tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/theresa-may-8109/articlesTheresa May – The Conversation2024-01-30T19:09:51Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2216112024-01-30T19:09:51Z2024-01-30T19:09:51ZLabour hasn’t won a UK general election since 2005. Will 2024 be any different?<p>Democracy faces challenges around the globe in 2024: <a href="https://time.com/6550920/world-elections-2024/">at least 64 countries</a> will ask their citizens to elect a government this year. </p>
<p>One of the most keenly observed will be the United Kingdom general election, likely to be held in November. The British Labour party has not won an election since 2005, and has lost the last four elections. At the last election in 2019, it was beaten handsomely.</p>
<p>The 2019 result saw the Conservatives win 365 seats of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, while Labour limped in with 202 seats. At that point, Boris Johnson was an immensely popular political leader, single-handedly delivering the Conservatives a historic win. </p>
<p>Famously, Johnson broke down part of Labour’s “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/11/keir-starmer-promises-red-wall-voters-the-basics-of-government-done-better">red wall</a>” seats – historically safe Labour seats in parts of Northern England. With Johnson’s emphatic win, and Brexit “done”, one writer predicted a further “decade of <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/riding-the-populist-wave/4D4C82C02F8A80A03FD2EC18B5D8CACD">conservative dominance</a>”. </p>
<p>Yet, the decade of conservative dominance did not arrive, and on current reading the Conservatives look destined for opposition. The most recent poll confirms Labour’s long-standing 20-point lead over the Conservatives <a href="https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/">(45%-25%)</a>. Since the Brexit Referendum, there has been unprecedented volatility in British politics – not dissimilar to the leadership churn in Australia. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-dogs-brexit-johnsons-missteps-about-to-send-weary-voters-to-another-election-as-the-eu-divorce-gets-ugly-123000">A dog's Brexit: Johnson's missteps about to send weary voters to another election as the EU divorce gets ugly</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Since the 2016 referendum, the Conservatives have chewed through five different leaders from David Cameron to Rishi Sunak. Each successive leader has been ensnared in a range of crises, from Theresa May’s record common defeats over Brexit, Johnson’s handling of COVID, Sunak’s problems with inflation, and of course, the blitzkrieg politics of shock and incompetence of Liz Truss. The Conservative party has <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/battles-on-the-backbenches-what-are-the-different-factions-in-the-conservative-party-12964275">fragmented</a> and factionalised, with the hardline right pushing to veto key policies.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F81x3f7t07o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The volatility has led to wider governing instability. Since 2019, there have been five home secretaries, and a remarkable six chancellors (the role of federal treasurer in Australia). This turmoil takes an incalculable toll on effective government, as policy settings continuously change, and the public service are left reeling in the aftermath. For the Johnson government in particular, personal loyalty and factional support trumped appointing competent ministers. </p>
<p>The case of Priti Patel is instructive. She was forced to resign as minister for international development in the May government in 2017 after <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/08/priti-patel-forced-to-resign-over-unofficial-meetings-with-israelis">it emerged</a> she had not been candid about unofficial meetings with Israeli ministers, businesspeople and a lobbyist.</p>
<p>Despite <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/comment/handling-priti-patel-bullying-inquiry-has-fatally-undermined-ministerial-code">breaching</a> the Ministerial Code of Conduct for allegations of bullying staff, she later became home secretary in Johnson’s government. </p>
<p>The political in-fighting and instability in the Conservative party fuelled volatility, which in turn has lead to voter disaffection. Suella Braverman is the other striking example, initially appointed home secretary under Truss, she also <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/bringing-back-suella-braverman-after-rule-breach-sets-dangerous-precedent-say-mps-12759991">breached the ministerial code</a> by sharing an official document from her personal email address. Sunak later appointed her home secretary, in part to appease the hard right of the party. However, in office, she proved to be a political liability, and was dismissed by Sunak. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/90OcdXGzSiM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The turbulence has been highly damaging for Sunak. Any political leader needs clean air to reset the agenda, but his government has been mired. He aimed to shape his agenda around five key priorities. One year on, one <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/rishi-sunaks-five-pledges-one-year">report card</a> suggests he had only achieved one of these goals, and the critical ones (especially on immigration) are “off track”. </p>
<p>Immigration is the political battlefield the Conservatives will hope will help them, along with an improving economy, to help them retain office. The resonances here with Australian politics are all too familiar, and Sunak will be hoping for a repeat of the Liberals’ emphatic “<a href="https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/book/David-Marr-and-Marian-Wilkinson-Dark-Victory-9781741144475/">dark victory</a>” at the 2004 election. However, Sunak is widely seen as <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/richer-than-the-king-rishi-sunak-hammered-by-focus-groups-in-swing-english-seats_uk_64c24ed9e4b044bf98f3742f">out of touch</a> with the wider public – his and his wife’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/22/rishi-sunak-rich-730m-fortune-prime-minister">vast wealth</a> has been the subject of much commentary.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/do-not-adjust-your-sets-with-truss-gone-the-uk-is-about-to-get-yet-another-prime-minister-192931">Do not adjust your sets: with Truss gone, the UK is about to get yet another prime minister</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This year’s election, then, looks increasingly like one Conservatives will lose – but it remains to be seen how well Keir Starmer’s Labour can win it. For some time, Labour has held a solid 20-point lead over the Tories in the <a href="https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/">polls</a>, yet to take office, Starmer will need a record 12.7% <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britains-labour-would-need-record-vote-swing-win-majority-research-shows-2024-01-16/">swing</a>. Starmer’s team will take inspiration from Anthony Albanese’s 2022 win in Australia, a solid election result off the back of a crumbling centre-right government, but hardly an emphatic victory. The lesson there is that you need to win seats, not necessarily the vote share. </p>
<p>The dilemma for Starmer is that he was elected leader in 2020 <a href="https://www.clpd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Keir-Starmers-10-Pledges.pdf">promising</a> to fulfil much of Jeremy Corbyn’s agenda. However, since that time, he has been seeking to recalibrate and reduce the range of his policy agenda. </p>
<p>Much of his energy has also been used to diminish the influence of the Corbyn-ite left in the party. While there is much long-term ambition in his five “missions”, some are light on detail, and others <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/keir-starmers-five-missions-labour-govern">rely on luck</a>. </p>
<p>Long-term Labour politician and scholar <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/30/keir-starmer-detached-labour-party-jon-cruddas">Jon Cruddas’</a> lament is that Starmer’s vision is detached from Labour’s history. Labour looks set to take office, but it could be off the back of a large scale disaffection from the wider public, with voter <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1050929/voter-turnout-in-the-uk/">turnout</a> likely to decrease for the third election running.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article has been corrected. It originally stated Labour has not won an election since 2010. That has been changed to 2005.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221611/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob Manwaring does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After years of tumult in the ruling Conservative party, Labour looks set to take office. But it is no sure bet, and could be off the back of a large scale disaffection from the wider public.Rob Manwaring, Associate Professor, Politics and Public Policy, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2092762023-07-19T16:07:00Z2023-07-19T16:07:00ZThe UK’s island identity has long shaped its political outlook – is that why it currently feels so adrift?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536310/original/file-20230707-27-nxcwqj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=67%2C328%2C4402%2C3021&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/beachy-headeastbourne-united-kingdom-july-72019-1445091986">Shutterstock/Tony Skerl</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>UK foreign policy has long been shaped by a particular geopolitical way of conceiving the nation’s place in the world. This island identity may have been forged in imperial times, but it remains hugely relevant in the post-Brexit world.</p>
<p>In order to explain and justify its colossal empire – the largest the world has ever seen – imperial thinkers and politicians depicted the UK as a remarkable little island that was not only capable of running such a huge operation, but was positively made for the role. </p>
<p>Its advantageous location in the North Atlantic, close to Europe but not entangled with it, gave it an eagle eye on world affairs. What’s more, the oceanic space that Britain inhabited meant that it was a fundamentally more mobile polity than other landlocked states. In the imperial imagination, Calcutta was as close as Calais, Darwin as near as Dublin.</p>
<p>In my book <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Geopolitics-and-Identity-in-British-Foreign-Policy-Discourse-The-Island/Whittaker/p/book/9781032448091#:%7E:text=Description,their%20debates%20of%20contemporary%20issues.">Geopolitics and Identity in British Foreign Policy Discourse: the Island Race</a>, I explain how these habits of mind have remained important for UK politicians, even as the empire dwindled. To be an island was to be democratic, sovereign, freedom-loving, mobile and a bastion of limitless and global free trade.</p>
<h2>Your sovereign neighbour</h2>
<p>After the then French president Charles de Gaulle vetoed British membership of the European Economic Community in 1963, the House of Commons was defiant: the UK had a bright enough future separate from the continent. Even Edward Heath, the prime minister who eventually led the UK into the European Community, told the Conservative conference in 1973 that <a href="http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=120">“we are an island race”</a>. </p>
<p>The Falklands Conflict provided ample opportunity for Margaret Thatcher to restate a powerful island identity that she felt was becoming lost. Tony Blair didn’t just embrace globalisation as a post-cold war explanatory concept, he depicted a UK that was ideally suited for this new arena of distanceless flows and networks.</p>
<p>These impulses to define the UK as a sovereign, mobile, freedom-loving island helped politicians to navigate the huge changes that occurred since 1945. It should therefore come as little surprise that they have remained potent in this Brexit era. </p>
<p>Certainly, David Cameron’s starting-gun speech in 2013 remains a startling document, not least for his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/23/david-cameron-eu-speech-referendum">lengthy exposition</a> of how deeply the UK being an island has shaped its history and psychology.</p>
<p>Never more than lukewarm about Brexit, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech">“Global Britain”</a> was Theresa May’s attempt to name the UK’s posture after leaving the EU. It suggests that the only two choices for the UK’s foreign policy are: Europe or the whole wide world. Indeed, these were the contours of many 1960s debates on European integration. </p>
<p>For Global Britain to function as a concept, it relies on notions of British reach and mobility that hearken back to its maritime imperial heyday rather than accurately describing its present situation. The historically inclined Boris Johnson embraced the concept. But in many ways, Global Britain is not about the present so much as the past and the future.</p>
<p>Nostalgic politicians (usually Conservative) could summon the remarkable little island and its empire; free-trade Brexiteers could point to bountiful futures of trade agreements. Both groups could point to histories of and aspirations towards being buccaneers of free trade, nimbly spanning the oceans to bring prosperity and democracy to the world. For Global Britain enthusiasts, the world remains a space without distance, ready for maritime exploitation.</p>
<p>This also informs the more recent <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9217/">“Indo-Pacific tilt”</a>, in which the UK looks to become a strategic player in the vast and varied region spanning both Indian and Pacific Oceans. How much clout the UK actually has here is highly debatable, but the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/aukus-pact-110226">Aukus pact</a>, the <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9704/">new defence agreement with Japan</a> and the <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/comprehensive-and-progressive-agreement-trans-pacific-partnership">Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership</a> at least demonstrates ambition.</p>
<h2>What is an island in the 21st century?</h2>
<p>As the UK looks to define a new place and role for itself in the world outside of the EU, it is falling back on time-honoured notions of island identity. Yet there is far less unity about what it means to be an island in this fractious 21st century than there was during the imperial era. </p>
<p>The debates about how to enact Brexit have been marked by profound disagreements over whether the UK’s relatively small size is advantageous or the opposite; whether the UK, as an offshore island, should engage closely with the rest of Europe or disconnect; and whether and how much the UK could look to be embraced by the rest of the world, especially its “kith and kin” of the Commonwealth.</p>
<p>Although the prospect of Scottish independence looks to have receded since its Nicola Sturgeon-era high watermark, the SNP’s strident articulations of Scotland as a European, Celtic or even <a href="https://www.gov.scot/news/strengthening-scotlands-nordic-ties/">quasi-Scandinavian country</a> represents a fundamental challenge to the often unifying concept of British islandness. This is to say nothing of Northern Ireland.</p>
<p>Many historians have <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/englishness-and-empire-1939-1965-9780199258604?cc=gb&lang=en&">argued</a> that the empire provided the glue between the constituent parts of the UK. Without the empire or the EU, are we now seeing the true nature of a disunited Kingdom? Perhaps Britishness is just a fig leaf for English nationalism. This would certainly explain the renewed importance of island identity to unionist politicians as they seek to define not just the UK’s place in the world, but its very future as a union.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209276/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Whittaker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Geographical happenstance became a matter of national identity in imperial times and is now a handy rhetorical device for Brexit enthusiasts.Nick Whittaker, Subject Lead in Social Sciences & Law, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2097462023-07-19T16:06:56Z2023-07-19T16:06:56ZHow the UK’s new immigration law will put more people at risk of modern slavery<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538364/original/file-20230719-27-braier.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=155%2C146%2C5596%2C3423&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/woman-buying-tickets-passport-box-office-366362966">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK’s illegal migration bill is set to become law after going back and forth between the two houses of parliament. The final sticking point, which the House of Lords tried to address in a series of amendments, was about the bill’s treatment of people who have experienced modern slavery.</p>
<p>The government’s aim with the bill is to crack down on small boat crossings. It stipulates that if someone arrives in the UK irregularly, there will be a duty on the home secretary to detain and remove them from the UK. They will also not be able to access protections under the Modern Slavery Act.</p>
<p>One of the most vocal opponents to this aspect of the bill was Theresa May, former prime minister and home secretary. In one of the final debates, May said that it would <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-slams-illegal-migration-bill-for-allowing-more-slave-drivers-to-make-money-out-of-human-misery-12919165">“consign more people to slavery”</a>, and allow traffickers to “make money out of human misery”.</p>
<p>The home secretary, Suella Braverman, has said that the government wants to help <a href="https://theconversation.com/modern-slavery-uks-focus-on-genuine-victims-has-failed-survivors-since-the-1800s-192528">“genuine” victims</a> of modern slavery. But the new law means that migrants who have been exploited or trafficked to the UK are likely to be deported without receiving the support they are entitled to.</p>
<p>May argues that this will undermine the UK’s efforts to address modern slavery, as those affected by these crimes will be less able to help <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-slams-illegal-migration-bill-for-allowing-more-slave-drivers-to-make-money-out-of-human-misery-12919165">criminal prosecutions</a>.</p>
<p>Evidence shows she’s right. As our <a href="https://modernslaverypec.org/assets/downloads/Illegal-Migration-Bill-Explainer-12-July.pdf">analysis</a> at the Modern Slavery Policy and Evidence Centre points out, prosecution usually relies on testimonies of the victims. If people are not protected, few people will be willing, or in a position to testify in courts. As one survivor put it, if they had been detained and deported under the new bill, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/11/trafficker-behind-bars-uk-migration-bill-modern-slavery?">“my trafficker would still be walking the streets today”</a>.</p>
<h2>Modern slavery protections</h2>
<p>Since 2009, protections have been available to anyone identified as a potential victim of human trafficking. These were expanded in 2015 under <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/part/1/crossheading/offences/enacted?view=plain">the Modern Slavery Act</a> to cover those experiencing slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. </p>
<p>If someone is identified as a potential victim, they are referred through the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/human-trafficking-victims-referral-and-assessment-forms/guidance-on-the-national-referral-mechanism-for-potential-adult-victims-of-modern-slavery-england-and-wales#:%7E:text=6.-,Access%20to%20support,protection">National Referral Mechanism</a>. They are entitled to support including legal advice, accommodation and protection from harm (including deportation) for at least 45 days while their case is assessed.</p>
<p>Ministers have <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/16/end-scourge-bogus-modern-slavery-claims/">argued</a> that irregular migrants are falsely claiming to be victims of modern slavery to avoid being deported. But these accusations are based on misleading use of statistics. </p>
<p>The immigration minister, Robert Jenrick, claimed earlier this year that 71% of foreign national offenders (non-British citizens convicted of a serious criminal offence) <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/robert-jenrick-modern-slavery-statistics-authority-b2369865.html">are claiming to be modern slaves</a>. The figure is much lower – around 20%.</p>
<p>The UK statistics authority also <a href="https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/ed-humpherson-to-jennifer-rubin-use-of-national-referral-mechanism-statistics/">warned the Home Office</a> over claims about how many migrants arriving on small boats “game the system” by falsely claiming to be victims. </p>
<p><a href="https://modernslaverypec.org/resources/migration-bill-explainer">Our analysis</a> found no published evidence to support these claims. A very small proportion (7%) of people who arrived on small boats between 2018 and 2022 were referred as potential victims of modern slavery. And 85% of them were confirmed by the Home Office as victims – broadly in line with the average for all modern slavery referrals.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the government insists that removing modern slavery protections for non-UK citizens who enter the UK irregularly will make people in these groups easier to detain and deport, and act as a deterrent for others. </p>
<h2>Opposition in the Lords</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/illegal-migration-bill-the-concern-for-childrens-rights-keeping-the-house-of-lords-up-all-night-207387">House of Lords</a> led opposition to the bill in Westminster, proposing a number of <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/illegal-migration-bill-suffers-20-defeats-in-house-of-lords-in-fresh-blow-for-rishi-sunak-12915729">amendments</a> on human rights grounds.</p>
<p>One proposal was to add an exception to the legislation, so that people would not be disqualified from <a href="https://modernslaverypec.org/assets/downloads/Illegal-Migration-Bill-Explainer-12-July.pdf">modern slavery protections</a> even if they entered the UK illegally. This was ultimately rejected.</p>
<p>The government did commit to producing new guidance to delay removal of potential victims. However, this is only on condition of their <a href="https://www.ein.org.uk/news/mps-reject-all-lords-amendments-illegal-migration-bill-its-return-house-commons">cooperation with the police</a>, and if the modern slavery offence took place in the UK. For a number of reasons, it can take years for victims to come forward to police about their situation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/mo-farah-was-trafficked-to-the-uk-the-governments-new-immigration-law-could-make-it-harder-for-modern-slavery-victims-to-receive-help-184286">Mo Farah was trafficked to the UK – the government's new immigration law could make it harder for modern slavery victims to receive help</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Evidence shows that lack of support for victims is a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-response-to-victims-of-modern-slavery/the-hidden-victims-report-on-hestias-super-complaint-on-the-police-response-to-victims-of-modern-slavery--2">significant factor</a> in low prosecution rates of people smugglers. The Crown Prosecution Service recognises the need to provide support for <a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/modern-slavery-human-trafficking-and-smuggling">“vulnerable and/or intimidated”</a> victims.</p>
<h2>Immigration policy and modern slavery</h2>
<p>The UK’s immigration system is one of complex, costly and restrictive visa regimes, with few legal routes for vulnerable people to come to the UK and be allowed to work. Under the new law, more migrants are likely to be left in precarious situations, at risk of further exploitation. </p>
<p>Seasonal workers in the agricultural sector, for example, say <a href="https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/fruit-and-veg/former-seasonal-workers-tell-lords-committee-of-appalling-conditions/680496.article">they are treated as “slave labour”</a>. But addressing these issues becomes harder without protections, because there are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/05/care-worker-whistleblower-outed-by-home-office-over-exploitation-claims">serious risks to speaking out</a>, including the threat of having your visa revoked and becoming liable for detention and deportation. </p>
<p>And this doesn’t even cover the conditions for those without the right to work, such as those <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/978-1-137-58739-8_8">claiming asylum</a> or the <a href="https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/crsw/5/3/article-p357.xml">safeguarding concerns</a> for migrants who are not permitted to access public funds or basic welfare support.</p>
<p>The government has long described its approach to immigration as <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01442879608423707?journalCode=cpos20">“firm but fair”</a>. By dismantling modern slavery protections, while at the same time tightening immigration rules, they are arguably defying their own political balancing act.</p>
<p>The Illegal Migration Act will deny protections to thousands of people, and is based on unevidenced claims about abuse of the <a href="https://modernslaverypec.org/resources/migration-bill-explainer">modern slavery system</a>. It will almost certainly undermine efforts to address modern slavery. </p>
<p>The protection of those affected by modern slavery should be <a href="http://www.antislaverycommissioner.co.uk/news-insights/new-research-on-refining-a-public-health-approach-to-modern-slavery/">separated</a> from the politics of immigration controls. This is the only way to ensure people will speak out about exploitation and abuse, without fear of denunciation, detention and deportation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209746/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alex Balch receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). He is Director of Research at the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre, based at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law (in the British Institute for International and Comparative Law). </span></em></p>The government has claimed that irregular migrants are falsely claiming to be victims of modern slavery to avoid being deported, but there is little evidence to support this.Alex Balch, Professor, Department of Politics, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2064302023-05-26T13:45:20Z2023-05-26T13:45:20ZNet migration: how an unreachable target came to shape Britain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528550/original/file-20230526-5088-ui1pvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C131%2C3994%2C2000&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-uk-may-9-2019-air-1445235923">1000 Words/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>New data shows that the UK has hit a <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingdecember2022">record high</a> net migration number of 606,000. Through it has been central to 13 years of policy and rhetoric, net migration is, in fact, a pretty odd metric that tells us very little about how the UK’s immigration system is functioning. </p>
<p>Net migration is the difference between the number of people entering the country (and expected to stay long term) and the number leaving. So net migration of +1 could be achieved by two people leaving the country and three people moving here, or by ten million people leaving the country and ten million and one moving here. The practical difference between these two scenarios is, of course, huge.</p>
<p>Net migration numbers tell us nothing about what sort of people UK businesses want to employ, how the different migrant groups who are arriving or leaving affect the economy, or the communities they join (or leave). It only really tells us one thing: how migration affects the overall size of the population. </p>
<p>Until 2010, the UK debate generally focused on the number of people arriving – and on the idea that immigration presented a problem. But in January of that year, then opposition leader David Cameron, on a mission to detoxify the Conservative reputation as “the nasty party,” made a key rhetorical shift. He promised to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/14/david-cameron-toxic-migration-pledge-decade">bring net migration</a> – a metric usually only of interest to data nerds and researchers – down to the “tens of thousands”.</p>
<p>This moved the debate away from a focus on immigrants themselves, and instead to a technocratic idea – a number that could be controlled. It introduced the concept that there was a “right amount” of migration to and from the country (less than 100,000), and framed migration as simply a matter of balancing the books. </p>
<p>This was a big PR win in the short term. Journalists could talk about whether the government was achieving a target, rather than the array of more complex metrics that might indicate whether migration policy was delivering economic or social benefits. It arguably also helped Cameron to be elected prime minister.</p>
<p>But the reality was (and still is) that government only has limited control over who comes and goes. </p>
<p>Demands from businesses and universities to allow key people to come to the UK, and from people whose loved ones lived overseas, needed to be catered for. British people and (at the time) EU citizens could come and go as they pleased, and economic or political issues outside the UK were out of government’s control.</p>
<h2>A moving target</h2>
<p>The coalition years were dominated by this promise to hit the net migration target by the 2015 election. Between 2011 and 2012, Theresa May as home secretary introduced policies to <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/imposing-caps-filling-gaps-or-charging-tax-how-should-we-control-labour-immigration/">cap skilled non-EU labour migration</a> and close “bogus colleges” and <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/international-students-a-or-d-for-the-uk/">cut abuse of study migration visas</a>. </p>
<p>She also <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/love-and-money-how-immigration-policy-discriminates-between-families/">created a minimum income threshold</a> for people bringing a spouse or other family member to live with them, and aimed to “<a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/unsettling-challenges-with-using-changes-in-settlement-policy-to-reduce-net-migration/">break the link between immigration and settlement</a>”.</p>
<p>But the target was always unrealistic. Within a year, my colleagues and I at the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford had <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/off-target-government-policies-are-not-on-track-to-reducing-net-migration-to-the-tens-of-thousands-by-2015/">established</a> that the government’s own impact assessments showed the net migration target could not be met based on the policies that had been introduced. Equally, membership of the EU and free movement meant that the UK had little control over overall levels of migration.</p>
<p>As the 2015 election neared, the magnitude of the failure to meet the target was becoming obvious. A relatively thriving economy and subsequent job creation had helped push net migration over the 300,000 mark. The issue was electoral kryptonite for both Conservatives and Labour, and strengthened Nigel Farage’s then rampant UKIP.</p>
<p>In the end, Cameron secured a surprise majority after a promise to hold a referendum on EU membership. The party reiterated its promise to hit the net migration target, now referred to as an “ambition”, while Cameron campaigned to remain in the EU.</p>
<p>But promises to cut migration while staying committed to free movement began to look increasingly mealymouthed. Director of the Vote Leave campaign Dominic Cummings attributed victory in the Brexit campaign to <a href="https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/dominic-cummings-how-the-brexit-referendum-was-won/">the focus on migration</a>. </p>
<p>It also led Cameron to resign. And when Theresa May took over as prime minister, her administration continued to commit itself to the net migration target, including it in her <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39972745">election manifesto</a>. </p>
<p>This time, it was economics rather than policy that pushed net numbers down. The referendum dented the confidence of the international finance markets, and the pound plummeted in value against the Euro, the Zloty and other currencies. </p>
<p>Migrants in the UK, particularly those sending money home to their families, <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/pounded-currency-devaluation-migration-uk/">were earning less</a>. Meanwhile the Eurozone was recovering from a years-long slump, with job creation in other EU member states. This combination is thought to be the main driver of a sharp fall in EU net migration to the UK, particularly from the new member states.</p>
<h2>Caught in their own net</h2>
<p>When Boris Johnson stepped in as prime minister, the net migration target was killed off, to be replaced by a somewhat vague new concept: the “Australian-style <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/the-australian-points-based-system-what-is-it-and-what-would-its-impact-be-in-the-uk/">points based system</a>”. </p>
<p>He continued to suggest this would deliver lower numbers, but with attention elsewhere and net migration lower than before the referendum, nobody seemed keen for a return to Cameron’s “balancing the books”.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the net migration target was hit by accident. It turned out that all that was needed was a global pandemic. </p>
