2017 - The same, but a little bit different

As the final pages of 2016 are freshly printed, a sense of change is in the air. We’ve entered into a chapter of world history as yet unprecedented. The celebrants of change are perhaps using language that some would find coarse and unintelligible, but change is what we have, whether some of us asked for it or not.

America has given the Republicans power again, but not as we’ve seen before. It was probably always going to be like this; the party of big business slowly shifting ever further right, to capture a diminishing pool of ageing reactionary voters, now taken over by an actual businessman. It’s certainly not what it seems though. America has chosen a businessman to lead it on the road to tax cuts, greater government involvement in private enterprise and galvanised it with a sheen of neo-exceptionalism. Rising national debt will be a statistic to watch out for during the infancy of the Trump administration. How will a Republican administration reconcile Trumpism with supposedly being the party of fiscal prudence?

It would be wrong to assume history always follows a progressive course no matter what. History is littered with the remnants of structures people presumed were infallible. The only difference is that the rise and fall of these structures is happening faster than ever before because of globalisation. The Roman Empire rose and fell over about five centuries. The British Empire seemed invincible until two world wars drove a truck through the idea of European imperialism. Back on New Year’s Even 1913, the finest brains were probably insistent that world wars were an impossibility because they would be so destructive.

As we head into 2017, we see the centenary of the October Revolution in Russia, a pivotal moment where an imperial monarch-led nation began evolving into a socialist state. 73 years later, Russia had become the heart of a union of socialist states that was dying by a thousand paper cuts. By the early 1990s, the union had collapsed and we were left with a load of new nation states that had never properly existed in and of themselves in such a way before. Sometimes, decades of change happen in just one year. Sometimes, a year’s worth of change happens over many decades.

2017 offers even more pinch points where public opinion will be exercised across Europe. There’s even a distinct possibility that fresh elections might be called here in the UK, if Theresa May sees the need to have a solid mandate to enforce her administration’s will. Gordon Brown famously chose not to call an election in late 2007, and when crisis after crisis hit his government, his enemies were able to use his lack of mandate as an attack line in and of itself. Theresa May might hold off from calling an election next year, simply because the risks may be too great. In any case, Labour is willing to vote in favour of a fresh election, whatever she does. If an election is held, Labour will have to spend an intensive amount of resources in a small window of time on its old industrial strongholds in the north, many of whom voted for Brexit.

The UKIP situation is complicated. Diane James was leader for 18 days then quit, throwing the party into disarray for a time. UKIP has seen the Brexit vote go its way but it now needs to justify its existence beyond the vote or it will evaporate. Eurosceptic conservative-types have appeared to return to supporting the Conservatives, who will be the arbiters for much of the Brexit plans. Paul Nuttall is now turning his party’s attention to vulnerable Labour positions.

2017 could prove to be every bit as surprising as 2016 turned out to be. The experiences of the year just gone have shown how the internet continues to evolve as a tool. We’re being led to believe we live in a post-truth society, and that’s probably quite an unhelpful admission of defeat. The war of truth and post-truth is ongoing and the matter at hand shifts. Brexit is supposed to mean Brexit; a meaningless phrase in itself, but it’s actually whatever the government needs it to be, to match what they think the public wants. Brexit means so many different things to so many different people, and we can be sure that a significant chunk of the population will be dissatisfied, whatever it ends up meaning.

The situation remains volatile going into the new year. Markets may be jumpy, the fall in the Pound will likely cause prices to steadily rise, which risks snuffing out the recent recovery in real wages. The most powerful jobs in the world have changed and the faces will be fresh, but 2017 will be something of a baptism of fire. Can Mrs May make a success of Brexit, or will the electorate grow impatient? Can President Trump deliver a meaningful economic recovery, or will his trickle-down approach simply repeat the mistakes of the last Republican administration? Let’s see in twelve months’ time.

Autumn Statement 2016 roundup

It's the end! Chancellor of the Excehquer has announced that a switcheroo is in order, concerning Autumn statements and Spring budgets.

