet, despite the above, there is cause for concern. It is bad enough that Google tracks our data, but for this information to now be readily available for governments is even worse. It does not take much explanation to understand the implications of this. Simply put, this move further threatens our privacy and also sets the precedent for more intervention in our lives by big tech companies and by governments. We want to guard against developments such as these in order to protect our liberty and privacy. Also, that Google feels comfortable publishing this data in order to help shows how much we, as a society, have normalised the data gathering behaviours of big tech companies. This move further legitimises such behaviour and sets the precedent that big tech companies, and now the government, can continue to harvest our data and encroach on our private lives moving forward. In addition, this development is worrying because it further increases our reliance on big tech companies. As we are already so reliant on these companies in our everyday lives, it can only be a bad thing to increase this reliance further.

It is worth noting that Google has promised that individual’s privacy will be preserved. For example, it says it has both anonymised the records and mixed in some randomly-generated data to safeguard individual users’ histories. Also, importantly, device owners can also decide not to supply data. Yet, it is still best to treat these companies with caution and scepticism as one can never know the true intentions of a large, powerful company like Google.

Of course, this is a complex issue with no easy answers. It is vital we tackle the coronavirus to save lives, but it is also vital that we guard against further encroachment of the state and large data companies in our private lives. We should be concerned by this development because it is always difficult to do away with precedents and norms once they have been set in society. Due to this specific development, and the coronavirus pandemic itself, two concerning precedents have been set: that we need big tech companies to help solve global pandemics and that it is necessary to encroach on our privacy and freedoms to solve global crises, such as the coronavirus. This is problematic as it is perfectly possible that similar measures will be taken in the future to solve other crises, such as a climate crisis for example, and these measures will be justified by the precedents set during this crisis.

Moving forward, we must continue to treat big tech companies with caution and scepticism. This will ensure we yield the benefits they can bring while preventing them from further encroaching on our lives and our privacy.

Coronavirus has put the world on hold and we have heard much about how it has affected the economy and the health of the population. Yet, less has been said about how coronavirus might impact on the UK’s negotiations with the EU during the current transition period.

Last week, Michael Gove hinted that the upcoming Brexit talks may be put on hold due to health concerns arising from coronavirus. Indeed, one would expect that the negotiations would take a back seat as both the UK government and the respective EU states tackle the coronavirus crisis.  And, given that the time-frame permitted for the negotiations is so short and given that the current circumstances arising due to coronavirus are so unique, one would also expect that the transition period would be extended beyond December. Yet, today Prime Minister Boris Johnson signalled that this would not be the case. When asked by Tom Newton Dunn if he would rule out extending the transition period there and then, or whether that might be something he would want to consider in the future, the Prime Minister responded that “there is legislation in place that I have no intention of changing.”

This statement suggests that the government intends to stick to its current Brexit strategy, which is to try to negotiate a trade deal with the EU before the end of the transition period in December or to leave the EU without a trade deal in place at the end of the transition period if this is not possible. It remains to be seen how the government will manage to negotiate a trade deal with the EU while it, along with its negotiating partner, battles the ongoing coronavirus crisis.

Despite the challenging circumstances that coronavirus poses for both the UK and the EU, the coronavirus crisis may play to the UK government’s advantage in its negotiations with the EU. It is fair to say that before the advent of coronavirus the UK was not in the strongest position vis-à-vis the EU as its economy had weakened as a result of Brexit. Yet, coronavirus has seriously impacted both the UK and the respective states that make up the EU. So, the onset of coronavirus may have levelled the playing field slightly between the UK and the EU going forward. If the UK government sticks to its strict December deadline and maintains the threat of leaving without a trade deal, the EU may be less willing to risk playing hardball in the negotiations. This is because the EU would not want to risk the possibility of a no-deal scenario with the UK as this would further damage its economy at a time when it is already very vulnerable due to the damage coronavirus has already caused.