<p>But Johnson’s “have your cake and eat it” post-Brexit policymaking – which has continued under Rishi Sunak – planted the seeds for a new net migration panic. </p>
<p>Under Johnson and Sunak, vague promises to cut net migration have been coupled with a significant liberalisation of the immigration system, most notably in the form of humanitarian visa routes for people leaving Ukraine and Hong Kong. These have made up a significant share of the record-high increase reflected in the latest numbers.</p>
<p>Additionally, relaxations of visa rules for non-EU workers, such as making care workers eligible for long-term work visas and reintroducing post-study work for international students, received significant take-up.</p>
<p>The public has largely supported many of these policies, and concerns about migration (apart from small boat arrivals, which contribute only a small percentage of net migration) have been relatively low for some time. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two women at a march holding a handful of small Ukrainian flags" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528579/original/file-20230526-27-43j92d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/528579/original/file-20230526-27-43j92d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528579/original/file-20230526-27-43j92d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528579/original/file-20230526-27-43j92d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528579/original/file-20230526-27-43j92d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528579/original/file-20230526-27-43j92d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/528579/original/file-20230526-27-43j92d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The British public have largely been supportive of humanitarian visas for people leaving Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-uk-26th-march-2022-anti-2152821913">John Gomez/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But despite this, the media and policy response to the 606,000 number suggests that once again these numbers – though likely to be temporary – are causing serious concerns.</p>
<p>Conservatives still appear to regard control of migration as a key policy area on which they can win against Labour. But the party may wish that David Cameron had never opened Pandora’s box with his simplistic target. </p>
<p>Indeed, Rishi Sunak’s response has been to sidestep targets, while reiterating that the number is <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/rishi-sunak-office-for-national-statistics-prime-minister-yvette-cooper-robert-jenrick-b2345623.html">“too high”</a>.</p>
<p>Now that the public has been introduced to the problematic concept of the “right amount” of net migration, the government may simply have to accept that it has been caught in its own net.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206430/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob McNeil has recently received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, and will shortly be starting work on a project that is funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. He is also a trustee of the Work Rights Centre, which supports disadvantaged Britons' and migrants' access to employment justice. </span></em></p>Net migration numbers tell us little about the effectiveness of migration policy.Rob McNeil, Researcher, Centre on Migration Policy and Society (COMPAS), Deputy Director, Migration Observatory, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2005812023-03-02T06:07:04Z2023-03-02T06:07:04ZBoris Johnson, Liz Truss, Theresa May (and soon Nicola Sturgeon): the strange backbench lives of former national leaders<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512488/original/file-20230227-18-ejtdfn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=30%2C15%2C2014%2C1345&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">UK Parliament/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Former prime ministers are currently making a habit of intervening in government policy. Boris Johnson deployed sources to <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64693922">urge current prime minister Rishi Sunak</a> not to abandon his Brexit policies and to send fighter jets to Ukraine. Liz Truss also used her first speech on the backbenches since leaving Downing Street last October, to <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-fighter-jets-ukraine-b2286051.html">press</a> Sunak’s government on Ukraine. </p>
<p>In Scotland, departing first minister Nicola Sturgeon took mere days to break her promise not to interfere in the race to replace her as SNP leader by <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeon-breaks-vow-to-keep-out-of-snp-leadership-race-dlbrds9mx">criticising</a> one of the contenders for her position on same-sex marriage. </p>
<p>Most former British prime ministers have continued to be a feature of national political life, both within and outside political institutions. David Cameron and Tony Blair aside, it is common for prime ministers to continue to serve as MPs after leaving Downing Street. But, with Truss, Johnson and Theresa May all still serving as MPs, there hasn’t been such a gaggle of former prime ministers on the backbenches since 1983. </p>
<p>In Scottish politics, Henry McLeish, Jack McConnell and Alex Salmond all continued to serve as MSPs after their time as first minister. Sturgeon has <a href="https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/nicola-sturgeon-continue-serve-glasgow-26244374">made it very clear</a> that she intends to remain as the constituency MSP for Glasgow Southside, at least until the next election.</p>
<h2>Local or national?</h2>
<p>Sturgeon, like her counterparts, may find herself pulled between pursuing her own constituency interests and commenting on matters of national importance. Gordon Brown, for example, did occasionally speak on constituency matters, particularly the need for radioactive decontamination at Dalgety Bay. But during his final year in parliament he moved away from this and raised only national policy matters.</p>
<p>May has been a much more active parliamentarian and took part in some very heavily constituency-related parliamentary work in her first couple of years out of Downing Street, such as her work on rail services in Maidenhead. This was often carried out away from the political limelight. More recently, she too has moved away from this constituency service to a focus on bigger issues of national importance.</p>
<p>Truss and Johnson have both focused on matters of national and international significance in their interventions. </p>
<h2>When they speak, who listens?</h2>
<p>Former leaders bring considerable gravitas with them when they return to the backbenches. Delving into parliamentary transcripts, we’ve found that their former role is emphasised repeatedly when they are called to speak, leading to considerable deference from colleagues across all political parties. Political institutions want to hear from them. </p>
<p>Gordon Brown’s <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2011-11-30/debates/11113041000002/details#contribution-11113041000010">first contribution</a> as a former prime minister in November 2010 was accompanied by cheers of “hear hear” from MPs of all political persuasions, and government ministers would <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2011-07-13/debates/11071379000002/details#contribution-11071379000105">later encourage him</a> to speak “more often”, emphasising the value of his contribution.</p>
<p>In the House of Commons, we found that former leaders usually receive a primetime speaking slot right at the start of debates and a far larger allocation of speaking time than their colleagues as a result.</p>
<p>But the repeated flattery from others about their previous political position can lead to frustration both with and for our former leaders. At Westminster this frustration has come from other backbench MPs who are disgruntled about the privileged position and preferential treatment they seem to receive from the House of Commons Speaker. Take the SNP MP Pete Wishart, for example, who asked in 2014 <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-10-14/debates/14101465000001/details#contribution-14101479000012">why</a> Brown had been selected to speak first in a debate about Scottish devolution.</p>
<p>Although deference from colleagues can be flattering for former leaders, it is often deployed as a tactic by government ministers to deflect accountability and avoid answering questions from these big political figures. </p>
<p>For instance, when May quizzed Matt Hancock on mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic, he largely ignored the question and <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-01-13/debates/859E7C02-D483-4A97-BF74-313975BC80B6/details#contribution-52DC7AC1-F4F9-4290-85A7-95B956A66C2C">simply thanked her</a> for being the one to actually appoint him in the first place. This type of response is much more common when a former leader faces their own party colleagues in parliament.</p>
<p>There could also be another strategy at the heart of this flattery.
Political leaders often leave office under a cloud, following election defeats, unwelcome policy decisions or embarrassing mistakes which may make them feel isolated among party colleagues. All three former Conservative prime ministers currently in Westminster are now working with many colleagues who wrote letters of <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mps-no-confidence-letters-liz-truss-b2203235.html">no-confidence in their leadership</a>.</p>
<p>Having political heavyweights fighting your corner is much better than when they act as a thorn in the government’s side. Johnson used the media rather than parliament to <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-protocol-sunak-b2288447.html">put pressure on Sunak</a> over Brexit. </p>
<p>Shouting criticisms in the House of Commons chamber with your colleagues sitting around you is a whole different ball game and doesn’t happen very often. May for instance has been openly critical of government on only a handful of occasions in the chamber, such as during the Owen Paterson <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-boris-johnson-owen-paterson-b1958580.html">lobbying scandal</a>.</p>
<p>If we start to see Truss and Johnson being overtly hostile to government in the chamber, we’ll know that Sunak is in trouble.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/200581/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s rare to have quite so many former PMs and first ministers still in parliament.Louise Thompson, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of ManchesterAlia Middleton, Lecturer in Politics, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1936702022-11-01T17:18:01Z2022-11-01T17:18:01ZThe UK’s asylum system is in crisis, but the government – not refugees – is to blame<p>Kent Police are investigating an attack on a Home Office migrant processing centre in Dover, after incendiary devices <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-63453810">were reportedly thrown</a> at the building on Sunday October 30 2022. <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-63446683">Reports have said</a> that witnesses at the scene described these devices as petrol bombs, with one found in the car of the person, now deceased, who is reportedly suspected of having carried out the attack. </p>
<p>Just days before the attack, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, David Neal, <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/83/home-affairs-committee/news/173834/minister-questioned-on-channel-crossings/">told</a> the home affairs select committee that he was left “speechless” by his visit to the Home Office’s short-term holding facility in Manston. He described an “alarming” and “really dangerous situation” of overcrowded and insanitary conditions. </p>
<p>The home secretary, Suella Braverman, <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11374475/Suella-Braverman-DENIES-blocking-migrants-staying-hotels.html">has claimed</a> the UK’s asylum system is “broken”, stating that <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/conservatives/2022/11/suella-bravermans-migrant-invasion-claim-hides-her-lack-of-ideas">she aims</a> to stop the “invasion of our southern coast”. For the home secretary to blame asylum seekers for a failing system is concerning. </p>
<p>The Manston facility is a “processing site” at an airfield in Kent. Opened in February 2022, on paper it is intended to hold 1,000 people, each for up to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-secure-site-for-processing-illegal-migrants">five days</a> while they undergo security and identity checks. Neal, however, said he found the camp past “the point of being unsafe”, with 4,000 people now housed there in tented accommodation and for long periods of time. People –- including children –- are sleeping on the floor for weeks. </p>
<p>The facility is fast becoming a public health risk. There have been outbreaks of norovirus, scabies and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/oct/20/diphtheria-outbreak-confirmed-at-asylum-seeker-centre-in-kent">diphtheria</a>, the latter a highly contagious and normally extremely rare disease in the UK. </p>
<p>In his <a href="https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/inspections/short-term-holding-facilities-at-western-jet-foil-lydd-airport-and-manston/">report on Manston</a>, published on November 1 2022, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons Charlie Taylor highlights that healthcare processes are lacking, children are being detained for far too long and staff are poorly trained. With a further 700 people moved from Dover to Manston after the Dover attack, we can expect the situation there to get even worse. </p>
<p>This is the latest inappropriate and dangerous quasi-detention centre used to hold asylum seekers in recent years. In 2020, the former military Napier barracks in Folkstone were used for similar purposes.</p>
<p>A House of Lords committee <a href="https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-use-of-napier-barracks-to-house-asylum-seekers-regret-motion/">warned</a> of overcrowding, fire risks, “filthy” facilities and buildings so “decrepit” they were deemed unfit for habitation. In June 2021, the high court <a href="https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-use-of-napier-barracks-to-house-asylum-seekers-regret-motion/#:%7E:text=In%20June%202021%2C%20a%20judgment,were%20unlawfully%20detained%20under%20purported">declared</a> Napier inadequate for housing asylum seekers and found the Home Office guilty of employing unlawful practices.</p>
<p>By law, save for the tiny number of people selected for <a href="https://refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/refugee-resettlement-facts/">official resettlement</a> from Ukraine or Afghanistan, to claim refugee status, a person must already be in the UK. Without legal channels available, people seeking protection are forced to make dangerous journeys and enter the country illegally. Contrary to the language employed by the Home Secretary, the <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/3bcfdf164.pdf">1951 refugee convention</a> stipulates that no one should be penalised for entering a country illegally to seek refuge. </p>
<p><a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1114683/Detention_General_instructions.pdf">UK policy</a> prescribes that general immigration detention be used for minimal periods, in the last resort and only for (non-vulnerable) adults. Detention in short-term holding facilities is treated slightly differently, but the routine detention of thousands of asylum seekers, including children, for lengthy periods is an aberration of an already problematic practice. </p>
<h2>Disproportionate political attention</h2>
<p>Detaining asylum seekers as a matter of routine is a new practice in the UK. It has come about as a reaction to the increase in small boats crossing the channel and the lack of asylum accommodation caused by a huge backlog of cases at the Home Office. </p>
<p>The small boats receive disproportionate and inaccurate political and media attention. This includes misrepresenting their occupants as “illegal immigrants”. </p>
<p>In fact, however, these people largely go on to claim –- and are usually granted -– refugee protection. The majority of migrants arriving in small boats, including those from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Eritrea, are found to have genuine protection needs warranting <a href="https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/revealed-two-thirds-of-small-boat-channel-crossings-would-have-asylum-claims-accepted">refugee status</a>. This includes women and children. It is important to remember, as <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1097184x15575111">I have pointed out</a> that men are also legitimate refugees, despite the feminised imagery of the “genuine refugee”.</p>
<p>It is true that the numbers of people crossing the channel by small boat are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-home-office-is-now-publishing-stats-on-irregular-migration-heres-what-they-do-and-dont-tell-us-177955">unprecedented</a>. Five years ago, 300 people arrived this way. In 2022, there have already been over <a href="https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/understanding-the-rise-in-channel-crossings">30,000</a>. </p>
<p>However, the UK receives just 0.5% of the world’s asylum claims and far fewer than many other European countries. Germany, for example, received nearly <a href="https://freemovement.org.uk/putting-small-boat-crossings-in-perspective/?utm_source=Free+Movement&utm_campaign=94d561698d-Asylum+updates&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_792133aa40-94d561698d-116274629&mc_cid=94d561698d&mc_eid=df0d217f99">150,000 asylum claims</a> in 2021. These numbers, in turn, are dwarfed by those from countries further afield. <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/tr/en/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-in-turkey">Turkey</a> currently hosts 3.6 million refugees from Syria alone. </p>
<p>The small boat arrivals are also dwarfed by other groups seeking protection in the UK. The UK has taken in over 133,000 people from <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-june-2022/how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-each-year-including-visitors#british-national-overseas-bno-route">Hong Kong</a> and 195,000 from <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ukraine-family-scheme-application-data/ukraine-family-scheme-and-ukraine-sponsorship-scheme-homes-for-ukraine-visa-data--2">Ukraine</a>. </p>
<p>Irregular arrivals by small boat or lorry account for just a quarter of <a href="https://freemovement.org.uk/putting-small-boat-crossings-in-perspective/?utm_source=Free+Movement&utm_campaign=94d561698d-Asylum+updates&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_792133aa40-94d561698d-116274629&mc_cid=94d561698d&mc_eid=df0d217f99">the total refugee arrivals</a> to the UK. Although the number of asylum applications has risen significantly since 2021, the figure is still close to <a href="https://freemovement.org.uk/briefing-the-sorry-state-of-the-uk-asylum-system/">half</a> that of a decade ago. </p>
<h2>A system in crisis</h2>
<p>The UK’s asylum system is indeed in crisis, but not because of those making dangerous journeys to seek protection. To suggest that the terrible conditions people face once they arrive in the UK is their own fault is deeply disingenuous. As Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/01/an-invasion-suella-braverman-refugee-crisis-governments-own-making">has put it</a>, it is a crisis “of the government’s own making”.</p>
<p>The number of people forced to wait over six months for an asylum decision <a href="https://freemovement.org.uk/briefing-the-sorry-state-of-the-uk-asylum-system/">has trebled</a> since 2019. The backlog of people awaiting a decision is now a whopping 100,000. </p>
<p>People are waiting years for a resolution, during which they are kept in a dependent limbo of near destitution. They are forbidden from working, forcing them to rely on the Home Office for housing and subsistence. These amounts are tiny: asylum seekers live off <a href="https://www.scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/our-calls-for-increases-to-asylum-support/">£5.80 a day</a>. The overall cost of the asylum system, however, is <a href="https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2022/04/14/factsheet-cost-of-asylum-system/">£1.5 billion a year</a>.</p>
<p>These people have a legal right to claim protection from persecution and they are being failed by the UK government. The implications are dire for both them and the public purse. </p>
<p>And the imperatives are clear. When the home secretary blames asylum seekers for the failings of the system, she not only distracts attention from the real causes, she risks fuelling community tensions, normalising xenophobia and ultimately encouraging far-right extremism. </p>
<p>Rather than ineffective and cruel spectacles, such as threatening to <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uks-plans-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda-raise-four-red-flags-182709">send asylum seekers to Rwanda</a>, the UK needs a functioning asylum system.</p>
<p>Allowing people to live and work in the community while they await asylum decisions would benefit everyone. It would save the huge human and financial costs incurred by overcrowded encampment and forced government dependency.</p>
<p>The government knows that providing safe and legal channels to reach the UK is the ultimate answer. It has shown as much in its response to the war in Ukraine. </p>
<p>The world is turbulent and will only become more so with climate crises. Draconian immigration policies cannot stop people crossing borders. They can only determine how dangerous such journeys are.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/193670/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melanie Griffiths has previously received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number ES/K009370/1). </span></em></p>Short-term Home Office facilities are holding people seeking refuge in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions and for far too long. This crisis has political roots.Melanie Griffiths, Assistant Professor and Birmingham Fellow, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1904512022-09-13T08:48:27Z2022-09-13T08:48:27ZUK-Africa ties: future looks gloomy under Liz Truss as political myopia reigns<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/484268/original/file-20220913-12-o2cvok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Britain's new prime minister, Liz Truss.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EFE-EPA/Stuart Brock</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/uk-africa-ties-future-looks-gloomy-under-liz-truss-as-political-myopia-reigns-190451&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p>Britain has a new prime minister in <a href="https://theconversation.com/liz-truss-who-is-the-uks-new-prime-minister-and-why-has-she-replaced-boris-johnson-189713">Liz Truss</a>. For African leaders wondering what the new administration might mean for UK-Africa relationships, the view must be pretty gloomy. </p>
<p>British politics has been solidly inward-looking for the past two (post-Brexit Conservative) prime ministers – <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/people/theresa-may">Theresa May</a> and <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Boris-Johnson">Boris Johnson</a>. It shows few signs of changing. Looking at the UK’s shifts in relationship with African countries over the past three decades, I see little prospect of African issues rising up the political agenda. And little chance of an active Africa policy, whether at a continental or regional level, before the next general election.</p>
<p>The election must be held <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/07/when-is-the-next-uk-general-election-and-could-it-be-brought-forward-16782836/">by January 2025</a>, but is likely to be sooner. </p>
<p>Aid levels are unlikely to be restored. Nor is UK aid likely to be placed back in an independent government department. In addition, British politicians are unlikely to look beyond domestic and European crises. The result is that Africa is likely to feature in British high-level politics only when it is in the government’s narrow self-interest. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, UK policy will still have impact on the continent. A retreat from climate-emergency pledges, and continuing cuts in aid, will create real harm in many vulnerable African states. Sadly, there will be little scope for their voices to be heard in response.</p>
<h2>Shifting priorities</h2>
<p>Africa and the UK lack the close (some would argue too close) formal political, economic and military linkages of Franco-African relationships. Still, Africa has in the past been a much bigger part of the UK’s political conversation. </p>
<p>The creation of an independent aid ministry – the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-international-development">Department for International Development</a> – by the Labour government <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3993255">in 1997</a> was a key platform for building relationships.</p>
<p>It was also key to raising African politics and issues within the UK government. With both prime minister <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tony-Blair">Tony Blair</a> (1997-2007) and finance minister <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/gordon-brown">Gordon Brown</a> (2007-2010) interested in African prospects and development, close ties were forged. Through the Department for International Development, links with civil society voices were also stronger.</p>
<p>The transition to a Conservative government <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228198676_The_British_General_Election_of_2010_The_Results_Analysed">in 2010</a> (initially as part of a coalition) saw little change. Indeed, the raising of aid spending to <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/d217e3e4-7bc8-11e4-b6ab-00144feabdc0">0.7% of gross national income</a> – an increase of £1 billion – expanded the Department for International Development. At the time, other domestic-focused departments faced <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/03/lost-decade-hidden-story-how-austerity-broke-britain">severe cuts to their budgets</a>. </p>
<p>The first conservative minister of international development, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/people/andrew-mitchell">Andrew Mitchell</a> (2010-2012), had long-standing interests in the continent. He developed close relationships with key leaders, including Rwanda’s Paul Kagame. He also maintained close ties with the Ethiopian government, among others. Prime minister <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/david-cameron-a-new-future-for-africa">David Cameron</a> (2010-2016) was also interested in Africa, as a visible indication of his ambitions for a strong UK global role.</p>
<p>Since the Brexit referendum <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-five-years-after-the-referendum-here-are-five-things-weve-learned-162974">in 2016</a>, however, Africa has slipped from its precarious but tangible place in UK political discourse. The dismantling of the Department for International Development and its incorporation into a new <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-development-office">Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office</a> in <a href="https://www.devex.com/news/breaking-dfid-merged-with-fco-97489">2020</a>, as well as subverting aid to British self-interest, led to the departure of many experienced personnel who maintained the relationships with African political and civil society leaders. </p>
<p>It also removed a key ally for Africa within UK debates. Recent discussions around Africa have focused removing some migrants <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866">to Rwanda</a>, hardly the bedrock of a high-level relationship. </p>
<p>And it’s hard to imagine former governments remaining silent over the Ethiopia crisis, for example, as the most recent Conservative administration has done.</p>
<h2>Truss offers little prospect of change</h2>
<p>Before her elevation to prime minister, Truss was the foreign, Commonwealth and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/28/foreign-office-not-regained-global-footing-under-liz-truss-report-finds">development office minister</a>. She showed little interest in development, anti-poverty policies or creating relationships based on mutual respect and dialogue. In fact, in my view, she contributed to the subversion of UK aid to British diplomatic and economic self-interest.</p>
<p>Her global tours as minister did not include a visit to Africa. </p>
<p>It is true that agreements have been signed with the Southern African Customs Union and Mozambique <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-africa-trade-idUKKCN1VW1N5">in 2019</a>. But they offer little consolation in place of a new and powerful friendship.</p>
<p>More importantly, UK politics, and the attention of the new prime minister, will be firmly fixed on the domestic cost of living and inflation crisis, on a potential new row with the UK’s European Union neighbours (one of the UK government’s own making), and the conflict in Ukraine. Next on the agenda will be China, and the pursuit of trade deals elsewhere in the world.</p>
<p>It’s unlikely Britain’s limited attention span will have much space left for African issues and policy.</p>
<p>There is an argument to be made that African issues might receive a listening ear within the government given that most senior offices of state will, for the first time, be led by ministers with African heritage. The new chancellor is <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/people/kwasi-kwarteng">Kwazi Kwarteng</a>, whose parents migrated from Ghana in the 1960s, and who has written a (mildly critical) <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/books/review/ghosts-of-empire-by-kwasi-kwarteng.html">book</a> on the history of the British empire;
the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will be led by <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/people/james-cleverly">James Cleverly</a>, who has a Sierra Leonian mother; and the parents of the new Home Office minister, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/people/braverman">Suella Braverman</a>, came to Britain from Kenya and Mauritius. </p>
<p>Never before have the top posts been held by so many with direct links to Africa.</p>
<p>In my view, however, this is unlikely to make any real difference. None of the ministers have a strong record of advocating for closer or deeper ties with the continent. And despite Kwarteng’s criticism of the legacy of British colonial occupation, all three have signed up to the Conservative Party culture wars which see criticism of a glorious British past as treasonous wokery.</p>
<h2>Danger ahead</h2>
<p>There is a real danger that Britain will institute policies that actively harm African countries. Restoring UK aid to previous levels is becoming a vanishingly small possibility, which means cuts to vital social welfare programmes for some of the world’s most vulnerable communities. </p>
<p>Calls for renewed investment in fossil fuel production, and the possibility of backtracking on climate emission promises <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/07/will-liz-trusss-government-adopt-or-weaken-green-policies">in response to the energy price crisis</a>, will undermine efforts to reduce the impact of the climate emergency.</p>
<p>African leaders and civil society organisations hoping a new broom will lead to a new set of relationships look set to be disappointed. Britain’s political myopia and navel-gazing will continue, with global engagement framed as something strictly to be done where it benefits the UK. Africa will likely have to wait for a new government, and a revived Department for International Development, for strong and close relations to be restored.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190451/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Jennings is affiliated with the Fabian Society </span></em></p>Since the Brexit referendum in 2016, Africa has slipped from its precarious but tangible place in UK political discourse.Michael Jennings, Professor in Global Development, SOAS, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1866012022-07-07T23:13:04Z2022-07-07T23:13:04ZBoris Johnson’s messy political legacy of lies, scandals and delivering Brexit to his base<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/473018/original/file-20220707-24-1vup09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C89%2C4600%2C2967&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will Boris Johnson be back? The chances may be slim.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/prime-minister-boris-johnson-returns-inside-after-news-photo/1407301546?adppopup=true">Carl Court/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Boris Johnson, the now outgoing prime minister of the United Kingdom, had wanted to follow in the footsteps of his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/boris-johnson-reached-the-top-but-was-felled-by-his-flaws/2022/07/07/96ca34f0-fdd8-11ec-b39d-71309168014b_story.html">idol Winston Churchill</a> and be remembered as a leader of consequence. He aspired to greatness and desired to stay in office longer than the 11 years <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/26/boris-johnson-says-he-wants-to-still-be-prime-minister-in-the-2030s-16892594/">enjoyed by Conservative icon Margaret Thatcher</a>.</p>
<p>It wasn’t to be.</p>