Of course, it remains to be seen how the Brexit process will pan out over the next few months. A lot depends on the progression of the coronavirus. But, a lot also depends on how far the UK government is willing to push the EU in the negotiations over the next few months. Suffice to say, the current situation is unprecedented, with people dying and the global economy in free fall. If the UK government sticks to its current December deadline and maintains a tough stance in the negotiations, it may gain slightly more concessions from the EU in the final trade deal. However, this may come at a cost to its reputation as it is might be perceived as acting ruthlessly and insensitively during a crisis.

The Conservative Government has had a rough start to 2020 and how it deals with issues this year will set the precedent for the rest of Boris Johnson’s premiership.  

The government is not in an enviable position. It has the uneasy task of simultaneously negotiating trade deals with the USA and the EU while also trying to deliver on its many campaign pledges without breaking its own fiscal rules. As well as this, it faces an impending climate crisis and also has to deal with an underfunded NHS and social care system. On top of this, the government has had to deal with recent challenges that would cause serious problems for any government. Such challenges include the debate over HS2, the debate about Huawei and the problems posed by the recent flooding and also the recent collapse of Flybe. And, the government has had to deal with coronavirus and the implications this has for the health of the UK’s population and its economy.

This is a defining moment for the government as the response it delivers to tackle the various issues it faces will set the precedent for the rest of its time in power. If the government succeeds in tackling these challenges it will go into the next few years with confidence and momentum. However, if the government fails to tackle these challenges and does not show leadership over the remainder of the year, it will have huge failures hanging over its head for the remainder of its time in power and will struggle all the way up to the next election.

Of course, we will have to wait and see how the government performs this year before passing judgement. Both success and failure are possible. Yet, what will be interesting to watch is how the government deals with criticism over the year. If the government’s performance over the year is poor, it may well be punished by the public for failing in a situation where it was vital it showed leadership and sound judgement to weather the many storms it is facing. However, it may be the case that the government is able to deflect criticism by emphasising that the current circumstances it faces would prove too much for any government.

Either way, it is clear that the government has an extremely tough year ahead and the decisions it makes now will define the rest of Johnson’s premiership and will determine whether the Tories are re-elected at the next election.

I just stumbled across this mini essay that I wrote on the 11th June, 2019 as part of a Public Affairs Internship application for FTI Consulting. The essay is titled: Will the UK’s two-party system still exist in ten years’ time? Despite making some inaccurate predictions/comments (namely downplaying the significance of the SNP and overemphasizing the significance of the Green Party), most of the comments I make are accurate and still relevant to this day. Find the original essay below.

Will the UK’s two-party system still exist in ten years’ time?

Whether or not the UK’s two-party system still exists in ten years’ time depends on the outcome of Brexit. Despite the precarious situation of the two main parties, if the UK leaves the EU, the two-party system will likely still exist in ten years’ time. This is because the threat to the two-party system posed by smaller parties is linked to Brexit, but this threat would be weakened if the Brexit issue was resolved. However, if Brexit does not occur, then it is unlikely that the UK’s two-party system will exist in ten years’ time.

When considering recent events it is easy to conclude that the UK’s two-party system will cease to exist in ten years’ time. The Conservatives have failed to deliver Brexit and the Labour party has failed to put forth a clear vision for Brexit. Unsurprisingly, both of these parties performed dismally at the recent EU elections. Worse still, both parties are hopelessly divided. Clearly, these two parties are in a dire position. However, if the Brexit issue can be resolved, the two-party system is likely to survive.

For the two-party system to survive, the UK must leave the EU. This would diminish the threat to the two-party system posed by the pro-remain parties and the Brexit party. Importantly, the popularity of the Brexit party and the Lib Dems is due to their clear positions regarding Brexit. However, once the Brexit issue is resolved, these parties would become redundant. Their support would likely dwindle and they would no longer pose a threat to the two-party system. If the UK leaves the EU, disgruntled leave voters would be satisfied and support for the Brexit party would inevitably decrease. Similarly, if the UK leaves the EU, the Lib Dems would lose their support. This is because it will be harder for remain parties, like the Lib Dems, to make the case for re-joining the EU post-Brexit. Naturally, it is easier to make the case to stay in the EU rather than to re-join. Remain voters would recognise this and would be less enthusiastic to support this cause. The same argument applies to Change UK; if the UK leaves the EU, it would become a redundant party. Of course, remainers will be unsatisfied after Brexit, but most would eventually accept the outcome, especially those who respect democracy. Further to this, it is unclear whether people support the broader political agenda of either the Lib Dems or the Brexit party, which further questions the threat that these parties pose to the two-party system post-Brexit.