<hr>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/boris-johnsons-messy-political-legacy-of-lies-scandals-and-delivering-brexit-to-his-base-186601&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p><em>You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/audio-narrated-99682">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Instead, on July 7, 2022, Johnson announced that less than three years after becoming prime minister, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-62081380">he was resigning</a> and would remain in office only until a successor emerged. It marks a stunning repudiation of a leader who had delivered Brexit to his supporters and scored a major electoral mandate a mere two and half years previously.</p>
<p>The scandal that brought his downfall wasn’t Johnson’s first. Indeed, throughout his career – and time in office – Johnson has been regarded as <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-manner-keep-character/">a political Houdini</a>, skilled at political survival and endlessly able to rebound from mishaps. </p>
<p>But even he could not overcome the succession of scandals in recent months, not least “<a href="https://theconversation.com/order-order-a-guide-to-partygate-and-the-uks-rambunctious-parliament-176206">Partygate</a>,” which involved revelations around his government’s repeated and brazen ignoring of its own COVID-19 lockdown rules. In the end it was his handling of a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/62048687">tawdry affair involving the promotion</a> of a member of parliament accused of serious sexual wrongdoing that proved the final straw. That scandal precipitated a <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnsons-nightmare-day-how-to-read-between-the-lines-in-resignation-letters-from-government-ministers-186510">rash of cabinet resignations</a> that made clear Johnson could no longer rely on the support of his own party. </p>
<p>Yet, Johnson’s legacy will not be confined to the scandals. His tenure coincided with major challenges in the U.K. Some, like the COVID-19 pandemic and the outbreak of war in Europe, were not of his making. Others, notably Brexit, were of his own hand.</p>
<h2>First came Brexit</h2>
<p>Boris Johnson and Brexit will forever be inextricably bound. </p>
<p>Johnson had long been a prominent political figure before Britain’s exit from Europe came to dominate U.K. politics. Aside from serving as a member of parliament, he was also the mayor of London as well as a well-known media personality. Throughout, Johnson, a fiscal conservative by nature, developed a reputation <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/apps-johnson/boris-johnson-inspired-appointment-or-diplomatic-disaster-idINKCN0ZU2L6">for being polarizing</a> – witty and charming to some, but dishonest and untrustworthy to others.</p>
<p>He was long talked of as a future prime minister. But it was the 2016 Brexit referendum on whether the U.K. should remain in the European Union that eventually propelled Johnson to power. He became the face of the Leave campaign, <a href="https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-send-350m-week-brussels">at times taking liberties with the truth</a> to make his case for exiting the EU. While he did not become prime minister immediately after the U.K. public opted to exit the EU, his time would come three years later. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A tabby cat is seen sitting in the foreground in front of the front door of 10 Downing Street." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/473093/original/file-20220707-14-wmzwme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/473093/original/file-20220707-14-wmzwme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473093/original/file-20220707-14-wmzwme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473093/original/file-20220707-14-wmzwme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473093/original/file-20220707-14-wmzwme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473093/original/file-20220707-14-wmzwme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473093/original/file-20220707-14-wmzwme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prime ministers come and go, but Larry the Downing Street cat remains in place.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/larry-the-downing-street-cat-sits-on-the-pavement-in-front-news-photo/1241721664?adppopup=true">Leon Neal/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When Prime Minister Theresa May resigned in summer 2019, weakened by major divisions over how to implement Brexit within the Conservative Party, Johnson seized his chance. </p>
<p>He promised to “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/07/toxic-spell-broken-boris-johnson-trips-over-own-lies">Get Brexit Done</a>” and to end the major deadlock in British politics over what sort of relationship the country would have with the EU. </p>
<p>On that front, he delivered. The December 2019 election was a resounding success for Johnson, <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnsons-big-election-victory-academics-on-what-it-means-for-the-uk-and-brexit-128850">earning a substantial majority for the Conservative Party</a> and enabling him to force through his vision of Brexit. His brand of populism, charm, disregard for rules and effective communication not only shored up the Conservative base in that election, but also helped attract many traditional left-wing Labour voters, securing a clear mandate for his party.</p>
<p>With that victory in hand, Johnson was free to complete the formal departure of the U.K. from the EU on Jan. 31, 2020. Later that year, after tumultuous talks, his government negotiated the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/relations-non-eu-countries/relations-united-kingdom/eu-uk-trade-and-cooperation-agreement_en">Trade and Cooperation Agreement</a> with the EU – defining the future relations between the U.K. and its European partners.</p>
<p>Brexit was and remains very divisive in the U.K. But neither supporters nor opponents would deny how consequential that decision was, and it could not have happened without Johnson’s involvement.</p>
<h2>… then the pandemic</h2>
<p>Any hopes that Johnson could bask in the glory of Brexit came quickly crashing down within weeks of it becoming a reality. </p>
<p>The start of the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed the situation for the U.K. Johnson and his government fumbled its initial pandemic response, acting slowly and in a lackluster manner – Johnson himself <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/19/michael-gove-fails-to-deny-pm-missed-five-coronavirus-cobra-meetings">was absent for some of the crucial meetings</a> called to discuss the pandemic in its early days. </p>
<p>According to a <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/10/12/1045219737/the-u-k-s-early-approach-to-pandemic-cost-thousands-of-lives-a-new-report-says">government report</a> released in October 2021, the government’s decision to delay a strict lockdown allowed the virus to circulate widely and caused many thousands of additional deaths. And it nearly killed Johnson himself, who <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/boris-johnson-and-coronavirus-inside-story-illness">spent a week in the hospital</a> in April 2020.</p>
<p>While Johnson recovered from his own bout with the virus, his government also managed to steady the ship. It introduced a series of stringent lockdowns and restrictions in the following year and presided over a <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n421">successful vaccination rollout</a>. But these same COVID-19 restrictions would also ironically highlight one of Johnson’s main character traits: a disregard for rules that would eventually lead to his political undoing.</p>
<h2>… and on to the lies</h2>
<p>Prior to becoming prime minister, Johnson was no stranger to controversy and to a delicate relationship with the truth. </p>
<p>The Times newspaper, where he once worked as a reporter, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/boris-johnson-reached-the-top-but-was-felled-by-his-flaws/2022/07/07/96ca34f0-fdd8-11ec-b39d-71309168014b_story.html">sacked him for inventing a quote</a>. And in 2001 he lost his senior position in the Conservative Party <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/boris-johnson-reached-the-top-but-was-felled-by-his-flaws/2022/07/07/96ca34f0-fdd8-11ec-b39d-71309168014b_story.html">for lying about an affair</a>.</p>
<p>Yet despite many setbacks usually of his own doing, Johnson had an uncanny ability to rebound, leading former prime minister David Cameron <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/20/boris-johnson-survival-superpower-last-tory-angry-partygate">to liken him</a> to a “greased piglet” who could not be caught.</p>
<p>His time in office was in keeping with precedent, littered by multiple scandals that continually led to questions about Johnson’s credibility. That included, among other unfavorable stories, that Johnson had received <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56878663">a secret undisclosed loan</a> to pay for the costs of the renovation of his private quarters at 11 Downing Street, beyond his public allowance; or the reports of a close ally in parliament <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/11/10/boris-johnson-sleaze-scandal/">breaking lobbying rules by accepting payments from companies he was promoting</a>.</p>
<p>Yet, those paled in comparison to the repercussions from “Partygate.”</p>
<p>The revelations in late 2021 and early 2022 that Johnson and his government had been <a href="https://theconversation.com/wine-time-friday-and-invites-for-200-five-of-the-most-interesting-findings-from-sue-grays-partygate-report-183866">repeatedly breaking COVID-19 restriction rules</a> over the course of a year – including many alcohol-fueled parties and accusations that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/23/partygate-photos-boris-johnson-dominic-cummings-lockdown-breaches-sue-gray-report">Johnson lied to Parliament</a> over his attendance at some gatherings – shocked the U.K. public. This scandal led to Johnson’s approval rating <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/07/he-resigns-boris-johnsons-favourability-drops-lowe">plummeting in 2022</a>. It also, slowly but surely, resulted in Johnson losing the support of his own party. </p>
<p>The war in Ukraine gave him temporary reprieve, and he narrowly survived a <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnson-what-the-result-of-the-confidence-vote-means-for-the-pm-and-the-conservative-party-184500">vote of no-confidence in early June</a>. But he was now vulnerable. <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-62032329">His latest scandal</a>, which surfaced when it became apparent Johnson was lying about what he knew about the transgressions of another close ally in Parliament, Chris Pincher, was the final nail in his political coffin. </p>
<p>Deserted by most of his allies, Johnson had to accept the inevitable.</p>
<h2>A second act?</h2>
<p>Churchill famously <a href="https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-winston-churchill-and-the-conservative-party-lost-the-1945-election">lost the parliamentary elections in the summer of 1945</a>, shortly after leading the U.K. to victory in World War II.</p>
<p>Ousted by an electorate wanting a break with Churchill’s old-world policies, and a different post-war Britain, he was still able, six years later, to return to office. </p>
<p>Such a second act seems unlikely for Johnson. Yes, he delivered on Brexit, and his supporters will remember that. But his chaotic departure, leaving his country and party very divided, as well as the legacy of his scandals, will be extremely hard to shake off – even for a “greased piglet.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/186601/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Garret Martin receives funding from the European Union for the Transatlantic Policy Center that he co-directs at American University. </span></em></p>The UK prime minister tendered his resignation after a slew of resignations by former allies in his government.Garret Martin, Senior Professorial Lecturer, Co-Director Transatlantic Policy Center, American University School of International ServiceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1845002022-06-06T21:27:51Z2022-06-06T21:27:51ZBoris Johnson: what the result of the confidence vote means for the PM and the Conservative Party<p>The verdict is in. Boris Johnson <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/jun/06/boris-johnson-confidence-vote-graham-brady-tory-mps-live">retains the confidence</a> of the Conservative Party. For now. Johnson received the votes of 211 out of 359 Tory MPs in support of his leadership, which means that technically he won. But the fact that 148 of his parliamentary colleagues voted against him, more than 41% of the parliamentary party, throws his longevity as party leader – and prime minister – into considerable doubt. </p>
<p>Johnson actually performed worse than <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm%3A978-1-349-27607-3%2F1.pdf">John Major</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46547246">Theresa May</a> in their leadership challenges in 1995 and 2019. And he faced as much opposition as Margaret Thatcher did in the first round of her <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/20/newsid_4318000/4318718.stm">leadership contest in 1990</a>.</p>
<p>The history of such confidence votes in Conservative leaders tells us that they almost always end up damaging both the leader and the party even when they support the incumbent. We have seen this happening on three successive occasions over the past 32 years.</p>
<h2>Political assassinations</h2>
<p>When senior cabinet minister Michael Heseltine challenged Thatcher’s leadership in the first round of the contest in 1990 he took 40.9% of the vote. This meant that under the rules operating at the time, the contest had to go to a second round because she did not achieve the 55% required for an outright victory. Initially she said she would fight on but subsequently the “men in grey suits” persuaded her to stand down, and the resulting contest was won by John Major.</p>
<p>In retrospect, Conservative MPs were right to replace her, since Major then went on to win a surprise victory in the 1992 general election. But subsequently he too was increasingly dogged by the divisions in the party over UK membership of the European Union. Major was a firm supporter of Britain’s membership of the European Union – but an increasing number of Tory backbenchers, as well as party members in the country, wanted to leave the EU. </p>
<p>Major decided to make his critics “put up or shut up” by calling for a <a href="https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA18308748&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00312290&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E3e5c2c9c">confidence vote in himself</a> in 1995. He won that vote by a large margin, supported by 71% of his parliamentary colleagues – but unfortunately for him, this did not settle the issue. If anything, it revealed to the voters that the Conservative Party was bitterly divided. Two years later under the leadership of Tony Blair, Labour won a landslide victory in the election which brought an end to Major’s premiership.</p>
<p>The third occasion was the confidence vote imposed by May in the spring of 2019 following her failure to win a parliamentary majority in the general election of 2017. She did better than expected by winning the backing of 63% of her MPs, but unfortunately for her it did not solve the problem of finding a solution to Brexit acceptable to the House of Commons. Despite the victory, within six months she had to resign and Johnson won the subsequent leadership election.</p>
<h2>Two years of turmoil</h2>
<p>These examples show that a confidence vote itself inevitably weakens rather than strengthens the position of the leader and this erodes support for the party among the voters. Two by-elections are shortly to take place in Wakefield and in Honiton and Tiverton – both seats won by the Conservatives in the last election. <a href="https://www.jlpartners.co.uk/polling-results">Recent polling</a> suggests that Wakefield is almost certain to be captured by Labour and, in light of the Liberal Democrat success in the by-elections in North Shropshire and Chesham and Amersham in 2021, the party has a <a href="https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/05/who-predicted-win-lose-tiverton-and-honiton-by-election-conservatives-labour/">very good chance</a> of taking this seat from the Conservatives.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ktLemiX9zUk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>This does not of course mean that Johnson will resign. Former Brexit Secretary David Davis, himself a former Conservative leadership candidate, said the prime minister will have to be <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1552806/David-davis-boris-johnson-prime-minister-partygate-commons">“dragged kicking and screaming”</a> from Downing Street. If this is indeed the case, it means that, unless his colleagues can remove him from office, the row over partygate will continue and the ability of the government to persuade people to support it to deal with the cost of living crisis and other major issues will be further eroded.</p>
<p>In dealing with this issue, Conservative MPs might do well to remember the advice given by Machiavelli in <a href="https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/604/60451/the-prince/9780141395876.html">The Prince</a> – his manual for how to govern states: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whoever is responsible for another’s becoming powerful ruins himself, because this power is brought into being either by ingenuity or by force, and both of these are suspect to the one who has become powerful.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A significantly weakened prime minister and a rebellious parliamentary party is no great foundation for achieving a fifth election victory in 2024.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184500/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Whiteley receives funding from the British Academy and the Economic and Social Research Council</span></em></p>With 40% of his MPs voting against his leadership, how realistic are the prime minister’s hopes for survival?Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1844922022-06-06T15:52:15Z2022-06-06T15:52:15ZBoris Johnson wins ‘no-confidence’ vote: but the margin will make him nervous<p>Boris Johnson has <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnson-what-the-result-of-the-confidence-vote-means-for-the-pm-and-the-conservative-party-184500">survived a “no-confidence” vote</a> by 211 votes to 148 votes against his leadership. But Johnson’s margin of victory is smaller (as a percentage of all Conservative MPs) than that achieved by his predecessor Theresa May in 2019, six months before she resigned and he won the support of the majority of the Conservative Party and took office. Now, after weeks of speculation during the “partygate” scandal, 40% of his MPs have attempted to vote him out of power.</p>
<p>The no-confidence vote was triggered after 54 (or possibly more) MPs submitted letters to Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the influential <a href="https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/vote-of-no-confidence-what-is-the-1922-committee-who-is-sir-graham-brady-and-what-happens-with-a-vote-of-no-confidence-3533239">1922 committee</a>, saying they no longer believed Johnson is the right person to lead the party.</p>
<p>The 148 votes against Johnson means that for the first time the public, and the rebels, know the scale of the opposition Johnson now faces. This figure for has this evening virtually trebled from the 54 needed to instigate a leadership contest to 148 who were willing to vote to change leader. Although not yet sufficient to topple Johnson, it is far from the decisive victory Johnson will wish to present this as and could yet galvanise more calls for him to resign.</p>
<p>The contest was a straightforward yes or no vote. To win the vote, Johnson needed a simple majority of the ballots to be returned in his favour. All of the 369 Conservative MPs took part and Johnson has managed to hold on to the majority. Under the party’s current rules, he will not face another such vote for 12 months. </p>
<p>Including Johnson, four of the five previous Conservative prime ministers <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/06/from-may-to-heath-tories-faced-votes-on-leadership">have been publicly challenged</a> over their position as party leader, going back to Edward Heath in 1974. And Iain Duncan Smith lost a no-confidence vote as leader of the opposition in 2003. </p>
<p>Their example tells us that winning the vote may not prove to be enough to secure Johnson’s position. May survived a vote of no confidence in January 2019, and both Thatcher and Major faced leadership challenges (although under different rules and after significantly longer in office than either Johnson or May). Remarkably, all three won their respective ballots but both Thatcher and May resigned shortly afterwards and Major went on to lose the 1997 general election by a landslide. </p>
<p>Johnson’s team will hope to use a victory to “draw a line” under partygate and other scandals but this may be difficult to achieve in a party that is publicly as divided as the Conservatives currently are.</p>
<p>Any victory will inevitably be <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/theresa-may-wins-confidence-vote-2/">compared to May’s</a> in December 2018. May won her vote by 200 votes (63%) to 117. In order o reach the equivalent level of support, Johnson would have needed to get the support of at least 236 of his fellow Tory MPs. He failed in this.</p>
<p>Had he lost, the Conservative Party would have had to begin the <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/conservative-party-leadership-contests">process of electing a new leader</a> and, by virtue of losing the vote, Johnson would have been prohibited from standing in the resulting leadership election. </p>
<p>Now Johnson will remain in office, but the speculation will inevitably intensify as to whether – and for how long – he can survive.</p>
<h2>Possible leadership contenders</h2>
<p>Waiting in the wings are an array of Conservative colleagues who are thought to have leadership ambitions. Among them are several of his cabinet colleagues and other senior Tories, who have either chaired parliamentary committees or held senior posts in previous administrations.</p>
<p>They include Rishi Sunak, chancellor of the exchequer, who was previously seen as a forerunner to replace Johnson. But the cost of living crisis, and a fine for attending the same event that brought Johnson his fixed penalty notice, has seen his <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/rishi-sunak-approval-rating">personal ratings plummet</a>.</p>
<p>Other prominent cabinet members who are reported to harbour leadership ambitions include the foreign secretary, Liz Truss, who has been loyal to Johnson but is expected to stand should a vacancy arise. Penny Mordaunt, the minister of state at the Department for International Trade is seen as a possible unifying figure, something the party may well come to increasingly value. Other senior figures tipped as possible contenders include the defence secretary Ben Wallace, the education secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, and the health secretary, Sajid Javid.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, there are heavy hitters outside the cabinet whose attraction is that they could help the party to move on with a narrative of change. One prominent Johnson critic is the chair of the foreign affairs committee, Tom Tugendhat, who was the only figure to publicly state he <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/who-replace-boris-johnson-pm-tory-party-leaders-vote-no-confidence-1670730">would run</a> if a vacancy emerges. Other potential contenders include the former health secretary, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61703422">Jeremy Hunt</a>, who came second in the members’ ballot behind Johnson in 2019. </p>
<p>But the prime minister remains in post – for now. The next big indicators of the public mood will the the two by-elections on June 23 in <a href="https://www.wakefield.gov.uk/elections/wakefield-constituency-parliamentary-by-election">Wakefield in Yorkshire</a> and Tiverton and Honiton in Devon. These two very different constituencies, in both of which the Conservatives are <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-04/johnson-is-taking-tories-to-heavy-loss-in-special-election-poll">trailing in the polls</a>, will be watched very carefully by all 369 MPs as they consider their position going forward.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184492/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Kirkland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The prime minister has survived by 211 votes to 148.Christopher Kirkland, Lecturer in Politics, York St John UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1448942020-08-24T15:29:24Z2020-08-24T15:29:24ZChrystia Freeland and the merit myth that won’t go away<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354128/original/file-20200821-22-jum0b2.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=69%2C107%2C4901%2C3144&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland responds to a question during a news conference on Aug. 20, 2020 in Ottawa.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Chrystia Freeland made history by becoming Canada’s first woman finance minister. The next day, she experienced what many high-achieving women do: her qualifications for the job were immediately challenged. </p>
<p>Journalists reported that Freeland <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-morneau-finance-minister-bay-street-experience-1.5691135">lacked the Bay Street experience</a> of her predecessor, Bill Morneau, that her “<a href="https://www.pressreader.com/canada/the-globe-and-mail-bc-edition/20200819/281831466101417">mastery of business issues was relatively untested</a>” and that she was merely a journalist with no business credentials. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1296081767884099585"}"></div></p>
<p>Such reporting ignores Freeland’s stellar performance in two cabinet posts over five years and overlooks the fact that she was an <a href="https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/chrystia-freeland-wins-national-business-book-award-512475541.html">award-winning financial journalist</a> before entering politics. For some, Freeland’s qualifications for finance minister were insufficient. </p>
<p>We shouldn’t be surprised. Denigrating or <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/16/carole-cadwalladr-women-politics-power">ignoring women’s credentials</a> is a common strategy to reinforce ideas about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2018.1532917">who is entitled to the most powerful positions</a> in our society. My co-authored book, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/cabinets-ministers-and-gender-9780190069001?cc=ca&lang=en&"><em>Cabinets, Ministers, and Gender</em></a>, shows that downplaying women’s qualifications helps explain why so few make it into top government posts. </p>
<p>Women were entirely absent from Canadian cabinets until 1957, when <a href="https://time.com/4101443/canada-first-female-cabinet-minister/">Ellen Fairclough was appointed to cabinet</a> by prime minister John Diefenbaker. Since then, progress has been slow, and few women have <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/cabinets-ministers-and-gender-9780190069001?cc=ca&lang=en&">held the most powerful posts</a>. Just three women have served as justice minister, two have led foreign affairs and just one woman, Kim Campbell, has been defence minister, a post she held for less than six months. </p>
<p>Women’s gains in politics and the workplace over the past few decades are undeniable. Yet men continue to dominate the upper echelons of politics. Why? Our research digs into how qualifications and arguments about merit are deployed to women’s disadvantage. </p>
<h2>Qualifying for cabinet</h2>
<p>There are no formal qualifications for ministers in the countries we studied — Australia, Canada, Chile, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. We interviewed former ministers and political advisers, read former leaders’ memoirs and dug into media archives to figure out why some people make it into cabinet and others don’t. </p>
<p>We found that even without written rules, there were still widely recognized expectations about the qualifications ministers needed. Political experience and policy expertise were central, but we found that friendship and loyalty mattered even more, especially to the person doing the appointing.</p>
<p>Women have a harder time qualifying on these grounds. That’s because the networks where political friendships develop often originate in all-male or mostly male spaces like private school, fraternities and golf clubs. Examples include former British prime minister David Cameron’s “<a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/day-long-knives-ruthless-may-dispatched-notting-hill-set-14248">Notting Hill set</a>,” many of whom sat in his cabinet.</p>
<h2>The route to cabinet</h2>
<p>Another route to cabinet is having policy expertise, educational credentials and professional experience related to the post. Unfortunately, patterns of gender segregation in the workforce get reproduced in cabinet. Researchers find that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00158.x">women tend to be appointed to less prestigious</a> cabinet posts that correspond to stereotypically feminine professions like education, social services and health. </p>
<p>If qualifying for more powerful posts like finance, defence and foreign affairs requires occupational experience, women will be disadvantaged. Women lead a mere <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/20/us/fortune-500-women-ceos-trnd/index.html">7.4 per cent of Fortune 500 companies</a> and continue to be <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/women-in-the-forces/statistics.html">vastly under-represented</a> in the Armed Forces. The high-profile cabinet spot where women are most likely to be found is justice, which is unsurprising given the ever-growing number of women graduating with law degrees.</p>
<p>But the real reason why criteria requiring occupational experience undermines women’s chances of making it to cabinet are the ones exemplified by the reaction to Freeland’s appointment: qualifications are in the eye of the beholder. They’re not objective, and they’re not static. They shift and change depending on who’s being considered and who’s doing the judging. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Justin Trudeau elbow bumping Chrystia Freeland" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354127/original/file-20200821-24-nkng6t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chrystia Freeland elbow bumps Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after being sworn in as Finance Minister on Aug. 18, 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While doing research for our book, we encountered several cases of women’s qualifications for cabinet being ignored or downplayed. The most egregious — and sadly similar to Freeland — is when Theresa May, former British prime minister, was selected by newly elected prime minister David Cameron as home secretary, one of the most powerful posts in government. May had been in parliament for 13 years, served as party chairman, and shadowed six different portfolios. Yet the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/16/carole-cadwalladr-women-politics-power">media still challenged her qualifications</a> for the position.</p>
<h2>Merit as a strategic tool</h2>
<p>When Trudeau first appointed a gender-balanced cabinet in 2015, <a href="https://www.thebeaverton.com/2015/11/50-female-cabinet-appointments-lead-to-5000-increase-in-guys-who-suddenly-care-about-merit-in-cabinet/">the satirical <em>Beaverton</em> ran the headline</a>: “50 per cent female cabinet appointments lead to 5,000 per cent increase in guys who suddenly care about merit in cabinet.” The headline illustrates how merit arguments are deployed precisely when women’s gains threaten the status quo. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kim-campbell-sexism-freeland-minister-finance-1.5694539?fbclid=IwAR0WegGNc4pBB5UslYDuMtQ171PXtaWW_itTbjsI-sMm9ikYWFuAdtsoGxs">Journalists who ignore Freeland’s qualifications</a> or imply — contrary to the historical record — that Bay Street experience is a qualification for finance minister, are doing the same thing, except they’re not trying to be funny. </p>
<p>Instead, they’re sending an all-too-familiar message to women seeking high office: No matter what you accomplish, it will never be enough.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144894/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Franceschet receives funding from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.</span></em></p>Reactions to Chrystia Freeland’s appointment as finance minister demonstrate how qualifications and arguments about merit are deployed to women’s disadvantage in politics.Susan Franceschet, Professor of Political Science, University of CalgaryLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1427252020-07-16T20:04:07Z2020-07-16T20:04:07Z‘Expect sexism’: a gender politics expert reads Julia Gillard’s Women and Leadership<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347569/original/file-20200715-37-1jlk6ey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=15%2C15%2C3479%2C2331&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">`</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jonathan Ernst/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Why are there so few women at the <a href="https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures">top levels</a> of politics?
This question is at the centre of the new book, <a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/books/women-and-leadership-9780143794288">Women and Leadership</a>, co-authored by Australia’s first woman prime minister, Julia Gillard, and former Nigerian finance minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. </p>
<p>Using their personal experiences and interviews with an impressive group of eight women leaders - including <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-resigns-as-british-prime-minister-heres-where-it-all-went-wrong-117763">Theresa May</a>, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/25/hillary-clinton-looks-back-in-anger">Hillary Clinton</a>, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/books/what-makes-jacinda-ardern-such-a-special-political-presence-20200505-p54pzz.html">Jacinda Ardern</a> and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/profile/christine-lagarde/#210b65092170">Christine Lagarde</a> - Gillard and Okonjo-Iweala test various academic studies to see if their findings are reflected in reality. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347841/original/file-20200716-27-jalp1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347841/original/file-20200716-27-jalp1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=923&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347841/original/file-20200716-27-jalp1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=923&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347841/original/file-20200716-27-jalp1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=923&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347841/original/file-20200716-27-jalp1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1160&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347841/original/file-20200716-27-jalp1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1160&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347841/original/file-20200716-27-jalp1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1160&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Penguin Books Australia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Theses studies include <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-political-science-revue-canadienne-de-science-politique/article/gender-political-leadership-and-media-visibility-globe-and-mail-coverage-of-conservative-party-of-canada-leadership-contests/48935A5442877CAC942040CD7EFF9D73">media coverage</a> of women’s leadership, as well as perceptions of women’s “<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167210371949">power-seeking</a>” and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1065912917745162">gender norms</a> around leadership.</p>
<p>What results is both a sobering reminder that sexism isn’t going away anytime soon and an empowering message about women’s strength and resilience.</p>
<p>As an academic researching women’s political leadership, this book acts as a crucial point between <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159315">scholarly studies</a> and public debate. It also offers a fresh perspective of the many issues women in leadership face. </p>
<p>Here are four key messages:</p>
<h2>1. The fashion police are everywhere</h2>
<p>Gillard and Okonjo-Iweala find women leaders are heavily judged for their appearance. This was a problem faced by all leaders interviewed, despite their diverse experiences and locations. </p>
<p>However, there were still differences across the world. Clinton, a former US presidential candidate and secretary of state, was known for her pant suits - which she said helped her <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/14/hillary-clinton-discusses-why-she-wears-pantsuits-in-what-happened.html">feel professional</a> and “fit in”. But former Liberian president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf noted how she “would have got some eyes as a woman wearing pant suits” and traditional dress worked best for her. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347571/original/file-20200715-27-1ey0gsk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347571/original/file-20200715-27-1ey0gsk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347571/original/file-20200715-27-1ey0gsk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347571/original/file-20200715-27-1ey0gsk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347571/original/file-20200715-27-1ey0gsk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347571/original/file-20200715-27-1ey0gsk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347571/original/file-20200715-27-1ey0gsk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hillary Clinton has said her pantsuits made her feel ‘ready to go’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">David Moir/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There can also be power in clothing. For example, New Zealand’s Ardern was seen to show compassion, empathy and solidarity when she <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/28/with-respect-how-jacinda-ardern-showed-the-world-what-a-leader-should-be">wore a hijab</a> after the Christchurch terrorist attack. As Gillard and Okonjo-Iweala write,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>it became a symbol of love in the face of hate. There was a transcendent power in appearance. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>2. Prepare to be judged for your reproductive choices</h2>
<p>The book also explores how women leaders are judged for their reproductive choices. While fatherhood <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-gender/article/voting-for-mom-the-political-consequences-of-being-a-parent-for-male-and-female-candidates/6C0776F087D182FC85BAA1BB45645EC3">increases perceptions</a> of male leaders as affable, relatable and conventional, public motherhood is a far more problematic experience. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-julia-gillard-forever-changed-australian-politics-especially-for-women-138528">How Julia Gillard forever changed Australian politics - especially for women</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As the authors note, women leaders with young children are frequently asked, “who’s minding the kids?”</p>
<p>Seven hours after her election, Ardern was <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-02/new-zealand-labour-leader-jacinda-ardern-asked-about-having-kids/8766796">asked on national television</a> about her plans for having children. When she had her daughter, there was intense <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/02/jacinda-ardern-return-work-new-zealand-pm-birth-baby">media scrutiny</a> about how she would juggle her leadership role and her baby. Yet male leaders, such as former UK prime minister Tony Blair, who welcome babies in office, are not questioned about who will be looking after them. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347604/original/file-20200715-33-1rrbj9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347604/original/file-20200715-33-1rrbj9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347604/original/file-20200715-33-1rrbj9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347604/original/file-20200715-33-1rrbj9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347604/original/file-20200715-33-1rrbj9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347604/original/file-20200715-33-1rrbj9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347604/original/file-20200715-33-1rrbj9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jacinda Ardern has taken her daughter Neve to the UN General Assembly.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Carlo Allegri/ AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And what about women leaders who don’t have children? Gillard is intrigued by the respectful treatment of former British prime minister May’s childlessness, as she had a polar opposite experience in Australia (who could forget the frenzy sparked by her <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/gillards-fruit-bowl-runneth-over-20100624-z0cv.html">empty fruit bowl</a>). </p>
<p>Gillard makes a thought-provoking point here about choice. May wanted, but was unable, to have children, while Gillard was deliberately child-free. Perhaps this was the cause of the criticism she faced. As Gillard writes, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>in being seen to offend against female stereotypes, is there anything bigger than not becoming a mother by choice?</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>3. The situation is not getting better</h2>
<p>The book makes the point that despite the focus on women in politics, the experience for those at the top is not necessarily improving.</p>
<p>As someone whose <a href="https://academic.oup.com/pa/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/pa/gsaa008/5825436">research found</a> media reaction to May in 2016 was more gendered than for Margaret Thatcher in 1979, I wasn’t shocked to read this. However, it was still surprising to learn that Michelle Bachelet – Chile’s president from 2006-10 and 2014-18 – noticed things were worse in her second term.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/women-leaders-and-coronavirus-look-beyond-stereotypes-to-find-the-secret-to-their-success-141414">Women leaders and coronavirus: look beyond stereotypes to find the secret to their success</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Initially assuming the pressure of gendered expectations had improved the second time around, Bachelet realised, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>it was the same or worse. I think politics is getting more complicated these days and more vicious. There is less respect. It’s more personalised now.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>All leaders interviewed said they were conscious of the difficulties of finding a balance in leadership style. If they were too strong or assertive, they could be seen as “cold”, “robotic” or “bitchy”. </p>
<h2>4. ‘Be aware, not beware’</h2>
<p>The experiences and advice of these eight high-profile women leaders reveal how sexism is par for the course. </p>
<p>This message is hammered home in the final chapter, in which Gillard and Okonjo-Iweala note “Be aware, not beware”. They argue that they want to inspire women to pursue politics and leadership roles, but glossing over the challenges would be dishonest and insulting. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347599/original/file-20200715-27-9byvxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347599/original/file-20200715-27-9byvxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347599/original/file-20200715-27-9byvxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347599/original/file-20200715-27-9byvxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347599/original/file-20200715-27-9byvxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347599/original/file-20200715-27-9byvxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347599/original/file-20200715-27-9byvxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=513&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gillard and Okonjo-Iweala say women leaders should expect sexist commentary.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lisi Niesner/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Summarising the insights gleaned from previous chapters, Gillard and Okonjo-Iweala offer some stand-out lessons that will aid aspiring women leaders. These include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>expect sexism and sexist commentary relating to your appearance, family and leadership style and figure out early on how you will respond to this</p></li>
<li><p>support other women, whether through network-building, mentoring, role-modelling or general solidarity</p></li>
<li><p>persevere. </p></li>
</ul>
<h2>A reality check</h2>
<p>Women and Leadership is, at times, a depressing reality check that feminism still has a long way to go. However, readers should not come away from this feeling hopeless or disheartened.</p>
<p>Rather, they can appreciate the respect the authors have given them by speaking plainly about the realities women leaders face. </p>
<p>Perhaps more consideration could have been given to the experiences of women in less senior positions. Do we need to hear from the success stories when we talk about the struggles of women in leadership, or could we perhaps also learn from those whose glass ceilings were just too thick? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fiction-fact-and-hillary-clinton-an-american-politics-expert-reads-rodham-142478">Fiction, fact and Hillary Clinton: an American politics expert reads Rodham</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While this book might be less useful for women - and men - without leadership aspirations, its general analysis of gender stereotypes and double standards still makes it a worthwhile read. </p>
<p>This is also problem that women cannot fix alone. Men need to do their bit, by calling out sexism and supporting women. The media must also be more active in combating sexism and misogyny.</p>
<p>One enduring message of this book is that progress and equality are not linear. </p>
<p>Sexism doesn’t just one day magically disappear. Rather, it can only be dismantled through constant pressure and the actions of those who persevere.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/142725/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Blair Williams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In a new book, Julia Gillard, Hillary Clinton and other high-profile female leaders speak plainly about the challenges women face at the very top of politics.Blair Williams, Associate Lecturer, School of Political Science and International Relations, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1309702020-02-05T22:09:37Z2020-02-05T22:09:37ZCanada-U.K. free trade: A post-Brexit opportunity<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313740/original/file-20200205-149752-11ee8av.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C184%2C4075%2C2504&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meets with U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson during the G7 Summit in Biarritz, France, in August 2019. Can the U.K. and Canada forge a post-Brexit trade deal?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The hard work now begins for the United Kingdom to shape an independent trade policy outside of the European Union. Brexit has finally happened after more than three years of negotiations, posturing, parliamentary shenanigans, two elections and considerable policy uncertainty.</p>
<p>As the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/world/europe/after-brexit.html"><em>New York Times</em></a> reports, the U.K. faces complex and arduous negotiations trying to maintain its privileged access to 450 million European consumers with zero tariffs or other trade restrictions. </p>
<p>It’s crucial for the U.K. to negotiate and sign some sort of trade agreement with the EU as soon as possible because the transitional period ends on Dec. 31, 2020. After that date if there are no deals, the British will lose their preferential access to that important market. This will significantly disrupt trade flows and supply chains that are vital to the U.K. economy.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that’s a very short time to negotiate a deal. Trade deals typically <a href="https://voxeu.org/article/why-do-trade-negotiations-take-so-long">take more than two years to hammer out</a>.</p>
<h2>Deal with U.S.?</h2>
<p>The EU is critical but the U.K. is also looking to sign trade deals with other countries — perhaps none more important for the British economy than one with the United States. </p>
<p>But a deal with the Americans is at best a few years away and will not come easy, even though the U.S. is an important partner for the U.K. and there has been a lot of <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/uk-us-trade-deal">discussion about such a deal</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-quick-british-american-trade-deal-nafta-suggests-not-a-chance-87708">A 'quick' British-American trade deal? NAFTA suggests not a chance</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are many significant road blocks to such a deal — Donald Trump’s administration <a href="https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/protectionism-under-trump-policy-identity-and-anxiety">is more about protectionism</a> than it is about trade agreements, and it will be extremely difficult to negotiate as the president focuses on re-election. Witness the tumultuous and prolonged negotiations over <a href="https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/nafta-lives-canada-and-the-u-s-reach-an-11th-hour-a-deal/">minor improvements to the NAFTA agreement</a>.</p>
<p>Even if Trump is defeated in November, the Americans have not been able to negotiate a deal with the EU. Talks started in 2013 and <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/28/491721332/german-official-says-u-s-europe-trade-talks-have-collapsed-blames-washington">were suspended in 2016</a>. The lack of results stemmed from challenges on both sides but does not bode well for a desperate and less economically powerful U.K. to be able to make headway with the U.S.</p>
<h2>Losing preferential access</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, the U.K. has other important trade policy challenges to resolve. Not only do the British lose privileged access to the EU on Dec. 31, but they also lose preferential access to all the countries and trading blocks with which the EU currently has agreements. </p>
<p>The EU has trade deals fully implemented, or partially in place, with <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/#_being-negotiated">88 countries</a>, including Canada. Many of these agreements are with small economies, but the point is that due to Brexit, the U.K. will lose all the preferential access it’s enjoyed as a member of the EU. </p>
<p>The U.K. must negotiate agreements with these 88 countries simply to maintain its current trade relationship.</p>
<p>But British officials don’t have experience or capacity to effectively negotiate multiple new trade agreements and will already have their hands full negotiating with the EU. This is where Canada comes in. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313753/original/file-20200205-149772-12vtbit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313753/original/file-20200205-149772-12vtbit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313753/original/file-20200205-149772-12vtbit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313753/original/file-20200205-149772-12vtbit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313753/original/file-20200205-149772-12vtbit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313753/original/file-20200205-149772-12vtbit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313753/original/file-20200205-149772-12vtbit.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Canada’s Justin Trudeau and Germany’s Angela Merkel are seen at the G7 summit in France in August 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Canada has an important and comprehensive agreement with the EU <a href="https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/TradePolicyTrends.Beaulieudylanklemen-final.pdf">called CETA</a>, short for the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. CETA is a cutting-edge and modern trade agreement that is comprehensive in its coverage. It also contains progressive commitments to promote labour rights, environmental protection and sustainable development. </p>
<h2>A perfect template</h2>
<p>CETA provides the perfect template for the U.K. to adopt and use as a model for future bilateral agreements after finalizing a free-trade agreement with Canada.</p>
<p>Obviously, the U.K. urgently needs to complete a deal with the EU first and foremost. But a deal with Canada should be its second priority. Not only can CETA provide a model for a <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-ceta-can-serve-as-template-for-post-brexit-canada-uk-trade-deal/">U.K.-EU deal</a>, it can also be the template for the Canada-U.K. deal.</p>
<p>The U.K. can get an early and relatively easy win by completing a new trade agreement with Canada. The two countries, in fact, have already agreed informally to move forward on a Canada-U.K. agreement built on CETA.</p>
<p>Along with Dylan Klemen of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, I have argued that <a href="https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Trade-Policy-Trends-Brexit-final.pdf">this would be an important win for Canadian trade policy as well</a>. The U.K. is Canada’s fifth largest trading partner, and was its largest trading partner when it remained in the EU. The U.K. is Canada’s second largest source of foreign direct investment, and the second largest foreign destination for Canadian investors.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Trade-Policy-Trends-Brexit-final.pdf">following graphic</a> shows Canada’s 10 most valuable exports (in terms of product groups) to the U.K. over the last five years. Exports of gold are sizably larger than Canada’s other top exports to the country. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313826/original/file-20200205-149796-1mlv182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313826/original/file-20200205-149796-1mlv182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313826/original/file-20200205-149796-1mlv182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313826/original/file-20200205-149796-1mlv182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313826/original/file-20200205-149796-1mlv182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=593&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313826/original/file-20200205-149796-1mlv182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=593&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313826/original/file-20200205-149796-1mlv182.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=593&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Canada-U.K. trade statistics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Eugene Beaulieu)</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With Brexit, Canada lost one of its key objectives in signing CETA in the first place — free trade with the U.K. </p>
<p>Prime Minister Justin Trudeau began informal discussions on free trade with <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-uk-trade-talks-brexit-vote-1.4973281">former British prime minister Teresa May</a>, and <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/01/31/justin-trudeau-predicts-orderly-brexit-minimal-trade-and-investment-disruption.html">recently confirmed his commitment</a> to a trade agreement between the two countries under Boris Johnson. </p>
<h2>Easy to complete?</h2>
<p>For Canadian trade policy, there is another reason to move quickly with a CETA-based agreement with the U.K. — and another reason to believe the agreement will be easy to complete. And that’s the opportunity <a href="https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/final_Canada-UK-Trade-Beaulieu-Dawar-GarnerKnapp.pdf">for Canada to move forward with its diversification strategy and achieve its progressive trade objectives</a>. </p>
<p>The U.K. and Canada should quickly negotiate a free-trade deal with strong environmental and labour provisions modelled closely after CETA.</p>
<p>Free trade with Canada provides an early and relatively straightforward win for the U.K. as well as a win for Canada’s trade diversification strategy and progressive trade agenda. It’s also important that both countries complete a deal to avoid disruptions to the flows of trade and commerce between the two countries. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the U.K. can use CETA as a template for its own negotiations with the EU. Such a template could be a model for future negotiations with the long list of countries with whom it will be trying to ensure continued market access.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130970/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eugene Beaulieu receives funding from SSHRC and ESRC.</span></em></p>The U.K. is now in the unenviable position of having to negotiate multiple trade deals following Brexit. Here’s why it should start with Canada.Eugene Beaulieu, Professor, Economics, University of CalgaryLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1234342019-09-16T11:59:41Z2019-09-16T11:59:41ZBritish troops massacred Indians in Amritsar – and a century later, there’s been no official apology<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292306/original/file-20190912-190002-cvd3j2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Jallianwala Bagh, in Amritsar, India, where hundreds were killed on April 13, 1919, under British colonial rule.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/India-Jallianwala-Bagh/528950b8b49f4cc6a1e031b0f1504c33/2/0">AP Photo/Prabhjot Gill</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby recently visited the site of a brutal massacre that happened in 1919 under the British colonial rule in India and offered his <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/10/justin-welby-apologises-in-name-of-christ-british-massacre-amritsar">personal apologies</a>. He expressed his “deep sense of grief” for a “terrible atrocity.” </p>
<p>Earlier in April, then U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May <a href="https://time.com/5566864/india-massacre-apology/">told the House of Commons</a> that the episode was “a shameful scar on British-Indian history.” However, she had stopped short of apologizing.</p>
<p>The massacre is still remembered in India as a symbol of colonial cruelty. Here’s what happened a hundred years ago. </p>
<h2>Killing unarmed protesters</h2>
<p>After World War I, the British, who controlled a vast empire in India, agreed to give Indians limited self-government due to India’s <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33317368">substantial contribution</a> to the war effort. </p>
<p>These reforms, named the <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/gentlemanly-terrorists/reforms-of-1919-montaguchelmsford-the-rowlatt-act-jails-commission-and-the-royal-amnesty/D97CA2DF6D0AEBDD9AD2066DB1504C04/core-reader">Montagu-Chelmsford reforms</a> after the secretary of state for India and the viceroy of India, promised to lead to more substantial self-government over time.</p>
<p>However, around the same time the British had passed the draconian Rowlatt Acts, which allowed certain political cases to be tried without trial. And the trial was also to be conducted without juries. The acts were <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/gentlemanly-terrorists/reforms-of-1919-montaguchelmsford-the-rowlatt-act-jails-commission-and-the-royal-amnesty/D97CA2DF6D0AEBDD9AD2066DB1504C04/core-reader">designed to ruthlessly suppress</a> all forms of political dissent. </p>
<p>The Rowlatt Acts were designed to replace the constraints on political activity that had been embodied in colonial rules, known as the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/4366436?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Defense of India Rules</a>, which had been in force during World War I. </p>
<p>Not surprisingly, there were <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Gandhi.html?id=boDAE8MLAJMC">widespread public protests</a>, led by the noted Indian nationalist leader, Mahatma Gandhi. </p>
<p>As part of this nationwide agitation, some 10,000 individuals gathered in a park in the northern Indian city of Amritsar on April 13, 1919. Since this protest was in defiance of a curfew which prohibited political gatherings, Brigadier-General <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Butcher_of_Amritsar.html?id=XuQC5pgzCw4C">Reginald Dyer</a>, who was stationed in the nearby city of Jalandhar, decided to take action. </p>
<p>Troops under his command blocked the sole entrance to the park, called Jallianwallah Bagh. Without warning they <a href="https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/amritsar-massacre">opened fire</a>. The British <a href="https://www.theweek.in/theweek/cover/2019/04/12/jallianwala-bagh-100-how-many-people-actually-died-a-numbers-tale.html">officially estimated that 379</a> people died. The unofficial count was more. Close to <a href="https://www.thestatesman.com/india/100-years-on-britain-admits-jallianwala-bagh-massacre-a-shameful-scar-1502744574.html">1,200</a> were injured.</p>
<p>Dyer’s men stopped firing only after they had run out of ammunition. The soldiers did not offer any medical assistance to the wounded, and others could not come to their aid because of the imposition of a curfew on the city. </p>
<h2>An apology long overdue</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292308/original/file-20190912-190050-151f2x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292308/original/file-20190912-190050-151f2x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292308/original/file-20190912-190050-151f2x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292308/original/file-20190912-190050-151f2x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292308/original/file-20190912-190050-151f2x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292308/original/file-20190912-190050-151f2x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292308/original/file-20190912-190050-151f2x4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A wall of the Jallianwala Bagh, the site of the 1919 massacre, with bullet marks on it.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/India-US/6500ffc8801f48ec8daa8e49731ef339/6/0">AP Photo/Prabhjot Gill</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Then viceroy of India, Lord Chelmsford, convened an inquiry commission which led to Dyer being relieved of his command. However, upon returning to the United Kingdom, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/650872?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">he found support</a> for his actions among a segment of the British population. </p>