Although the situation concerning the other parties (the SNP, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru) is more complicated, the threat that these parties pose is minimal and would be weakened if Brexit occurs. This is because these parties, like the Brexit party and the Lib Dems, are issue-specific parties whose political agendas are not strong enough to mobilise the support required to challenge the two-party system. The SNP and Plaid Cymru have thus far struggled to mobilise enough support for their respective calls for independence. This failure leads one to question whether either of these parties could seriously challenge the two-party system. Realistically, the Green party poses the largest threat to the two-party system, but this threat is minimal and would vanish if the two main parties took the environment issue seriously.

All things considered, it is likely that the two-party system will still exist in ten years’ time because it embodies the natural political divide between the left and right. This divide is one the public both identifies with and understands.

The election hustings for the Central Devon constituency took place at Ashburton Arts Centre on Saturday 7^th December ahead of this week’s general election.

The Central Devon constituency was created in 2010 and since then Mel Stride of the Conservative Party has been the MP for the constituency. Indeed, he won 31, 278 votes in the 2017 election (54.1% of total votes).

There were four candidates at the Hustings: Alison Eden of the Liberal Democrats, Lisa Robillard Webb of the Labour party, Mel Stride of the Conservative party and Andy Williamson of the Green Party.

During the Hustings, there were questions regarding the NHS, the leaders of the respective parties, the tax system, Brexit, climate change and food banks. Other questions focused on Yemen and arms sales, disinformation in election campaigns and nuclear weapons.

On the issue of Yemen and arms sales, candidates were asked to answer the following question in one word: if you were elected and if you had to decide whether or not you were going to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, what would you say? Lisa Robillard Webb, Alison Eden and Andy Williamson all stated they would say no to the sales of arms. Andy Williamson went further and explained that the Green Party would “close down the government’s arm sales activities”. Mel Stride explained that one cannot answer such a question in one word, and then explained that the conflict in Yemen is a human catastrophe. Regarding arms sales more generally, he stated: “We have very, very strict licensing arrangements around the sales of all weapons”.

Candidates were also asked for their views regarding disinformation in elections and were asked to explain how they will make sure this election, as well as future elections, are fought in a fair and legitimate manner. Mel Stride stated “I think we need to have an honest discourse in politics” and that we must “make sure that everybody is held to account for the veracity of their information”. Alison Eden mentioned that she has previously worked on a research ethics committee and feels strongly about this issue. She then said she would like to offer her remaining time to speak back to Mel Stride, suggesting he could use the extra time to answer the question differently. Mel Stride then quickly reiterated that it is wrong for a political party to provide disinformation. Andy Williamson mentioned that “what has been happening with disinformation is just appalling” and suggested that our electoral law needs to be reformed. He also criticised the advertising tactics used during the EU referendum. Lisa Robillard Webb also voiced criticism of disinformation, suggesting it is sometimes planned and can distract the electorate. She also stated that she was concerned the government had not published the report into Russian electoral interference and that she thinks we are currently naïve as a nation about how information is being controlled.

Regarding nuclear weapons, candidates were asked: Who will have their fingers on the nuclear trigger, and are they prepared to use it? Mel Stride discussed the logic behind nuclear deterrence, explaining that for a nuclear deterrent to be effective a potential aggressor must believe that if they attack a nuclear-armed state, there is a chance they will use their nuclear weapons in response. Lisa Robillard Webb questioned whether it is desirable to have someone [in power] that is willing to press the button. She then explained that nuclear weapons have been part of a process that has created peace for a long period of time, but then stated the Labour party wants to work internationally to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. Alison Eden stated that if she was the leader of her party, she could not ‘press that button’. She then later stated: “On a personal level, if you want to get a measure of me, I would rather be speaking Russian than turning the whole world into nuclear waste”. She also highlighted the need to worry about cybercrime and biological terrorism. Andy Williamson then questioned whether we, as a society, really want someone in charge who displays the sort of macho posturing commonly associated with nuclear weapons. He then stated that he fully supports the Green Party policy to cancel the Trident nuclear weapons system.