<p>In India, there was widespread shock and horror over this wanton use of force. The Nobel Laureate in literature, Rabindranath Tagore, protested by renouncing his knighthood, which he had received from the British Crown in 1915. <a href="http://dart.columbia.edu/library/tagore-letter/letter.html">Writing to the viceroy</a>, Tagore decried “the disproportionate severity of the punishment inflicted upon the unfortunate people.” </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://polisci.indiana.edu/about/faculty/ganguly-sumit.html">political scientist</a> who has written on the impact of British colonialism on India, I believe that the legacy of this episode, along with <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674027244">a host of other ugly events</a>, continues to trouble Indo-British relations.</p>
<p>Britain, for the most part, has failed to come to terms with its tragic colonial heritage in South Asia and elsewhere. In the wake of the the archbishop’s apology, I believe, it is time for the British government to follow suit. </p>
<p>An unequivocal apology to the memory of the victims is long overdue.</p>
<p>[ <em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123434/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sumit Ganguly receives funding from the US Department of State, I am a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.</span></em></p>A hundred years ago, peaceful Indian protesters were massacred under British colonial rule. A scholar argues why a formal apology is overdue.Sumit Ganguly, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and the Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1194672019-07-23T11:39:44Z2019-07-23T11:39:44ZBoris Johnson, ‘political Vegemite’, becomes the UK prime minister. Let the games begin<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285339/original/file-20190723-110149-136j1zi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson will succeed or fail on the back of the single dominant issue that dominates British politics: Brexit.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/EPA/Will Oliver</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>To no-one’s great surprise, Boris Johnson has been elected by the members of the Conservative Party to be the new leader, and by extension prime minister of the United Kingdom, taking over from Theresa May. </p>
<p>Such a turn of events seemed highly improbable a few months ago. Johnson is a polarising figure not just for the country at large but for his own party. An instantly recognisable figure with his unruly blonde mop, rotund Billy Bunteresque figure and fruity Etonian accent, Johnson is political Vegemite. He delights those who look for “authenticity” in their political leaders, often code for plain speaking, unscripted rudeness and lack of civility. He appals those who expect politicians to abide by some basic principles, uphold integrity in public life and seek to defend the common interest through negotiation and compromise. </p>
<p>Those who detect similar qualities in Johnson to those characterising Donald Trump would not be wrong. Both are noted for improbable haircuts, but beyond that they share a penchant for seeing politics in simplistic and antagonistic terms. Politics is a zero-sum game. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/tory-leadership-race-its-jeremy-hunt-who-vs-boris-johnson-yes-really-with-the-future-of-the-uk-at-stake-119234">Tory leadership race: it's Jeremy Hunt (who?) vs Boris Johnson (yes, really), with the future of the UK at stake</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For some to win, others must lose, and those others invariably include every shade of minority identity, whether it be Muslims, homosexuals, immigrants or otherwise feckless folk who need to try harder, do more, speak better English or in some other way accommodate themselves to the dominant majority. </p>
<p>For all of her faults (and there were many), Theresa May at least stood for a certain even-handedness, a recognition of the need for a centre-right party to build a coalition across disadvantage as well as advantage, and to respect differences. That accommodating rhetoric is likely to disappear with the end of her premiership. </p>
<p>But Johnson will succeed or fail on the back of the single dominant issue that dominates British politics: Brexit. How will his approach differ from that of his immediate predecessor?</p>
<p>Johnson <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/25/brexit-boris-johnson-britain-will-leave-eu-31-october-do-or-die">has promised</a> throughout his campaign to be leader of the Conservative Party that he will bring Britain out of the European Union by October 31, “do or die”. No going back to the withdrawal agreement. No compromise with the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-44615404">Northern Ireland backstop</a> or with many other elements that so irritate the “hard Brexit” wing of the party. </p>
<p>So much for the rhetoric. The reality is that the EU is not going to change the withdrawal agreement. Nor will the House of Commons permit a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48511379">no-deal Brexit</a>. Only last week an amendment was passed that effectively demonstrated the strength of the anti-no deal majority in parliament. </p>
<p>This leaves very little room to manoeuvre. If Johnson remains true to the no deal rhetoric then we can expect a vote of no-confidence quite quickly in parliament, leading to elections perhaps as soon as November.</p>
<p>If, as seems more likely, Johnson manages to get the EU to change some words in the political declaration, such as the non-binding part of the withdrawal agreement, then he may seek to re-present what in essence was May’s deal back to the house in the hope that enough Labour MPs can be persuaded to join with the bulk of the Conservative Party (though not the hard-core European Research Group wing) to get it over the line. But this also seems improbable, likely leading again to an election. </p>
<p>A third possibility is that he recognises the intractability of the situation, and also the perils of calling an election as far as the prospects for his own party and premiership are concerned, and seeks a further period of negotiation with the EU. This might be for six months, a year or even more. Given Johnson’s well-documented desire to exercise power, such a scenario should not be ruled out. </p>
<p>But there is also fourth possibility, and this is the one that is exercising the <a href="https://www.theweek.co.uk/63099/parliament-prorogued-what-does-it-mean-and-can-it-be-used-to-push-through-brexit">greater speculation</a> among the chattering classes in the UK. This is that recognising the lack of a majority for a no-deal Brexit in parliament, Johnson decides to “prorogue” parliament, a fancy term for suspending parliament in order to ram through an agreement on an executive basis.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-boris-johnson-would-be-a-mistake-to-succeed-theresa-may-117671">Why Boris Johnson would be a mistake to succeed Theresa May</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In effect, this is using the idea of “the will of the people” to overturn parliamentary democracy. The last time it was used in the UK was in the 1940s in order to undertake much-needed constitutional change to the status of the House of Lords. </p>
<p>The worry here, of course, is that this looks much more like the kind of “putsch”-style politics we are accustomed to seeing in banana republics than in one of the oldest democracies in the world.</p>
<p>So what many are wondering is whether behind the carefully confected image of a bumbling, playful figure so beloved of a certain wing of the conservative electorate, lies a neo-fascist figure willing and perhaps able to sacrifice democracy on the altar of English, as opposed to British, nationalism.</p>
<p>Let the games begin.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119467/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Tormey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the divisive politician becomes the UK prime minister, many are wondering how much democracy he might be willing to sacrifice on the alter of English nationalism.Simon Tormey, Professor of Politics, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1185592019-06-13T10:48:42Z2019-06-13T10:48:42ZBeyond Brexit, these are the issues Conservative leadership candidates should be debating<p>The Conservative leadership contest is entering its most intense phase. Potential leaders are being whittled down by their parliamentary colleagues before the party’s roughly 160,000 members vote on which of the final two will get the top job in British politics. </p>
<p>It’s inevitable that one topic has come to dominate the discussion in the contest. Much of the focus will be on the candidates’ plans (or lack of plans) for Brexit. That is somewhat inevitable, given this is the most prominent issue in British politics and the fact that Theresa May’s departure is largely due to her inability to find a Brexit <a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-no-brexit-plan-b-this-is-still-plan-may-110140">“plan B”</a> after the House of Commons rejected her deal.</p>
<p>Each contender is promoting a different Brexit vision in their campaign. But the EU says the deal on the table cannot be renegotiated. And if many of the candidates are to be believed, the UK is ready to leave without a deal on October 31. So there appears to be little scope for a change of course.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the next Conservative leader does not have to call a general election until 2022. Of course an election can be forced by a vote of no confidence, but 2022 must be the focal point for this campaign.</p>
<p>Given that the next leader has the potential to lead the country for the best part of the next three years, focusing solely on an issue which most candidates say should be resolved in little over the next three months seems short sighted. The successful candidate should have strong positions on other issues too, and these should be clearly outlined in the campaign. Here are some of the topics we need to see covered. </p>
<h2>Austerity</h2>
<p>It has been eight months since May declared that “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-45733098/theresa-may-people-need-to-know-austerity-is-over">austerity is over</a>” (though the chancellor Phillip Hammond has been more cautious, saying only that austerity is coming to an end). Such austerity-driven policies are continuing to hit families, as a recent <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/03/philip-hammond-accused-of-being-blind-to-scale-of-uk-poverty">UN report</a> demonstrated, when it claimed 14m people in the UK live in poverty and 1.5m are destitute.</p>
<p>Even if the government is correct in dismissing the report, it makes stark reading and has been used to decry the current government’s economic policies, which the report defined as “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/22/un-report-compares-tory-welfare-reforms-to-creation-of-workhouses">punitive, mean-spirited and often callous</a>”.</p>
<p>The failures of the government’s austerity agenda is a key issue that the Conservatives’ political opponents, not least Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, have highlighted.</p>
<p>If an election is held off until 2022, it’s likely that the economy, rather than Brexit, will be the determining factor of any party’s success. There have been some tentative moves in this direction, with candidates promising to increase <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2019/06/10/school-funding-is-unlikely-touchstone-in-race-to-succeed-may/#53e44cfc337f">spending on schools</a>. But, as yet, these have not been fully costed. They’re still a long way from forming the basis of a meaningful macro-economic strategy. </p>
<h2>The lack of a parliamentary majority</h2>
<p>A more immediate problem for the incoming leader is that of the current parliamentary arithmetic. This election will not change that. Currently the Conservative Party has <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/">313 MPs</a> in the House of Commons – 12 seats short of an overall majority (as convention ensures that the speaker only votes if there is a tied vote), and nine seats short of an effective majority (as Sinn Féin MPs do not take their seats or vote). It relies on the support of the DUP’s 10 MPs to win votes.</p>
<p>While this problem is important in any Brexit vote, it affects the government’s ability to pass all other legislation too. The current parliament has been in session for almost two years (typically it is in session only for a year) and is due to rise <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/">this summer</a>. One of the first jobs the new leader (and PM) will be tasked with is to present and pass a Queen’s speech – which outlines the legislative agenda of the government for the parliamentary session (and must therefore extend beyond Brexit). Failing to get parliamentary support for this is akin to losing a vote of no confidence and would lead to the fall of the government. </p>
<p>Linked to this is the question of what to do about Northern Ireland, which has been without a devolved assembly since <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/northern-ireland-talks-latest-power-sharing-deal-stormont-sinn-fein-dup-a8893096.html">January 2017</a>. Agreeing any future confidence-and-supply agreement with the DUP is likely to raise questions about restoring some form of power sharing in Northern Ireland. Any potential new deal is likely to be more heavily scrutinised than in 2017, by both the Conservative and DUP’s political opponents. </p>
<h2>Saving the party</h2>
<p>As well as being prime minister, the leader will have to work to unite the Conservative Party. The party’s divisions run deeper than Brexit. The question of Islamophobia is still prevalent (something some of Boris Johnson’s <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=boris+johnson+muslim+comments&oq=boris+johnson+muslim+comments&aqs=chrome..69i57.6339j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">comments</a> will do little to diffuse). The party is also suffering a declining membership. Its remaining membership base is ageing too, raising concerns about the future sustainability of the party. Just as May’s path to the leadership has been used to explain her unpreparedness for – and failures to engage within – the 2017 general election, the next leader needs to demonstrate broader appeal across the country. </p>
<p>Brexit might be the most important issue but other factors matter immensely. One of the critiques of May following the 2017 general election was that she didn’t have any practice at engaging members of the public during her leadership campaign. Failure to explore and debate these issues could lead to ad-hoc or ill thought-out policies.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118559/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher Kirkland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Brexit will inevitably dominate this campaign, but the next prime minister also needs positions on austerity, party unity and how to actually survive in parliament.Christopher Kirkland, Lecturer in Politics, York St John UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1183472019-06-07T13:03:50Z2019-06-07T13:03:50ZWhere does Theresa May sit in the hall of fame for disastrous prime ministers?<p>It is, of course, too early to make a balanced judgement about <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/theresa-may-8109">Theresa May’s</a> legacy. That can really only happen once Brexit is resolved. But we already have some sense of where she will sit in the hall of fame dedicated to
bad prime ministers. </p>
<p>Some ground rules for this discussion, first. It seems reasonable to exclude the 19th-century prime ministers, for a start. Some of them were truly awful, but they were not operating in anything that looks like a modern political system. However, even if we confine ourselves to the period since 1918, when something resembling a modern franchise was introduced, it’s a competitive league for the title of worst prime minister.</p>
<p>Everyone has their view on who the worst prime minister is, but here are mine. I argue there are at least four candidates to consider before we look at May. The first would be <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macdonald_ramsay.shtml">Ramsay MacDonald</a>. After heading two minority Labour governments in 1924 and 1929-31, he then became prime minister in the national government from 1931 to 1935. But as his health declined, effective power gradually flowed to his Conservative colleague and, subsequently his successor, Stanley Baldwin. It was 1945 before Labour was in office again.</p>
<p>For Labour supporters, MacDonald was synonymous with the word “betrayal”. They felt he had sold out to financial interests, and the blandishments of King George V, and introduced a programme of austerity that deepened the recession of the 1930s. He seemed unable to grapple with the scope and depth of the problems he faced.</p>
<p>Neville Chamberlain (1937-40) has his defenders. Like many men of his generation, he was understandably scarred by the experience of World War I and genuinely wanted peace. His advocates argue that by giving in to Hitler’s demands and postponing war as long as possible, he gave the country more time to prepare and rearm.</p>
<p>The counter argument is that each capitulation simply encouraged Hitler to ask for more. It was remarked that Chamberlain had never met anyone like Hitler in Birmingham, where he came from. His experience was in municipal and domestic politics and his grasp of the imperatives of foreign policy in the late 1930s was limited, although that didn’t stop him intervening. When he came back from the Munich talks with Hitler, he was a national hero, in tune with the pacifist mood of the country. However, opinion quickly changed and he was castigated as one of the “guilty men” of appeasement.</p>
<p>Anthony Eden (1955-57) also has his defenders, but the case is harder to make. He involved Britain in an <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/suez_01.shtml">invasion of Egypt</a> to restore British control of the Suez Canal which ended in fiasco when American pressure led the UK to withdraw. Eden viewed the Egyptian leader Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser in rather simplistic terms as another Mussolini, whom he had dealt with as foreign secretary in the 1930s. Rather than reasserting British influence in the Middle East, Suez ended the belief that Britain was an independent great power. Eden did not reveal to the House of Commons that Britain had colluded with France to encourage Israel to invade the Sinai Peninsula to give the UK a pretext for intervention.</p>
<p>Alec Douglas-Home (1963-64) was a surprise choice as prime minister who emerged because alternative candidates self-destructed. He had to give up his seat in the House of Lords to become prime minister. He had little understanding of economics which he said he used to work out with <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07qbcb0">matchsticks</a>. He was, however, only narrowly defeated by the modernising Harold Wilson in the 1964 general election.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772016">Edward Heath</a> (1970-74) hardly covered himself in glory, ending his period in office among industrial chaos. The answer the electorate gave to his question he posed in the February 1974 general election “Who governs?” was “Not you”. His main achievement, getting Britain into the then Common Market, is now likely to be reversed.</p>
<h2>Dealt a bad hand, handled deal badly</h2>
<p>Theresa May was handed a poisoned chalice in terms of steering a deeply divided country and House of Commons to a Brexit settlement. However, she arguably made things worse by her own mistakes. The biggest was to fight a poor election campaign in 2017, which led to the loss of the Conservative majority and a reliance on the Democratic Unionist Party to govern.</p>
<p>Having failed to secure a majority, she then should have reached out to other parties to try to build a consensus on Brexit. Instead, as one might expect from someone whose whole public life has been built around the Conservative Party, she was relentlessly partisan, sticking obdurately to her <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-in-florence-little-room-and-no-view-84534">“red lines”</a>. It might have been difficult for anyone else to get a better deal from the EU, but she allowed her unpopular deal to be humiliatingly defeated in the Commons three times, only reaching to other parties when it was too late.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1133629390431150080"}"></div></p>
<p>As a consequence of the focus on Brexit, she was unable to do very much to help the working poor, which was her central objective when she came into office. She belatedly tried to promote a review of university financing as part of her legacy.</p>
<p>She is, of course, the fourth Conservative Party leader in succession to be <a href="https://theconversation.com/thatchers-revenge-the-tories-finally-get-to-go-to-war-over-europe-55182">brought down</a> by issues related to the EU, with internal strife within the party the most important factor. But she could have been more flexible and more emotionally intelligent in dealing with colleagues and opponents. The magazine Private Eye gave its verdict by printing a blank page on the cover, presenting it as her “legacy in full”. Harsh, but not unfair.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118347/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wyn Grant does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The much criticised PM has plenty of rivals for the title of worst leader.Wyn Grant, Professor of Politics, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1181922019-06-03T13:01:34Z2019-06-03T13:01:34ZDonald Trump in the UK: a state visit offered in haste and regretted at leisure<p>US President Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK was offered with <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38805196">exceptional speed</a>, from a <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/theresa-may-seeks-price-of-donald-trump-friendship-special-relationship-uk-us-brexit/">position of weakness</a>. Delayed once, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/11/donald-trump-state-visit-delayed-president-told-pm-will-not/">through presidential pique</a>, Trump has now arrived in the UK. But greater than the usual preoccupation with the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/25/special-relationship-how-a-century-of-us-presidential-visits-tells-the-temperature">“special” relationship</a> is the question of whether there is now even a settled relationship.</p>
<p>Given that the experiences of presidents and prime ministers derive from both structural alliance and individual contingency, can the relationship withstand a president whose very appeal has been eschewing conventions, legacy ties, and alliances? In an age of new normals, there may be need for new norms.</p>
<p>Some previous relationships worked because of a similarity of outlook. This was true for <a href="https://adst.org/2016/07/extra-special-relationship-thatcher-reagan-1980s/">Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher</a>, and for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/07/blair-and-clinton-global-concerns-of-two-buddies">Tony Blair and Bill Clinton</a>. Others worked through a chemistry, be it personal or generational or a combination, such as <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725363/EXCLUSIVE-How-Harold-If-I-dont-woman-I-terrible-headaches-They-gossiped-sex-wives-world-affairs-bizarre-friendship-President-Kennedyhttps:/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725363/EXCLUSIVE-How-Harold-If-I-dont-woman-I-terrible-headaches-They-gossiped-sex-wives-world-affairs-bizarre-friendship-President-Kennedy-Prime-Minister-Macmillan.html%2520-Prime-Minister-Macmillan.html">John F. Kennedy’s and Harold Macmillan’s</a>, <a href="https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/former-president-reveals-tyneside-trip-12871561">Jimmy Carter’s and James Callaghan’s</a>, and <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/barack-obama-david-cameron-bromance-114328">Barack Obama’s and David Cameron’s</a>. Some worked, forged as they were by war, notably <a href="https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/fdr-churchill">Franklin D. Roosevelt’s and Winston Churchill’s</a>, and <a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/special-relationship-blair-bush-shaped-britains-approach-iraq-war/">George W Bush’s and Tony Blair’s</a>. Some did not work – such as <a href="http://www.americansc.org.uk/online/Wilsonjohnson.htm">Harold Wilson’s and Lyndon Johnson’s</a>, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/28/john-major-apologised-bill-clinton-vietnam-war-draft-dodging-suspicions-national-archives">Bill Clinton’s and John Major’s</a>. But no president and prime minister have been as dissimilar and as incompatible as Donald Trump and Theresa May.</p>
<h2>An unusual relationship</h2>
<p>Even when there had, in the past, been disagreements there were always trammels: diplomatic language; due process. This president behaves <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1135453891326238721?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1135453891326238721&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2019%2Fjun%2F03%2Ftrump-praises-nigel-farage-and-refuses-to-apologise-for-nasty-jibe-as-he-leaves-us">with too little</a>, this prime minister too much, restraint. Fitting neatly with her unmanageable Brexit inheritance, from the moment Trump won the election, May faced an unenviable choice.</p>
<p>She could either defy popular opinion to strategically embrace an international pariah or, opt for the more popular tactic of shunning him. As it turned out, he was <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-44828436/do-trump-and-may-hold-hands-every-time">literally to embrace her</a>.</p>
<p>However implausible their paring, Trump and May were bound by a similarity of circumstance. As with the <a href="https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/08/thatcher-reagan-political-soulmates/2063671/">“right turn”</a> of the 1980s, and the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-35258804/tony-blair-and-bill-clinton-s-conversations-revealed">“third way”</a> of the millennium, they found themselves in office at the same time and as a consequence of respective <a href="https://www.cidob.org/en/articulos/cidob_report/n1_1/the_transnational_diffusion_of_populism">national iterations of the same phenomenon</a>.</p>
<p>The shock results of the EU referendum and the US presidential election occurred five months apart and shared many of the same characteristics and many of the same characters. But while the president has brilliantly channelled and exploited the public sentiment that propelled him to power, the prime minister has been far less convincing. </p>
<p>May had come to office by the very virtue of not having taken a stand on the great issue of the day; he had been elemental to it. Both countries were sharply divided. In the UK more than at any time without war all other matters were subsumed in one all-consuming and often traumatic national debate; in the US the president was the debate.</p>
<p>Insofar as each was a beneficiary of exceptional circumstances there was at least the possibility of mutual utility on which to base special relations. But this was a prime minister who, more than any other, had circumscribed herself, by having quite unnecessarily called, and effectively lost, a general election she had confidently expected to win convincingly. Her already subordinate position was weakened further.</p>
<p>Of the greatest political challenge to Britain in peacetime, the president, claimed paternity (<a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/766246213079498752?lang=en">“They will soon be calling me Mr Brexit!”</a>) and was keen to demonstrate shared endeavour: <a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/746272130992644096?lang=en">“They took their country back, just like we will take America back.”</a></p>
<p>Brexit meant that trade would complement security and intelligence as the cement of the special relationship. But it also meant there was an opportunity for Trump to leverage the UK: he would be working with a prime minister with an even greater imperative than usual to establish a close connection with the US.</p>
<h2>A sign of the times</h2>
<p>Some have still to adapt to the new norms. The BBC recently regarded Trump’s <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/brexit-brief-trump-showers-praise-on-uks-anti-eu-leaders-2019-05-31">undermining of May</a> as “a highly unusual intervention”, but it was no longer unusual. Before his <a href="http://theconversation.com/a-chequers-history-the-country-palace-of-british-prime-ministers-99428">first visit</a> in 2018 he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-one-departure-9/">lauded her most likely and active usurper</a> (as he has since). Then, once he had arrived, while standing next to her, he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-prime-minister-may-united-kingdom-joint-press-conference/">questioned her Brexit policy</a> (as he has <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-prime-minister-varadkar-ireland-bilateral-meeting-2/">subsequently</a>).</p>
<p>The publicly stated grounds for the president <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48478706">effectively endorsing</a> one of currently 13 candidates to replace May, are <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-theresa-may-resign-brexit-press-conference-today-uk-visit-a8929531.html">suitably narcissistic</a>: “I have a lot of respect for Boris [Johnson]. He obviously likes me, and says very good things about me.” There is more to it than that: the broader commonalities behind Brexit and Trump.</p>
<p>Brexit also connects Trump and Nigel Farage. In an early transgression, Trump advocated the latter as the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38060434">next UK ambassador to the US</a>. In the latest, he promoted Farage as <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48487973">Brexit negotiator</a> and plans to meet with him during this visit, contrary to the wishes of the host government. Even a bilateral meeting with the prime minister appears to have been cancelled. It is less that protocols have been breached than it not being clear if there are any protocols left.</p>
<p>This is a state visit offered in haste and regretted at leisure. To cap it, no prime minister has had to ensure the humiliation of knowing in advance that a presidential visit is the end of their premiership. Misleading as it may be overly to personalise this moment, it’s hard not to. The unprecedented challenges of 2016 have been faced, by common accord, by the one being unsuited, and the other unfit, for the offices they hold.</p>
<p>In another age, interventions by a foreign head of even a friendly government in another country’s domestic affairs would widely be regarded as intolerable. It is a measure of our age and Britain’s predicament that tolerated they will be.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118192/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Farr is writing the chapter on Trump and May in the book Presidents and Prime Ministers: from Cleveland and Salisbury to Trump and May, 1895-2019 which he's co-editing with Michael Cullinane, and which will be published by Palgrave this year.</span></em></p>In a sign of the times, there’s even talk of the US president meeting Nigel Farage during his trip.Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Modern and Contemporary British History, Newcastle UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1179222019-05-29T10:02:27Z2019-05-29T10:02:27ZWhy do Conservative Party leadership hopefuls keep piling on to the no-deal Brexit bandwagon?<p>The <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubadm/435/435.pdf">House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee</a> published two reports in 2010 and 2011 in which it claimed the UK government had all but lost the capacity to think strategically.</p>
<p>The failure of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the inability to anticipate the risk of a banking collapse closer to home were both highlighted. The MPs said Whitehall could no longer devise and sustain a continuing process which would ensure that the whole of government identified and acted effectively upon the national interest. <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubadm/713/713.pdf">Expert witness evidence</a> suggested short-termism, and the confusion of interests with tactics, had substituted for a culture of strategy making. </p>
<p>The committee <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubadm/435/435.pdf">identified</a> how policy, as the means to effect strategy, had been confused with strategy itself. Furthermore, there was “little evidence of sustained strategic thinking or a clear mechanism for analysis and assessment. This leads to a culture of fire-fighting rather than long-term planning.” In effect, in the absence of a clear definition of the national interest, government had acted tactically, often for reasons of political expediency.</p>
<p>Subsequently, Brexit has repeatedly highlighted that this incapacity for strategic thinking has pervaded the broader British power elite at Westminster. It is not just a problem among Whitehall administrators.</p>
<p>Former prime minister David Cameron’s decision to call the 2016 European Union referendum, without undertaking any planning for the consequences of a potential Leave vote, is a case in point. Then came his successor Theresa May’s decision to trigger Article 50, beginning the Brexit process, without having any clear strategy for the delivery of Brexit. </p>
<p>Whatever qualities May’s successor as Conservative Party leader and prime minister needs to possess, aside from massive good fortune, the capacity for clear strategic thinking and the ability to act decisively in the face of uncertainty and rapidly changing events will be paramount.</p>
<p>The key strategic decision May’s successor must confront is whether to commit to leaving the European Union by no later than October 31 – and on World Trade Organisation (WTO) “no-deal” terms if necessary. They will come into the job facing pressure on this point after the Conservative Party’s calamitous performance in the European elections.</p>
<p>The Brexit Party took first place with a 31.6% share of the vote, securing seats for 29 MEPs. This result must, in part, be attributable to its commitment to taking a hard line on Brexit. The Conservatives, meanwhile, will have only four MEPs after taking just 9.1% of the vote.</p>
<p>Paradoxically, the chequered ministerial and parliamentary record of all 11 Conservative Party leadership candidates thus far declared, has suggested that none has an obvious flair for clear strategic thinking. </p>
<p>A series of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/18/bridge-940m-bill-boris-johnsons-mayora-vanity-projects-garden-bridge-routemaster-bus">inquiries</a> into major infrastructure projects presided over by leadership frontrunner Boris Johnson as mayor of London has revealed a catalogue of mismanagement resulting in serious cost overruns and bills for the taxpayer totalling almost £1 billion. These included £283m for the New Routemaster <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/devolution/2015/10/single-object-sums-boris-johnsons-disastrous-mayoralty">“Boris” buses</a> and £43m for the aborted cross-Thames <a href="https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/temple-footbridge">Garden Bridge</a> project.</p>
<h2>Deal or no deal?</h2>
<p>Nowhere will this need for clear strategic thinking and action be more urgent and necessary than in relation to the question of whether to pursue a no-deal Brexit.</p>
<p>The question has major implications for the vital domestic policy decision of whether to end austerity in the autumn 2019 budget and accompanying spending review. Given the daily reports of pressure on <a href="https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/R150.pdf">school</a>, <a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/report/financial-sustainability-of-police-forces-in-england-and-wales-2018/">police</a>, <a href="https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7903">social care</a>, <a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Financial-sustainabilty-of-local-authorites-2018.pdf">local government</a> and other frontline public service budgets, there has been mounting political pressure for greater spending. </p>
<p>Should that new prime minister sanction a no-deal Brexit, it would inevitably create major friction for UK trade. Overall economic activity and tax revenue would likely <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/760484/28_November_EU_Exit_-_Long-term_economic_analysis__1_.pdf">fall</a> as a result. The price of no deal would, therefore, probably be a perpetuation of fiscal austerity.</p>
<p>It’s also already clear that such a strategy could have a potentially toxic political cost. As other leadership candidates have already warned, it could potentially further divide the Conservative Party.</p>
<p>Foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt has described no deal as <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48428761">“political suicide”</a>. International development secretary Rory Stewart <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/25/rory-stewart-says-could-not-serve-boris-johnson/">says</a> he won’t serve under Johnson as prime minister if he pursued a “damaging and dishonest” no-deal Brexit.</p>
<p>Chancellor Philip Hammond has also warned that a prime minister who ignores parliament, and the clear majority there against no deal, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-48415220/philip-hammond-pm-cannot-ignore-parliament-on-no-deal-brexit">“cannot expect to survive long”</a>. Senior Conservative backbencher and leading Remainer Dominic Grieve has indicated that he would do everything in his power to prevent a “catastrophic” no-deal Brexit. This might include resigning the Conservative whip, leaving the party, and voting against the government in a <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1130865/Brexit-news-no-deal-EU-exit-Dominic-Grieve-Boris-Johnson-Dominic-Raab-ITV-Peston">no-confidence vote to bring it down</a>. He might not act alone.</p>
<p>Yet several of the eleven candidates, including <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/24/boris-johnson-vows-take-britain-eu-oct-31-brexit-deal-no-deal/">Boris Johnson</a>, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/24/boris-johnson-vows-take-britain-eu-oct-31-brexit-deal-no-deal/">Dominic Raab</a>, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48410734">Andrea Leadsom</a>, and <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/videos/6041209375001/Brexit-Esther-McVey-gives-EU-no-deal-threat-in-leadership-bid">Esther McVey</a>, have already indicated their willingness to take the UK out of the EU on no-deal terms.</p>
<p>Echoing the earlier warnings of the Public Administration Select Committee about the absence of strategic thinking in government, there is an attendant danger that Brexit policy, in the absence of strategy, will continue to be driven by short-term individual interests, rather than a clear definition of the national interest.</p>
<p>Candidates are in danger of focusing on the political expedients – initially of what it takes to win the Conservative Party leadership race and latterly of what it takes to maintain the unity of a rancorous cabinet populated by failed and possibly embittered leadership contenders. That cabinet is also sure to be as divided over the key issue of whether to pursue a no-deal Brexit as the current administration.</p>
<p>May’s resignation has not altered parliamentary arithmetic. The Conservatives have a working majority of only seven and that depends on support from the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which cannot be guaranteed. Whoever inherits the leadership of the Conservative Party and the UK will need to demonstrate a rare capacity for swift strategic thinking and action to hold their party and government together. If they cannot, the ignominy of becoming the shortest serving peacetime prime minister in modern British political history awaits.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117922/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Lee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s a strategically poor choice – and that’s no coincidence.Simon Lee, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of HullLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1178652019-05-27T15:36:27Z2019-05-27T15:36:27ZNigel Farage triumphs: survey reveals what drove voters to the Brexit Party in the European elections<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/european-elections-6507">European elections</a> in England were a triumph for Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, which took 32% of the vote. There was real success for the Liberal Democrats and Greens as well, <a href="https://theconversation.com/after-labours-dismal-european-election-performance-is-it-too-late-for-jeremy-corbyn-to-back-a-second-referendum-117845">deep disappointment for Labour</a> and the new Change UK party and disaster for the Conservatives.</p>
<p>Survey research we conducted just before the vote shows where the Brexit Party votes came from, offering some vital insight into what the main parties need to do to recover from their losses ahead of any future general election.</p>
<p>In the survey, conducted just before the European elections, we found that the Brexit Party benefited most from disaffected Conservative voters. However, it also took votes from Labour and even the Liberal Democrats as well as soaking up the UK Independence Party (UKIP) vote.</p>
<p>However, the our survey results also show that voters are locked in a dead heat on the question of how they would vote in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/peoples-vote-59512">second referendum</a>; we found 43% said they’d vote to remain and 43% said they’d vote to leave. Another 6% said they would not vote, while 8% said they didn’t know which way they’d go.</p>
<h2>Tory exodus</h2>
<p>We worked all this out using an internet survey commissioned from Deltapoll conducted between the May 18 and 22, 2019. This survey is part of a wider project to study the Brexit process and it involved interviewing just over 2,500 people, making it more than twice as large as a standard opinion poll.</p>
<p>We asked respondents which party they voted for in the 2017 general election and then compared their answers to their vote intention in the European elections. The survey showed that 64% of the Brexit Party vote came from Conservatives, 22% came from Labour, 11% from Liberal Democrats, and 3% from other parties, largely UKIP. </p>
<p>Put simply, the Brexit Party took three times as many votes from the Conservatives as it did from Labour and six times as many as it took from the Liberal Democrats.</p>
<h2>Bad news for Corbyn and Johnson – but Farage too</h2>
<p>We also asked if respondents felt satisfied or dissatisfied with <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-resigns-as-british-prime-minister-heres-where-it-all-went-wrong-117763">Theresa May</a> as prime minister and only 22% said they were satisfied. A massive 74% were dissatisfied. That said, the public evaluates leaders using a variety of characteristics such as their competence, honesty, caring quality and other attributes. It turns out that these are all summarised rather well by asking people if they like or dislike a particular leader. If the public like a leader they are very likely to think that they are competent, honest and so on.</p>
<p>We measured the likeability of leaders using an 11 point scale, where zero means they dislike them a lot and ten means that they like them a lot. The chart below shows the average scores on this leadership scale for <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/jeremy-corbyn-18860">Jeremy Corbyn</a>, Nigel Farage, Theresa May and Vince Cable. Boris Johnson is also included since he is currently <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/24/uk/may-resigns-what-next-merrick-gbr-intl/index.html">the frontrunner</a> in the Conservative leadership race.</p>
<p>Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn did worst, with a likeability score of only 3.8 and Vince Cable did best with a score of 5.9. These scores, in part, may explain why Labour’s performance was poor and the Liberal Democrats did so well in the election. </p>
<p>Interestingly though, Nigel Farage had the same score as May, indicating that there is more to the success of the Brexit Party than his popularity. Among the public as a whole the Brexit leader is not that popular. What’s more, Johnson was only marginally ahead of Theresa May on 4.4. This suggests that if he does succeed her as party leader he is not going to give the Conservatives much of a boost.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276614/original/file-20190527-193535-nq7tjz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276614/original/file-20190527-193535-nq7tjz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276614/original/file-20190527-193535-nq7tjz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276614/original/file-20190527-193535-nq7tjz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276614/original/file-20190527-193535-nq7tjz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276614/original/file-20190527-193535-nq7tjz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276614/original/file-20190527-193535-nq7tjz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276614/original/file-20190527-193535-nq7tjz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An unpopular bunch.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Only 9% of the public think the Conservatives have done well in handling the negotiations with the EU compared with 71% who thought they had done badly. This goes a long way to explaining why they received only 9% of the vote in the elections.</p>
<h2>The next election</h2>
<p>It is nevertheless clear that while the two major parties performed badly in these elections, they both have a reservoir of identifiers or loyalists, many of whom are likely to stick with them when times are difficult. That’s not true for the Liberal Democrats or the Brexit Party. These two parties have only a limited brand loyalty which means that if things go wrong, as they did with UKIP following the 2016 referendum, they could rapidly lose support.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276616/original/file-20190527-193527-c4c8x0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276616/original/file-20190527-193527-c4c8x0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276616/original/file-20190527-193527-c4c8x0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276616/original/file-20190527-193527-c4c8x0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276616/original/file-20190527-193527-c4c8x0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=319&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276616/original/file-20190527-193527-c4c8x0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276616/original/file-20190527-193527-c4c8x0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276616/original/file-20190527-193527-c4c8x0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Can party loyalty prevail?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So the two major parties have the potential to bounce back in a general election in the future. Needless to say, these results show that Labour is in a much better position to do this than the Conservatives. A new Tory leader is going to have their work cut out to change the perception that the party has really messed up the Brexit negotiations and is therefore unfit to govern.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117865/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Whiteley receives funding from the British Academy and the Economic and Social Research Council</span></em></p>Newcomers took most support from the Conservatives. But survey shows Nigel Farage is not as popular as he likes to think.Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1177622019-05-24T15:44:20Z2019-05-24T15:44:20ZTheresa May resigns: how the leadership race could play out from here<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276380/original/file-20190524-187169-1kh5sn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dominic Lipinski/PA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Theresa May’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-resigns-as-british-prime-minister-heres-where-it-all-went-wrong-117763">postdated resignation</a> as Conservative leader and prime minister has fired the starting gun on the contest to replace her. She was forced out after her cabinet revolted over her plans to offer concessions to Labour on a customs union and even a second referendum in her <a href="https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-brexit-withdrawal-agreement-bill">Brexit withdrawal agreement bill</a>. The surprise is not that the prime minister has gone but that it took so long for it to happen.</p>
<p>It’s always difficult for cabinets to overthrow prime ministers, largely because most of the potential successors are in the cabinet and no one wants to damage their chances of taking the crown by looking like a saboteur. In this instance, however, the risks of doing nothing were greater. None of the cabinet’s would-be leaders wanted to be associated with the promise of a second referendum, as it would have damaged their own chances of succeeding May. They finally found their courage when it was in their interests to do so.</p>
<p>May will stay as Conservative leader until June 7 and as prime minister until her replacement is in post – probably in mid-July. But her authority has gone and she won’t be able to achieve anything in that period. From this point onwards, she is a caretaker prime minister only.</p>
<h2>How the process works</h2>
<p>The Conservatives use a <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-mays-brexit-crisis-how-to-oust-a-tory-leader-99704">two-stage process</a> to choose their leaders, with both MPs and individual party members participating. In the first stage, Conservative MPs take part in a series of secret ballots, voting on whoever has put themselves forward for the contest. Each MP can vote for one candidate in each ballot and the candidate who wins the fewest votes is eliminated. Candidates are also permitted to withdraw of their own accord at any point.</p>
<p>The parliamentary ballots continue in this way, with the least popular candidate dropping out, until only two candidates are left. These two then go forward to a postal ballot of Conservative Party members (about 125,000 people). The parliamentary ballots can be over quite quickly, within a couple of weeks, but the all-member ballot could take several weeks, depending on the timetable drawn up by the party.</p>
<p>This system creates opportunities and incentives for strategising on the part of leadership candidates and their supporters – and opponents. There is a wide range of opinion on Brexit within the parliamentary party – which includes Remainers and soft Brexit supporters as well as no-deal hard Brexiteers – but no single group constitutes a majority. In contrast, the individual membership is believed to be much more solidly inclined towards a harder Brexit. It suggests that a credible Brexiteer should be able to win the leadership election – provided that he or she can navigate the parliamentary ballots.</p>
<p>The worry for Brexiteer candidates is that their fellow MPs may try to prevent them from finishing in the top two positions in the final parliamentary ballot. This could mean Remainers and soft-Brexit supporters flock behind one candidate of their own. But some could also vote tactically for another candidate to ensure they finish second and ahead of any hard Brexiteer.</p>
<h2>Boris Johnson’s moment?</h2>
<p>Boris Johnson is currently <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-britain-should-beware-of-charismatic-leaders-promising-easy-brexit-solutions-116677">the favourite</a> for the contest, based on his appeal to the party’s grassroots. If he reached the all-member ballot, he would feel confident of winning, given his own pro-Brexit credentials, including the fact that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/09/boris-johnson-resigns-as-foreign-secretary-brexit">he resigned from the cabinet</a> in 2018 over May’s Chequers plan. </p>
<p>But would Tory MPs work to stop him getting that far? There is a lot of distrust for Johnson among his colleagues. Some have already indicated that they would leave the party if he became prime minister, although such threats are easy to make but not always followed through. At the very least, they could be motivated to prevent Johnson finishing higher than third place, watching the progress of the parliamentary ballots and splitting their votes between two rivals who could beat him.</p>
<p>Johnson’s dilemma explains one of the <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-extends-olive-branch-to-ambers-camp-as-he-pledges-support-for-one-nation-values-a4147631.html">odder stories</a> to emerge in the press in recent weeks. There has been talk of an alliance between Johnson and the former Remainer, Amber Rudd. This would broaden Johnson’s appeal among Tory MPs and could help him circumvent any organised campaign against him among MPs. For her part, Rudd might believe she would have some influence over the shape of Brexit policy in a Johnson government while preventing another Brexiteer, such as Dominic Raab or Andrea Leadsom, becoming prime minister.</p>
<p>It would, however, be perilous for Remainers to prevent any hard Brexiteer from making it to the all-member ballot because it would infuriate the grassroots. Whereas this might have been risked in the past, doing so now with the Tories haemorrhaging votes to Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party could put the <a href="https://theconversation.com/removing-theresa-may-wont-solve-the-conservative-partys-problems-116004">very existence</a> of the Conservative Party in danger. Some have even raised the possibility of allowing more than two candidates to go forward to the members, to ensure a proper choice.</p>
<h2>Other options</h2>
<p>The Remainer/soft Brexit wing of the party will have an array of candidates to choose from, including Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, and Sajid Javid, the home secretary. Other contenders include Liz Truss and Matt Hancock, both former Remainers, although Truss has moved closer to the Brexiteers.</p>
<p>One of the peculiarities of Conservative leadership contests over the years is that the early favourite almost never wins. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/margaret-thatcher-5189">Margaret Thatcher</a> (1975), <a href="https://theconversation.com/20-years-after-his-defeat-its-time-to-give-john-major-a-break-76757">John Major</a> (1990), William Hague (1997), Iain Duncan Smith (2001) and <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/david-cameron-875">David Cameron</a> (2005) all came from behind to take the crown. Even May herself was not the early favourite in 2016 – that was Johnson, whose campaign <a href="https://theconversation.com/treachery-trust-and-the-tories-how-michael-gove-sank-boris-johnson-61722">famously imploded</a> at the start after Michael Gove, his erstwhile supporter, withdrew his backing.</p>
<p>Favourites have often built up enemies to whom their leadership would be unacceptable and the party seeks a unity candidate. On other occasions, the party wants a decisive break with the past. If Johnson fell this time, it could open the door to Raab (break with the past) or Hunt (unity). Gove might also try to claim the unity mantle, though he is now distrusted by Brexiteers after throwing his weight behind May’s withdrawal agreement.</p>
<p>A unity candidate would have to be acceptable to Brexiteers, otherwise the party’s civil war will continue unabated. It is difficult to see how any candidate can win this contest while sticking by the draft withdrawal agreement negotiated by May, with its Irish backstop and other concessions to EU influence. On the other hand, the Remainer, Theresa May won in 2016 after promising that “Brexit means Brexit”. She is resigning now because too many Tory MPs decided that she didn’t mean it. Winning the leadership is one thing; following through on campaign pledges in the context of a hung parliament and the EU’s refusal to renegotiate is another matter entirely.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117762/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Quinn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Boris Johnson, Amber Rudd, Dominic Raab? Who will be the next prime minister?Tom Quinn, Senior Lecturer, Department of Government, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1176712019-05-24T11:20:07Z2019-05-24T11:20:07ZWhy Boris Johnson would be a mistake to succeed Theresa May<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276340/original/file-20190524-187157-2ogohr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Boris Johnson is one of the leading candidates to succeed Theresa May as prime minster. He has none of the required qualities to make a success of Brexit.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Andy Rain/EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Like Avengers: Endgame we all knew it was coming but weren’t quite sure exactly how it would play out. Theresa May, the Remainer who promised to deliver Brexit, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/24/theresa-may-steps-down-resigns-tory-leader-conservative-brexit">has finally relinquished her impossible job</a>. </p>
<p>Many in the UK, the EU and above all the Conservative Party will be toasting her departure, but it is hard not to feel sorry for her. She was certainly dealt a bad hand.</p>
<p>But the added problem was she played it badly, too. By interpreting the vote to leave the EU as a mandate for a “hard Brexit”, she made the UK government hostage to the extreme Brexiteers in her own party. </p>
<p>Above all, her decision to call a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-40210957">snap election</a> in 2017 was the greatest miscalculation in British politics since 2016, when then-Prime Minister <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/25/david-cameron-lost-the-eu-referendum-because-his-own-party-deser/">David Cameron lost the EU Referendum</a>. (The bar is set quite high at the moment.)</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-deal-or-no-deal-with-brexit-heres-everything-explained-110024">What's the deal (or no-deal) with Brexit? Here's everything explained</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the end, her much-vaunted resilience and fortitude became part of the problem rather than the solution. The Brexit conundrum requires a deft political touch, sublime party management skills, subtle negotiation techniques, interpersonal nous and a sense of the gravity of the situation that the United Kingdom faces.</p>