After the Hustings, Andy Williamson answered some of my questions in an interview. Asked how he thought the day went, Andy Williamson stated it was okay. He then explained his frustration that he did not get the sense that people understood how important this election is. He emphasised that this election will potentially set the path for our country for the next decade. He also explained this election was to do with Brexit but was critical of the way Brexit was initially handled and its current trajectory. Asked if a people’s vote is the solution, Andy Williamson stated: “I believe that’s the only thing that can rationally happen now. And, ideally, I would say a people’s vote that replaces the original one”. In Andy’s opinion, the original referendum was unlawful. He then explained that a future people’s vote must have a supermajority requirement, such as 60% for example. He went further, suggesting that “If it’s another equally close vote, then yes have another one as well and call it 2 out of 3. Call it the best of 3. Yeah fine, best of three.”

Moving away from Brexit, Andy was then asked how the Green Party will protect the UK’s security without a Trident System. He replied: “I think Trident is fighting last century’s battles.” He believes we can globally legislate nuclear weapons out of existence. He also stated that he thinks the whole arms industry is “just such a waste of resources that could be put to better use”. He acknowledged that we need to have a defence against any threats to us, but such threats, according to Andy, come increasingly from organised crime. He also seemed to suggest that staying in the EU was better for our security because there is a certain degree of cooperation among EU member states, which ensures they do not go to war with one another. Asked if whether he thought that the current capitalist system incentivises people to be productive and get things done, Andy responded: “Yes, I do agree with that”. He also stated: “I don’t disagree inherently with capitalism” and later said: “I am not anti-growth necessarily but what I am for is sustainable growth where it’s genuinely sustainable”. Finally, asked if he had had the vote at 16 or 17, would he have made a good, rational vote, he humorously responded: “Obviously, I would have done”. He then explained that giving the vote to 16 years old is one thing he does not wholeheartedly approve of, but can agree with many of the arguments for it. However, he also mentioned: “I think politics does require wisdom and judgement and 16 and 17-year-olds aren’t the wisest or the best at judging things if that’s the right way of saying it.” Yet, he then said, if it was democratically voted for, he would not worry too much about it.

Disclaimer: I have tried to avoid misrepresenting the views of the candidates present at the Hustings. If you feel your views have been misrepresented, please leave a comment below.

I should also state that it would have been preferable to interview all candidates after the Hustings, but this was not possible.

.

On Monday evening, I attended the General Election Hustings event held at Exeter Cathedral to listen to what the candidates had to say and to interview them afterwards.

The Exeter seat has been held by Ben Bradshaw of the Labour Party since the 1997 election. Indeed, in the recent 2017 election, he won 34,336 votes (62% of votes). However, the race for this seat could be tight. After the event, Ben Bradshaw told me he and his team are fighting for every vote, but that “If the current opinion polls are anything to go by, then it could be very close between me and the tory this time.” Indeed, John Gray, the Conservative candidate, told me that Labour’s 16,000 majority “is looking very shaky at the moment”. He then explained that some Labour voters have told him that for the first time in their lives they will be voting Conservative due to a dislike of Jeremy Corbyn and due to feeling let down over Brexit.

In total, there were four candidates at the Hustings: Ben Bradshaw of the Labour Party, John Gray of the Conservative Party, Joe Levy of the Green Party and Duncan Odgers of UKIP. The questions during the hustings concerned Climate Change, Brexit, poverty and homelessness and the economy, as well as other issues. Throughout the Hustings, there were no major surprises and candidates mainly stuck to party lines.