<p>Cue… Boris Johnson.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276318/original/file-20190524-187182-1h7wtco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276318/original/file-20190524-187182-1h7wtco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276318/original/file-20190524-187182-1h7wtco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276318/original/file-20190524-187182-1h7wtco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276318/original/file-20190524-187182-1h7wtco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276318/original/file-20190524-187182-1h7wtco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276318/original/file-20190524-187182-1h7wtco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Boris Johnson’s hard-Brexit stance has made him a popular favourite to replace May as Conservative leader.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Andy Rain/EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>BoJo’s hard Brexit credentials</h2>
<p>Johnson – or BoJo to his mates – is one of the leading candidates to succeed May as prime minster. He has none of the required qualities to make a success of Brexit. If Johnson becomes PM, the most likely outcome is a no-deal Brexit leavened with the rhetoric of past and future glories.</p>
<p>Johnson is the gadfly of British politics. There has always been a strong suspicion that Brexit is merely part of a grand strategy to make himself prime minister – <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/03/churchill-factor-review-boris-johnson-winston">like Winston Churchill</a>, only not as good.</p>
<p>A latecomer to the Brexit cause, his influential role in the Leave campaign saw him <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36789972">elevated to the position of foreign secretary</a>. In ways that can happen only to the privileged, this was a position he acquired as a punishment for getting Britain into this mess in the first place.</p>
<p>Slumming it as foreign secretary was never going to be enough for Johnson – he’s always had his eyes on 10 Downing Street. But he has not chosen the usual path to the top: entering Cabinet, working diligently, cultivating a broad appeal that can transcend party politics when one tilts at the top job.</p>
<p>Instead, he has chosen a more chaotic, even flippant, approach. It’s all quite a laugh, really. Offending foreigners is a particular forte of his: he’s made dismissive comments about <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-suggests-part-kenyan-obama-may-have-an-ancestral-dislike-of-britain-a6995826.html">US President Barack Obama’s “part-Kenyan” ancestry</a>, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36295208">compared the aims of the European Union to Hitler’s motivations</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38658998">warned EU leaders not to give the UK “punishment beatings”</a> after the referendum. This built on a long history of EU-baiting while he was editor of The Spectator.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnson-and-global-britain-foreign-secretary-bids-to-set-a-new-tone-66376">Boris Johnson and 'global Britain': foreign secretary bids to set a new tone</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This kind of “British humour” is one of the reasons he is so universally disliked within the EU. It is also one of the reasons he is so favoured amongst the Conservative rank and file. </p>
<p>Having taken <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/may/02/local-elections-2019-results-votes-counted-live-news">a drubbing at local</a> and <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/european-elections-results-conservatives-mep-brexit-party-daniel-hannan-latest-a8928131.html">EU elections</a>, the Conservatives have the sense to see the crisis facing their party, even if they continue to believe that Britain can be economically better off out of the EU. And the way Johnson has flexed his hard-Brexit muscles has won him support amongst a base that has become increasingly radicalised as the Brexit negotiations under May hit a dead end at Westminster.</p>
<p>Johnson’s hard Brexit credentials were established back in July 2018 when he <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/09/boris-johnson-resigns-as-foreign-secretary-brexit">resigned from Cabinet</a> over the so-called <a href="https://www.ecnmy.org/engage/chequers-proposal-explained/">Chequers proposal</a> – the first of many iterations of the plan to extricate the UK from the EU.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1131857415538925569"}"></div></p>
<p>But Brexit is not just about UK-EU relations. Despite the British rhetoric, Johnson, like most Brexiteers, does not understand the United Kingdom particularly well. The whole impasse over the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-44615404">Irish border backstop</a> came about because no one in the Leave camp thought through the implications that leaving the EU would have on Northern Ireland. </p>
<p>Johnson is also not seeing the risk that a no-deal Brexit will very likely trigger another referendum – on Scottish independence.</p>
<h2>What all this means for Australia</h2>
<p>There is a morbid fascination with watching this from Australia, but we are closer to the whole mess than we might think. </p>
<p>Johnson is a huge fan of Australia. While in Melbourne in 2013, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10265619/The-Aussies-are-just-like-us-so-lets-stop-kicking-them-out.html">he suggested</a> having a zone of labour mobility between the UK and Australia, similar to the rights enjoyed by EU citizens. In 2014, he went further by proposing such a <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/let-australians-live-and-work-in-britain-london-mayor-boris-johnson-backs-migration-report-20141103-11fwfn.html#ixzz3HymrViAB">labour mobility zone</a> in a report to parliament. </p>
<p>This plan, however, was not well thought through. It is yet another example of Johnson’s greatest flaw. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/as-brexit-begins-australia-mustnt-get-caught-up-in-britains-post-imperial-fantasies-74918">As Brexit begins, Australia mustn’t get caught up in Britain’s post-imperial fantasies</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Johnson had fans here, too, although those people are mostly now departed from federal parliament. Before he made Prince Philip a knight of Australia, <a href="http://www.newsmulti.com/world/2014/jan/26/boris-johnson-honorary-australian-year">Tony Abbott made Johnson honorary Australian of the Year in 2014</a>, for his services to Australians in <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/where-are-all-the-aussies-london-asks/news-story/d7e9ebf7648cb8e23e7b4e1996db9df4">“Kangaroo Valley”</a> (Earls Court, not New South Wales) when mayor of London.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"427199420602793984"}"></div></p>
<p>There are plenty of other candidates for leader of the Conservative Party (and hence prime minister), who would approach the job more seriously. But Johnson is popular and is recognised across the UK and the world over – and that will likely be enough to make him the next UK prime minister.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117671/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Wellings does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If Boris Johnson becomes PM, the most likely outcome is a no-deal Brexit leavened with the rhetoric of past and future glories of the UK. There are better candidates for the job.Ben Wellings, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1177632019-05-24T10:32:14Z2019-05-24T10:32:14ZTheresa May resigns as British prime minister – here’s where it all went wrong<p>Europe has claimed the career of yet another Conservative prime minister. After less than three years in office, Theresa May has suffered a catastrophic loss of confidence in her leadership among MPs and cabinet ministers. She has finally faced up to the demands from within her party and announced her resignation.</p>
<p>Indicating her intention to step down, May said she had tried her best to deliver Brexit but accepted that she had not managed to get MPs to agree. She said she was leaving with no ill will, only “gratitude”. </p>
<p>She will stand down as Conservative Party leader on June 7 and the competition to replace her will formally begin the following week – though in reality, it has been underway for some time. </p>
<p>Indeed, May’s departure has been a long time coming. Many speculated that she couldn’t remain long in office after losing her party’s majority in the 2017 general election. In December, when facing a vote of no confidence among her MPs, she promised not to lead her party into the next general election. In March this year, in a bid to persuade more MPs to back the Brexit withdrawal agreement, she promised to leave sooner rather than later.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_t25xAp270o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">May’s speech.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>May’s resilience has been remarkable. But it is also finite. Leaders can only lead when they have followers and too few Tories are now prepared to follow May any longer.</p>
<p>May’s premiership was brief but eventful. She fought a <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/uk-election-2017-37907">general election</a>, faced down an internal party <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-survives-confidence-vote-but-her-brexit-deal-is-still-in-deep-trouble-108728">vote of no confidence</a> and won a <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-theresa-may-survives-confidence-vote-but-brussels-is-in-charge-now-109976">parliamentary vote of no confidence</a>. She also lost the services of more than 30 ministers, many of whom resigned over Brexit disagreements.</p>
<h2>Brexit means …</h2>
<p>Much of the drama of course has been fuelled by <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/brexit">Brexit</a>. It launched May’s premiership in July 2016, when she succeeded David Cameron. It has been the source of most of her woes. And it has finally wrecked her premiership.</p>
<p>May was elected Tory leader in part because she seemed to offer a safe pair of hands for delivering the referendum result after <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-resignation-why-british-pm-david-cameron-had-to-go-61594">Cameron jumped ship</a>. Brexit would mean Brexit, she told her party; and if no one was clear on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMek1okqphs">what she meant</a>, most thought she would deliver.</p>
<p>So where did it go wrong? Three points in time are worth considering, if only because they focus attention on the challenges she has faced.</p>
<p>The first is of course the decision that ultimately forced May’s hand. This came shortly before her resignation, when she presented a new set of <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48339923">“compromises”</a> on her Brexit plans that would please precisely no one. She had been planning to present them for a parliamentary vote, despite already having lost three votes on her deal. The deal was now utterly toxic, and May’s intention to persist suggested a loss of judgement. Her stubbornness, once valued, was now a significant liability. Her party told her enough was enough. </p>
<p>But while this was the immediate trigger for her announcement, the seeds were sown long ago. The second point at which it all went wrong was the 2017 general election. The Conservatives gained votes but <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uk-election-fails-to-produce-a-winner-heres-what-happens-now-79193">lost their parliamentary majority</a>. May lost much of her personal authority as a result.</p>
<p>At the start of that election campaign, May had looked set to win a commanding majority. But even if she had won big, securing support for a withdrawal agreement would not have been simple. Her authority would have been greater, to be sure, and she would have had more MPs to support her, but it is unlikely that the withdrawal agreement would have looked much different. Many of the fundamentalist Brexiteers in her party could well have opposed it.</p>
<p>Which perhaps suggests that her demise was written into her story from the very moment she decided to run for the leadership in June 2016.</p>
<p>It was always going to be a monumental task to keep her party united as she sought to deliver on the Brexit referendum. Moderates in her party would have opposed a very hard Brexit. Anything less than a very hard Brexit would have been resisted by fundamentalists on the Tory benches.</p>
<p>May has made many mistakes along the way. Her suggestion early on that “no deal is better than a bad deal” was always a hostage to fortune. She might also have offered reassurance to Remainers and talked of the need for compromise, even as she pursued her vision. But this assumes that people in her party and parliament would have been willing to accept compromise.</p>
<p>Brexit has rapidly become a touchstone issue for political identity, akin to abortion and gun control in the US. In the circumstances the window for compromise was always small and fleeting.</p>
<p>As she confirmed that she was giving up, May sent a signal to potential successors, speaking once again about compromise, revealing that the late British humanitarian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/09/british-schindler-nicholas-winton-interview">Nicholas Winton</a> once told her: “Never forget that compromise is not a dirty word. Life depends on compromise.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117763/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas Allen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Theresa May’s resilience has been remarkable. But it is also finite.Nicholas Allen, Reader in Politics, Royal Holloway University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1164662019-05-22T20:59:40Z2019-05-22T20:59:40ZBrexit: how the end of Britain’s empire led to rising inequality that helped Leave to victory<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275741/original/file-20190521-23817-1dqn44v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTU1ODQ4NDEzNywiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfMTA0Njk2ODIzNCIsImsiOiJwaG90by8xMDQ2OTY4MjM0L21lZGl1bS5qcGciLCJtIjoxLCJkIjoic2h1dHRlcnN0b2NrLW1lZGlhIn0sIllSaGtCZXR6eFNJZkNYTFc2TEx4VFZUTnFaTSJd%2Fshutterstock_1046968234.jpg&pi=33421636&m=1046968234&src=aqRjdGIGETxTR-WwQdSGfQ-1-52">AC Arts Photography via Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It was a man called Reginald Brabazon, Earl of Meath, who in 1903, two years after the death of Queen Victoria, suggested that her birthday, May 24, should be renamed Empire Day and become a day for patriotic celebration. His idea began to take off the following year and slowly spread in popularity. In 1909, Brabazon attended a <a href="http://www.colonialfilm.org.uk/node/461">day in Preston</a> where a crowd of 20,000 people watched boys and girls parade past in what they were told was the national dress of each colony. </p>
<p>When World War I patriotic fervour was at its height, in 1916, the government gave in to calls for the day to be marked with an official state ceremony. But it wasn’t until the 1920s that the official celebrations really began to take off, and in May 1926, Empire Day became closely linked to the work of the newly established <a href="https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/world-history/selling-empire-the-empire-marketing-board">Empire Marketing Board</a>. British school children all received a free mug and cake and were routinely taught that the British Empire was glorious. One woman, who grew up <a href="https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Empire-Day/">in Cardiff</a> in the late 1950s, remembers being made to sing the following ditty at elementary school as the union jack was hoisted in the playground every Empire Day:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Brightly, brightly, sun of spring upon this happy day<br>
Shine upon us as we sing this 24th of May<br>
Shine upon our brothers too,<br>
Far across the ocean blue,<br>
As we raise our song of praise<br>
On this our glorious Empire Day. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>As the power of the British Empire waned after World War II, it became increasingly clear that Empire Day was done. In 1958, it was finally rebadged British Commonwealth Day, in 1966 merely Commonwealth Day. And in 1977 the date of the celebrations was moved to the second Monday of March <a href="http://thecommonwealth.org/commonwealthday">where it remains today</a>. </p>
<p>No doubt if Empire Day was still going, 2019 would have been a special year – marking the 200th anniversary of Queen Victoria’s birth. Still, long since support began to ebb away for formal celebrations of the British Empire, the echoes of empire have continued to reverberate in British political life. And as we argued in a recent book, <a href="http://www.dannydorling.org/books/rulebritannia/">Rule Britannia: From Brexit to the end of Empire</a>, these echoes had a strong influence on why some of the 17.4m people who voted to Leave the European Union did so in June 2016. </p>
<p>The collapse of Britain’s empire in the decades after World War II was followed by a huge growth and then persistence of extreme economic inequality. Britain’s relative economic decline occurred in tandem with the loss of almost all of its remaining colonies in the 1970s and the economic benefit they had provided. The British thought that joining the European Economic Community in 1973 could replace this loss. It didn’t, because the European relationship was mutual, rather than exploitative. </p>
<p>At the same time, within Britain, inequality began to rise. Income inequalities rose from being among the lowest in Europe in the 1970s to being the highest of all 28 European Union member states <a href="http://www.dannydorling.org/books/peakinequality/">by 2015</a>, the year before the EU referendum. And the UK’s income inequality also saw the <a href="https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2012/10/articles/body/20121013_srm003.png">greatest rise</a> during this period between 1976 and 2016. </p>
<p>Great inequality has damaged the lives of the majority of middle-class Conservative and UK Independence Party (UKIP) voters who live in the south of England. It damaged their lives because it hurt so many of their children and grandchildren’s <a href="https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/advanced/a-new-generational-contract/">life chances</a>. Whereas their generation, when young adults, could more easily secure permanent housing, start a family, hold down a steady job and – if they were to secure a place – attend university for free, it’s primarily because of rising inequality that the next generations in England could not. </p>
<p>On top of that, states that tolerate greater economic inequality tend to experience less improvement in health and social services, which matter most as you age. This older group are far from being the poorest in Britain, but they are the large majority of people who voted Leave. They were told that the majority of their woes were caused by immigrants, which <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/741926/Final_EEA_report.PDF">was untrue</a>, but has been made all too easy to suggest. They know from their own pasts that something better is possible for them and they especially hope it will be for their grandchildren. And in June 2016, they were offered the chance to “take back control”. </p>
<p>This dynamic – the link between the end of empire and the rise of inequality in Britain – has not yet been given the weight of importance it should have in analysis of the Leave vote. The scale of all the other empires of Europe, even when combined, pale in comparison to the British Empire, and its fall was by far the greatest of all. </p>
<h2>Why the UK voted to Leave</h2>
<p>Approaching three years after the referendum, no actual arrangements on leaving the EU have been agreed in parliament. The March 29, 2019 deadline came and went, with an extension to October 31. After months of disagreement, stalemate remains at Westminster. </p>
<p>There is still disagreement about who voted to leave the EU and why. Many accounts persist in suggesting that what swung the vote was disaffected working-class electors in the north of England, <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i3697.full?ijkey=Qzh0MvExCSL1BkA&keytype=ref">despite the majority</a> of Leave votes coming from the south of England, from the middle classes and from people who normally vote Conservative or UKIP. What became clear by March 29 was how much the UK had descended into political disorder. Quarrelling, self-interested politicians, many of them demonstrably ignorant about their state’s imperial past, and fantasising about the future, were arguing about what sort of Brexit would suit their preferences and ambitions. </p>
<p><a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/01/31/many-working-class-people-believe-in-brexit-who-can-blame-them/">Some have claimed</a> that the vote to Leave was the language of the unheard, a patriotic pro-sovereignty, anti-immigrant, anti-elitist movement. However, as Guardian journalist <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/06/uncivil-war-brexit-deceit-james-graham-dominic-cummings">Anne Perkins recently noted</a>, it was led by “millionaire, public school-educated financial traders, fronted by an Old Etonian [Boris]” in a “war room” organised by an Oxford-educated man – Dominic Cummings – who led the Vote Leave campaign. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.dannydorling.org/?page_id=5869">Analysis</a> of the largest referendum exit poll by the pollster Michael Ashcroft revealed that 59% of Leave voters were middle class. So was it the work of the poshest, the middle, or the poor? Who tapped into whose memories, dreams and prejudices most effectively to secure a Leave majority, and why? </p>
<p>In the aftermath of the referendum result, almost every political party and campaign group wants to claim that its view on what should happen next represents the real “will of the people”. They often especially wish to co-opt the support of the downtrodden working class and unheard majority in the north of England to their cause. Yet, Leave voters were <a href="http://www.dannydorling.org/books/rulebritannia/figures/figure-12.html">marginally</a> more likely to live in the south of England, and <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i3697.full?ijkey=Qzh0MvExCSL1BkA&keytype=ref">three-fifths were middle class</a>. Still, those who voted Leave did have one clear trait in common: they were mostly older, English voters, many of whom are likely to remember Empire Day. </p>
<h2>What’s been lost</h2>
<p>Age was the most important factor in the Brexit decision, with a <a href="http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/?p=4859">majority of those</a> over 45 voting to leave, rising to more than 60% of those aged over 65. Incidentally, people aged over 90 – old enough to clearly remember World War II – tended to be <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/04/05/britains-wartime-generation-are-almost-as-pro-eu-as-millennials/">very pro-Remain</a>, but their numbers are now inevitably small.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275665/original/file-20190521-23832-140kqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275665/original/file-20190521-23832-140kqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275665/original/file-20190521-23832-140kqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275665/original/file-20190521-23832-140kqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275665/original/file-20190521-23832-140kqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275665/original/file-20190521-23832-140kqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275665/original/file-20190521-23832-140kqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275665/original/file-20190521-23832-140kqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Voting by age group in 2016 referendum.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/?p=4859">Benjamin Hennig using analysis of Lord Ashcroft exit poll.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This older generation lived through the era of <a href="https://www.monbiot.com/2004/08/10/goodbye-kind-world/">full male employment</a> between 1945 and 1976, and the greatest rises in standards of living for all <a href="https://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/70e2c4fbed5826b19e_dvm6ib0x9.pdf">up until 1976</a> – and they then watched as this was lost between 1976 and 1986. This feeling of loss continues today. As the former Labour minister, Alan Milburn, explained in his December 2017 <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alan-miilburn-resigns-letter-read-in-full-statement-latest-theresa-may-social-mobility-tsar-a8089026.html">letter of resignation</a> as chair of the government’s Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whole communities and parts of Britain are being left behind economically and hollowed out socially. The growing sense that we have become an us and them society is deeply corrosive of our cohesion as a nation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Empire rhetoric and thinking was used to deflect the anger of the majority towards others – others always painted as inferior to them, especially migrants. As Philip Murphy, director of the Institute for Commonwealth Studies, <a href="https://www.hurstpublishers.com/book/empires-new-clothes/">argued in 2018</a>: “Eurosceptics, currently in the ascendant are implicitly rehabilitating the racialised, early 20th-century notion of the Commonwealth as a cosy and exclusive Anglo-Saxon club.” Those who had taken the most, who had grown rich from empire while the majority of the population of Britain saw their living standards stagnate, often did so on the back of a little “family money” from the past. </p>
<p>It is now time to fully recognise that as the opportunities of empire faded, a small group of those with a little financial advantage at home, began instead to exploit their fellow British citizens for more and more profit. The take of shareholders in British companies began to rise and the wages of British workers didn’t keep pace.</p>
<p>Unlike in the US, where real median wages <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-executive-pay-rich-pull-away-from-rest-of-america/2011/06/13/AGKG9jaH_story.html">were virtually static</a> at this time, median wages did rise in real terms in Britain in the 80s and 90s, but <a href="https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level">they didn’t keep up</a> with shareholder dividends. Wages at the top also rose far faster than those at the bottom. This was the story of the 1980s and 1990s.</p>
<p>Tactics of divide and rule, and breaking dissent that had been applied overseas to different groups in different ways were now aimed at British trade unions, British activists and agitators, and British politicians who argued for greater equality. Divisions rose, poverty spread and unemployment was <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1991-05-16/debates/bc7daf42-76d1-4c4b-b5d9-881c3d48a1f4/InterestRates?highlight=price%20worth%20paying#contribution-4e4388c3-2f94-4fc3-8806-a1a7dfe077b1">called a price worth paying</a> in the 1990s. </p>
<p>Fast forward to 2014 and falling national <a href="https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2019/03/08/lucinda-hiam-and-martin-mckee-the-deepening-health-crisis-in-the-uk-requires-society-wide-political-intervention/">life expectancy</a> in the UK has been treated as mere collateral damage. The countries of the UK cannot afford a decent health service, their people <a href="http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/statement_by_michael_gove_boris_johnson_and_gisela_stuart_on_nhs_funding.html">were told</a>, because too much money was being sent to Brussels. And again, they needed to “take back control”.</p>
<p>The politics of austerity, introduced in 2010, have led directly to the proliferation of urgently needed food banks and the cuts in social and health services which also contributed to rising infant mortality in 2015, 2016 and 2017. <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/demo_mor_esms.htm">Nowhere else in Europe</a> were more babies dying each year as infant mortality rates rose. The <a href="https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3033856/">worst effects</a> of inequality and austerity were felt in the north and by the poor.</p>
<p>Despite this suffering, it wasn’t poverty and deprivation in northern areas that caused people to vote to leave the EU. Our own careful study of the geography of the vote included in our <a href="http://www.dannydorling.org/books/rulebritannia/">recent book</a>, coupled with polling evidence, makes clear that it was older, less well-off Conservative voters in both the north and south who swung the vote, and there were far more of these in the south of England where they also turned out to vote in the referendum at a higher rate. This is why the greatest absolute numbers of Leave voters were in the south of England. </p>
<p>Overall, <a href="https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/electorate-and-count-information">52% of people</a> voting Leave in all of the UK lived in the southern half of England – home to a minority of the UK electorate – and a majority of these Leave voters were in the middle classes. At a local authority district level, there was essentially no correlation between voting Leave and deprivation, which shows that the driving force behind the vote to Leave was not being left behind other areas.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275664/original/file-20190521-23848-lctd2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275664/original/file-20190521-23848-lctd2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275664/original/file-20190521-23848-lctd2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275664/original/file-20190521-23848-lctd2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275664/original/file-20190521-23848-lctd2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275664/original/file-20190521-23848-lctd2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275664/original/file-20190521-23848-lctd2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275664/original/file-20190521-23848-lctd2r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Vote Leave and deprivation by local authority in England, 2016. Each area is a local authority, drawn in proportion to its population and positioned according to how deprived it is and the proportion voting Leave.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.statsmapsnpix.com/2016/06/what-can-explain-brexit.html">Alasdair Rae, 2016. What can explain Brexit?</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Back in control</h2>
<p>In 2012, the broadcaster Jeremy Paxman <a href="https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/179/179935/empire/9780670919598.html">suggested</a> that even when the colonial administrator and his home counties wife had long given up their gin sundowners on the veranda, the native British had been cushioned from reality because the empire gave a comforting illusion about their place in the world and “a stupid sense they were born to rule”. </p>
<p>Added into this mix, the “take back control” slogan employed by Leave campaigners was a very powerful message. It harks back to when the British actually had a lot of control. Older people, the grandparents of today, “knew” without thinking about it that up to 1947 Britain was in control of some 700m people in an empire stretching around the world and <a href="https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/education-and-race-from-empire-to-brexit">most of them</a> thought that this was a “good thing”. </p>
<p>Yet questions about whether the empire was good or bad miss the point that it was largely because of the loss of such a huge empire, and the loss of the expropriation of its wealth and labour power, that economic inequality in Britain has risen so rapidly. </p>
<p>Britain’s industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries, and the claim to be the workshop of the world, was fuelled by raw materials dependent on slave and indentured labour overseas. It was built around the concept of “free trade” that opened up foreign markets for Britain under the watchful eye of the gunboat and ensured global economic control in case others tried to muscle in on that free trade.</p>
<p>The British grip gradually disappeared during the 20th century, the pound relentlessly fell against the dollar across that century, and many of <a href="http://www.dannydorling.org/?page_id=6950">the British wealthy</a> blamed the labour movement and eventually the EU for their diminished status in the world. They rarely saw their family riches as unfairly won in the first place.</p>
<p>The loss of India in 1947 and most African colonies in the 1960s had effects that were felt most keenly decades later. It wasn’t long after the colonial investments of the wealthy <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9780333402061">first turned sour</a> that Conservative governments in the early 1980s began to cut taxes for the wealthy at home and <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-16355281">pulled the plug</a> on poorer regions. This plug was pulled in many ways, from ending the regional funding of poorer areas that had begun with the <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/tradeindustry/industrycommunity/overview/interwaryears/">Special Areas Act of 1934</a>, through to state support of industries and infrastructure in the south-east of England and especially London.</p>
<p>The rich British <a href="http://www.dannydorling.org/?page_id=3597">became poorer</a> when the empire disappeared. The evidence is clear to see <a href="http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7484/CBP-7484.pdf">in graphs</a> that track the falling take of the top 1%, 0.1% and 0.01% of UK taxpayers.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275841/original/file-20190522-187176-ga1qig.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275841/original/file-20190522-187176-ga1qig.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275841/original/file-20190522-187176-ga1qig.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275841/original/file-20190522-187176-ga1qig.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275841/original/file-20190522-187176-ga1qig.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=588&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275841/original/file-20190522-187176-ga1qig.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=739&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275841/original/file-20190522-187176-ga1qig.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=739&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275841/original/file-20190522-187176-ga1qig.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=739&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The fortunes of the UK’s wealthiest.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7484">House of Commons Library</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The fall in the fortunes of the very wealthiest had actually begun earlier, after the end of World War I. As the author Evelyn Waugh wrote in <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Brideshead_Revisited.html?id=CSE2P06rVUoC&redir_esc=y">Brideshead Revisited</a>, of the fictional Marchmain and Flyte families: “Well they are rich in the way people are who just let their money sit quiet. Everyone of that sort is poorer than they were in 1914.”</p>
<p>In 1913, <a href="https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01079.x">the richest 0.01%</a> of households in the UK received 425 times the average household income per year. By 1976 that had fallen to just 30 times. But by 2014 it had risen to 125 times. Figures for very recent years are yet to be released by the government. </p>
<p>In 2018, the inequality gap between the richest and poorest in Britain, by income was at a post-World War II peak. The best-paid 10% of households were each on average receiving <a href="https://www.chartbookofeconomicinequality.com/inequality-by-country/united-kingdom/">almost three times</a> as much per year as the median household. Yet inequality has still not regained its 1913, pre-war peak. It is a long way from that and to get there would require a remarkable further dislocation of British society. </p>
<h2>Increasing xenophobia</h2>
<p>The British public have been distracted from this rise in inequality and absolute poverty by suggestions that immigration was, and continues to be, the main cause of their many problems. Newspaper owners, some immigrant themselves, encouraged the vilification of immigrants, with the UK prime minister, Theresa May, repeatedly claiming that <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39840503">if immigration was reduced</a> to the “tens of thousands” then all would be well. In the ten weeks before the Brexit vote, more than <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-11/UK_Press_Coverage_of_the_%20EU_Referendum.pdf">1,400 articles</a> in the popular press mentioned immigration. </p>
<p>The patriotic songs sung annually at the last night of the proms in London are part of a myth-making of the nation. Rule Britannia may claim that Britain “never never never” shall be slaves, but the story the song tells overlooks the realities that Britons were slaves to the Romans, Vikings, Danes, and <a href="https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2016/12/24/how-norman-rule-reshaped-england">Normans</a>, and that the royal family is descended from the French, the Dutch and the Germans. </p>
<p>As they invaded countries around the world in imperial expansion, the British saw themselves as traders, lawmakers, administrators, missionaries – but never as immigrants. It has taken a long time for the British to adjust to their loss of territories and imperial subjects, and many have never adjusted to the entry of others into the UK, even if imperial subjects were also encouraged to regard it as their “mother country”. </p>
<p>Until the later part of the 19th century, rich or aspirant foreigners were tolerated, such as German mill owner Frederick Engels and his author friend Karl Marx, and also the young Michael Marks and his friend Thomas Spencer <a href="https://marksintime.marksandspencer.com/ms-history/timeline/art968">who opened a market stall</a> in Leeds. But in 1893, a magazine – ironically called “Truth” – described immigrants and foreigners as: “Deceitful, effeminate, irreligious, immoral, unclean and unwholesome.” Such comments were rare at the time but became more and more common as scapegoating migrants for the harm caused by rising poverty and inequality in Britain grew in popularity. </p>
<p>The Daily Express and many other newspapers began to print increasingly xenophobic material from the turn of the 20th century. It was then unthinkable that <a href="https://www.academia.edu/34123174/Empire_The_History_of_the_British_Empire_Trevor_Lloyd">those regarded as</a> “black and brown inferiors” would come to Britain to settle. At first, in an uncanny echo of today, it was Eastern Europeans who were most feared. The <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw7/5/13/contents/enacted">1905 Aliens Act</a> gave the home secretary responsibility for immigration and nationality. It was mainly designed to prevent Jewish immigration, and was supported by an organisation called the British Brothers League which aimed to: “Stop Britain being a dumping ground for the scum of Europe.” </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/britains-hostility-to-those-seeking-refuge-didnt-start-with-theresa-may-it-dates-back-a-century-97112">Britain's hostility to those seeking refuge didn't start with Theresa May – it dates back a century</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>All this goes to show that neither anti-immigrant and anti-European sentiment, nor legislation to control immigration, is new to Britain. Some 14 immigration control acts and other controls were passed in the later 20th and early 21st century, making nonsense of claims that only after Brexit can the country “take back control” of its borders. The obsession with control has been going on for decades, a further <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2019/parliamentary-news-2019/immigration-and-social-security-co-ordination-eu-withdrawal-bill-commons-stages/">immigration control bill</a> is currently before the British parliament and the Home Office is planning an “immigration status” database, a development that has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/10/government-immigration-database-deeply-sinister-say-campaigners">been met with alarm</a> by human rights groups. </p>
<p>The events surrounding the Brexit vote also resulted in a huge surge in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/16/hate-crime-brexit-terrorist-attacks-england-wales">hostility</a> towards racial and ethnic minority groups, migrant workers, and <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/syrian-refugee-attack-huddersfield-almondbury-school-jamal-caution-police-latest-a8844436.html">refugees</a>. This hostility is a continuation of past ideologies: race and empire have shaped the concept of British national citizenship, and thinking as to who should be included or excluded. </p>
<h2>Taught to feel superior</h2>
<p>Older people – who were the driving force behind the Leave vote – have had much more experience of a more overt ethnocentric, jingoistic school curriculum. The high point of empire, from the late 1880s onwards, coincided with the development of mass elementary education. A value system, based on military patriotism, xenophobia, racism and a nationalism that excluded foreigners, <a href="https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/education-and-race-from-empire-to-brexit">filtered down</a> from the upper-class public schools to the middle-class grammar schools and into the elementary schools for the working classes.</p>
<p>Those young men who ran the empire had to feel effortlessly superior to the populations they were sent abroad to govern. The working classes had to be helped to feel superior. To <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Classic_Slum.html?id=lelNv86RszQC&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y">one boy brought up</a> in a Salford slum in the early 20th century: “School was a blackened gaunt building, made exciting by learning that there seemed to be five oceans and five continents, most of which seemed to belong to us.” </p>
<p>The working class were encouraged to ignore their poverty in the belief that they were superior to the natives overseas. The 1880s to the 1930s was a time when vast areas of Asia and Africa were being invaded and taken over by the British, and a range of invented imperial traditions were developing. A passion for classification of supposed classes and races on biological and eugenic lines was developing alongside stereotypes of the ignorant and deficient working classes, similar to those tropes of superiority over the stupid and lazy natives overseas. </p>
<p>Into the 1960s, maps on classroom walls had large areas coloured pink, which illustrated the colonies belonging to “us”, and into the 20th century, school text books, juvenile literature, and films extolled the adventures of those imperial adventurers who had made Britain Great. As the historian John Bratton <a href="http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9780719018688/">noted</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>England was presented as a gallant little nation, whose power and conquests are the rewards of merit, since all opponents are bigger and uglier than she is. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Part of the importance of understanding imperial education, and its modern day significance, is that many of the most senior Conservative party politicians were educated in private schools in decades when unreconstructed imperialism was still a part of the curriculum. A textbook still in use in Sussex schools in the 70s described the races of mankind as the Caucasian or white race, the Mongoloid or yellow race and the Negro race. </p>
<p>The British school system continues to produce young people who, upon becoming university students in 2017, felt it appropriate to <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-44238308">chant outside</a> a black student’s room at Nottingham Trent University “we hate the blacks” and “sign the Brexit papers”. There are <a href="https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/education-and-race-from-empire-to-brexit">many other contemporary examples</a> of racist behaviour by university students in Britain today, which has its roots in the days of empire. What matters is to understand the environment that helped and continues to help such ignorance to grow. </p>
<h2>Sinking in</h2>
<p>The Brexit campaign was a useful diversion from growing economic inequality in Britain and the lack of any plan to address this great injustice. But the realities of leaving the EU are beginning to sink in. What meagre economic growth occurred before the referendum and post 2008 has been lost. Wages <a href="https://glabor.org/wp/glo-research-director-danny-blanchflower-publishes-his-new-book-with-princeton-university-press-in-june-2019-not-working-where-have-all-the-good-jobs-gone/">have not kept up</a> with inflation – they have only outstripped inflation for brief periods and only for a few months at a time.</p>
<p>There is now growing inequality in the UK’s already terribly divided school education system as a result of cuts to state school funding – a real terms cut since 2015 of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/29/march-uk-school-funding-cuts">£5.4 billion</a>. The health service is struggling as real costs far outstrip any funding increases, and a housing crisis led to a <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k214">threefold to tenfold rise</a> in the numbers of people sleeping on the streets between 2010 and 2018. The latest official figures suggest the number of people sleeping rough in England <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47059450">fell by 74</a> between 2017 and 2018. The huge real increase resulted in a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/20/homeless-deaths-rise-by-a-quarter-in-five-years-official-figures-show">rise in numbers</a> found dead. </p>
<p>More people are at work in the UK, as the population has increased. More women, older, and disabled people have been encouraged or coerced to work, but the jobs are low paid and exploitative. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/14/uk-wage-growth-stalls-despite-record-employment">most recent data</a> from the Office for National Statistics shows that pay growth is slowing and that incomes of the poorest fifth are down by 1.6%. Meanwhile, the incomes of the richest fifth <a href="https://www.bigissue.com/latest/the-gap-between-the-rich-and-the-poor-has-grown-thanks-to-benefits-freeze/">rose by 4.7%</a> in the 2018 financial year. </p>
<p>Income inequality is <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householdincomeinequalityfinancial/yearending2018">rising</a>, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2019/may/14/britain-risks-heading-to-us-levels-of-inequality-warns-top-economist">wealth inequality</a> is staggering. Child poverty was reported – on BBC children’s TV – as having become the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/48267934">new normal</a> in many parts of Britain.</p>
<p>Amid all this, and in an effort to put a positive spin on post-Brexit Britain, in September 2018, Theresa May <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45697248">announced plans</a> for a Festival of Britain to begin in 2022. The prime minister said that the festival would aim to “showcase what makes our country great”. And it was reported that this new festival would cost an <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-theresa-may-the-festival-culture-innovation-sport-great-exhibition-queen-victoria-a8561021.html">estimated £120m</a> to prepare. In April 2019, the think tank British Future <a href="https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/theresa-mays-festival-of-britain-plan-for-2022-will-stir-tension-in-ireland-38014408.html">pointed out</a> that “holding a Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2022, on the centenary of Ireland’s partition and civil war, would be the worst possible timing”.</p>
<p>No Festival of Brexit will compensate for the rise in inequality across the UK. But the country could use such an event to help teach people something they really need to remember from their past. Children were once told at school that the reason the British were so rich was because its people were special. That was not the truth. They were so rich because they sat at the heart of the largest empire the world has ever known and benefited hugely economically from that. </p>
<p>Being a member of the EU was not the cause of the UK’s woes, neither was immigration. If the British really want to take back control they will need to reassess their more recent history. Knowledge is power.</p>
<p>
<section class="inline-content">
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249586/original/file-20181210-76983-1azl8ax.png?h=128">
<div>
<header>Sally Tomlinson is the author of Education and Race from Empire to Brexit</header>
<p><a href="https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/education-and-race-from-empire-to-brexit">Education and Race from Empire to Brexit.</a></p>
<footer>Policy Press is an imprint of Bristol University Press which provides funding as a content partner of The Conversation UK</footer>
</div>
</section>
</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116466/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sally Tomlinson is a member of the Labour Party.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Danny Dorling does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The link between empire, inequality – and Brexit.Danny Dorling, Halford Mackinder Professor of Geography, University of OxfordSally Tomlinson, Emeritus Professor at Goldsmiths, University of London and Honorary Fellow, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1171112019-05-17T12:35:29Z2019-05-17T12:35:29ZEuropean elections guide: how to vote if you support Brexit<p>The European Elections weren’t supposed to involve the UK. But the UK is still a member of the EU, having failed to agree a Brexit deal, so it is obliged to hold elections for the European Parliament. Excluding the possibility of a vote to remain in a confirmatory referendum, any MEPs sent to the European Parliament by the UK will have very little time, if any, to influence European policy. </p>
<p>As a result, much of this vote will be based on sending messages to Westminster and for many it has become a proxy for a second referendum. Those who still want to leave the European Union have lots of options on May 23 but many will find it a difficult choice. The perceived failures of the Conservative Party are forcing Brexit supporters to consider fringe, populist parties over the established ones.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/european-elections-guide-how-should-remainers-use-their-vote-117108">European elections guide: how should Remainers use their vote?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The Brexit Party</h2>
<p>Despite only being formally established at the beginning of the year, the Brexit Party is predicted to be the <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farages-brexit-party-polling-higher-than-labour-and-tories-combined-before-eu-elections-11717553">big winner</a> at the European elections. Founded by Nigel Farage and other breakaway UKIP MEPs, the party supports leaving the European Union without a deal and trading with the EU on WTO terms until a suitable deal can be struck. The party has <a href="https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/brexit-party-has-no-policies-1-6011379">no manifesto</a>. The leadership says it will publish one after the vote.</p>
<p><strong>Pros:</strong> Rather than championing specific policies, the Brexit Party’s main function is to serve a as protest option. If your main goal is to send a strong message to the major political parties and you aren’t too concerned what the specifics of that message are, then the Brexit Party may well be a valid vote choice for you. </p>
<p><strong>Cons:</strong> If you are concerned about a specific aspect of Brexit, such as the backstop or freedom of movement, and want to send more than a blunt statement, the lack of a manifesto means that you don’t really know what you are voting for policywise. And, without a manifesto, the party will have limited accountability to you after the election. There are also <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-deal-seven-reasons-why-a-wto-only-brexit-would-be-bad-for-britain-102009">serious doubts</a> about the viability of trading on WTO terms. </p>
<h2>UKIP</h2>
<p>Having won the most votes in the 2014 European elections in the UK, the outlook doesn’t look as bright for the party this time around. Since the 2016 referendum, UKIP seems to have <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/cff64e3c-ff84-11e7-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5">lost its identity</a>. A series of internal disputes, notably between current leader Gerard Batten and Nigel Farage, have dogged the party. However, as long as the UK remains in the EU, UKIP arguably still has a purpose. </p>
<p>UKIP’s central policy for Brexit is not all that dissimilar from the Brexit Party’s, although it is more fleshed out and actually written down in a manifesto. UKIP argues that the UK should leave without a deal and then either offer to trade with the EU on a tariff-free basis or on WTO terms, with reciprocal rights for citizens. </p>
<p><strong>Pros:</strong> If you don’t want to support one of the major parties with your vote, but you also want to send more than just a blunt protest message, UKIP’s more clearly defined policies regarding Brexit may be a better option for you than the Brexit Party, especially if you want some accountability for policies after the election. </p>
<p><strong>Cons:</strong> UKIP has been dogged by infighting for some time now and the party has lost its momentum as of late. Accusations of it lurching further to the right and associations with former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson may be off-putting for some voters. And, much as with the Brexit Party’s proposed Brexit solutions, there are serious doubts about their viability. </p>
<h2>The Conservatives</h2>
<p>Much like the local elections just a few weeks ago, the Conservatives are expected to take a beating at the European elections. Even its own party members and elected representatives have claimed they will not be <a href="https://inews.co.uk/opinion/brexit-b-party-candidates-european-elections-conservative/">campaigning</a> for the party – or even <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1124136/brexit-party-latest-news-theresa-may-nigel-farage-conservative-leave-EU-elections-2019">voting</a> for it. Party leader Theresa May had hoped to avoid holding these elections altogether so there is <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1124819/EU-elections-latest-polls-tory-election-labour-lib-dem-european-elections-2019-brexit">no manifesto</a>. Instead, the Conservatives have sent an election leaflet to most households claiming that a vote for the party will send a message that you want the UK to leave with a deal and you want it to leave with it now.</p>
<p><strong>Pros:</strong> If you want the UK to leave the EU with a deal and you have had enough of the lack of progress being made in Westminster, then a vote for the Conservatives would send a strong message to this effect. </p>
<p><strong>Cons:</strong> If you don’t like the proposed withdrawal deal then the Conservatives aren’t really offering you anything aside from that. Moreover, given how unpopular the deal is in Westminster, even by sending this message, there is still no guarantee parliament will accept it. </p>
<h2>Labour</h2>
<p>Although many Labour supporters have been calling for a second referendum, the party leadership itself has remained committed to leaving the EU and has been hesitant to support a confirmatory referendum, to the disappointment of many. The party has a much broader and more <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/whats-labours-eu-election-manifesto-15020979">ambitious manifesto</a> for the European campaign than the other parties and it effectively reads like a draft for their next general election manifesto. </p>
<p>Labour continues to promote its own <a href="https://labour.org.uk/issues/labours-plan-brexit/">alternative plan</a> for Brexit – a comprehensive customs union with the EU. This is a much closer relationship than that being proposed by the Conservative leadership. There are provisions for a second referendum, but only if the government tries to leave without a deal and it can’t secure support for its plan or a general election.</p>
<p><strong>Pros:</strong> If you support leaving the EU with a deal, but don’t much care for the one currently on offer or can’t bring yourself to vote Conservative, then Labour’s alternative plan may be worth your support. </p>
<p><strong>Cons:</strong> Many within the Labour Party want to see a second referendum, and although there are a few caveats that need to be met first, it is still a possibility that Labour could possibly support this in the future. Additionally, while Labour’s Brexit plan is ambitious, there is no real consensus that it is achievable.</p>
<h2>The DUP</h2>
<p>If you live in Northern Ireland and are pro-Brexit there is another option. Despite its agreement to prop up the Conservative government, the DUP has repeatedly <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-47736913">refused</a> to support the prime minister’s proposed Brexit deal.</p>
<p>The DUP wants to ensure that all of the UK leaves on the same terms, thus protecting the union. Party leaders have warned that if Northern Ireland doesn’t support the DUP in the European elections, Westminster will interpret the vote as a <a href="https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/eu-elections-2019/weak-dup-vote-will-be-seen-as-a-rejection-of-brexit-says-foster-38108896.html">rejection of Brexit</a>. </p>
<p><strong>Pros:</strong> For those voters in Northern Ireland who are concerned about the backstop and the stability of the union, a vote for the DUP will send a message to that effect.</p>
<p><strong>Cons:</strong> While it is fairly clear what the DUP is opposed to, it doesn’t really present a clear and viable alternative. So while a vote for the DUP may signal what you don’t want, it won’t provide an endorsement for any alternatives.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117111/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Stafford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are lots of options for Brexit supporters, but that won’t make it an easy choice.Chris Stafford, Doctoral Researcher, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.