On climate change, John Gray discussed Conservative plans to tackle the climate crisis. Joe Levy discussed the Greens’ plans, highlighting the Green New Deal. Duncan Odgers stated, among other things, that population growth is a problem and also that we need to recycle more of our waste. And, Ben Bradshaw stated we need a complete transformation of our economy to a zero-carbon economy, which requires government action as the “the free market cannot and will never do that”.

On the issue of Brexit, candidates were asked: Is it irresponsible for a party leader to avoid expressing a firm view on Brexit? The UKIP candidate responded: “I think it is an absolute disgrace that a leader of a party can actually not have an opinion and say which way. You can’t just stay neutral.” Following up on this, I asked Ben Bradshaw afterwards if he thought Jeremy Corbyn’s neutral stance on Brexit would cost Labour in the election and he responded: “No, I don’t”. He argued that, if you are going to have a legally binding referendum on any Brexit deal and Jeremy Corbyn is the Prime Minister, then it makes sense for him to take a neutral position because people will know that he will implement the result whatever it is. I also asked Joe Levy if he thought that having a people’s vote is anti-democratic, to which he replied no. “I don’t think more democracy is undemocratic.” “I think it is only right that people have the chance to vote based on what we now know.” I also asked John Gray if the Conservatives are the party that can deliver Brexit, to which he replied yes. He explained that all Parliamentary candidates for the Conservative party had to sign a pledge to say they support that [Boris Johnson’s] deal. He also explained that the PM will recall Parliament the week after polling day and will put through the withdrawal act that week if the Conservatives get a majority.

Regarding the economy, candidates were asked: “Do you believe that nationalisation of key industries is a sensible policy?” Joe Levy was in favour of some industries being run as public services. Whereas, John Gray stated he is not in favour of nationalisation. He cited his prior experiences of nationalisation and said: “in all cases, the experience was absolutely appalling.” Duncan Odgers said: “Nationalisation is okay, apart from governments can’t run it properly.” He also said: “We cannot just borrow money, it is fiscally irresponsible in my opinion.” Finally, Ben Bradshaw argued for “public ownership where there is market failure”, which has, he suggested, occurred in our privatised railways and water companies. He also emphasised that “Labour’s spending plans, which are fully costed in our manifesto, would take the size of the state in this country to the same level as that of Germany or the Scandinavian countries; those are not economic basketcases.”

After the event, I asked Ben Bradshaw and John Gray about the NHS. I asked Ben Bradshaw: What do you think Labour can do for the NHS? He replied: “The NHS desperately needs more investment and we also need proper investment in social care because we have a social care crisis at the moment.” He also voiced his concerns about Brexit and a trade deal with Trump because this would, in his opinion, be very risky for the NHS as the Americans don’t make any secret of the fact they would like to get their hands on the NHS. I then asked John Gray: How do you respond to criticisms that the NHS is up for sale? He replied: “if you go back and look at every general election, probably it started about 1997, the Labour party have always run stories such as ‘Ten days to save the NHS’. They are always telling the public that the NHS is not safe in conservative hands. This is just the latest version of the scare story.” He also stated that: “Nobody in the conservative party wants to sell off the NHS. It is absolutely and utterly ridiculous”.

Finally, I also asked Joe Levy how the Green party are going to fund their New Green deal. He explained that we cannot afford not to because of climate change and that we can save money by, in addition to other policies, ending some hugely wasteful projects, such as Trident and HS2, and by tackling poverty and by having a fairer taxation system. I then asked: During the hustings, you mentioned that perhaps the electorate isn’t economically competent, do you stand by that comment? He replied: “Not the electorate. Politicians. And I think most people aren’t to be honest because it’s [economics] not something that we are taught in schools and I think we are fed a lot of lies. It’s no one’s fault that that’s the case.”

All things considered, throughout the event, the debate was positive, friendly and constructive. Unsurprisingly, key sticking points remain over Brexit, the NHS and the economy. Ultimately, it is up to the people of Exeter to decide the best route forward for their constituency.

Disclaimer: I have tried to avoid misrepresenting the views of those discussed in this article. If you feel your views were misrepresented, please leave a comment and I will try to rectify any errors.