Data provided by the OBR

National debt as a percentage of GDP is now expected to be higher

In the traditional Parliamentary address, Philip Hammond outlined a number of measures for Theresa May's administration. Aside from the stats and policies announced, Mr Hammond also chose to declare that budgets will shift to the Autumn, with a Spring statement; an effective mirror image of what we have at the moment. It enables Parliament to better scrutinise budgetary matters well in advance of the new financial year, which starts in April, Mr Hammond claimed.

Acoording to the fiscal targets from the March budget, the new statement fails on multiple fronts. The national debt was supposed to peak around now, but due to an extra £122bn worth of extra spending owing to Brexit and other matters, the debt burden as a percentage of GDP will continue to rise until about 2018-19.

Brexit uncertainly is likely to hammer growth next year, with just 1.4% pencilled in for 2017, along with 1.7% for 2018, followed by 2% or so for 2019 and beyond. This slowdown will likely put downward pressure on wage growth, and nudge up unemployment from its 11yr low of 4.9%. By 2020, GDP will be 2.4% lower than previously expected, as a result of this slowdown. That's billions of Pounds worth of output up in smoke, from a couple years of slow growth.

The Chancellor cited the so-called productivity puzzle affecting the UK economy at the moment. The UK economy has seen a large amount of job creation since 2010, and yet output growth remains slow and steady, with low wage growth compared to the boom years.

What the statement lays bare is the implication of Brexit; the public finances are going to face yet another Parliamentary term seeing little progress despite a large amount of pain. As the BBC's Andrew Neil pointed out during live coverage of the statement, despite the 2p cut in the taper rate in Universal Credit, people on said benefits will likely be worse off by 2019. The Chancellor painted the policy as an effective tax cut.

One of the casualties of the statement was the surplus target for 2019-20. Instead, by that financial year, the government will still have a deficit of £17bn. Of course, this is all based on the assumption of just two years of slow growth. On this basis, it's expected that a surplus won't be seen until the 2020-25 Parliament. If growth disappoints a whole lot more than expected however, the deficit could remain substantially larger, as it was during the Coalition government's austerity drive.

So maybe we're finally starting to understand the real meaning of Brexit. No, it's not that Brexit means Brexit or other kinds of doublespeak. Brexit means a hit to the domestic economy, and not just an unfortunate hit, but a preventable one. Between now and the next election, the cost of Brexit is expected to be worth some £10-15bn per annum for the government.

The OBR assumes that wages will be able to outpace inflation, despite the devaluation of Sterling. Even so, real wages won't surpass their 2008 peak until well into the 2020s, according to today's statement. That will make the 2010s something of a lost decade for UK workers, and Brexit has just made that lost decade that bit more painful.

The Garden Bridge: Oasis in the city or bridge to nowhere?

The Garden Bridge: a glowing tribute to London's enduring ability to create greenery amidst concrete and glass, or is it all just a stitch-up? Left Handed Dude investigates.

The intended site for the Garden Bridge

Photo by Peter Adams

Picture the scene: 1970s-era London. In the decades since the world wars, the city was receiving something of a facelift. Like a phoenix, the post-Blitz London emerged, remade in the form of concrete structures such as the Barbican Estate and the Royal National Theatre.

An architect by the name of Richard Rogers was tasked with an ambitious task: to help construct new office space between the riverfront and Waterloo. Part of Rogers' plans included ideas for a bridge that would stretch from the South Bank to the riverfront close to Temple Chambers.

The office project went full-steam ahead, but by the mid-1980s, the plans were abandoned for the accompanying bridge. Left Handed Dude understands that there was concern over the project back in the 1980s, particularly in Temple Chambers, as it reportedly feared a bridge in the area would lead to an increase in unwanted foot traffic around Chambers. The bridge was effectively put on ice at this juncture.

Fast-forward to 1998. The country was feeling the aftershocks of the frenzy over the death of Princess Diana the previous summer. As a tribute to the so-called people's Princess, actress Joanna Lumley proposed a memorial garden footbridge. It was another fifteen years before the Garden Bridge Trust is established, and this is where things start falling into place.

The design is unlike anything London has seen before. Back in May, the bridge was expected to be completed by 2018, but now this has been pushed back to 2019 at the earliest. When finished, it is envisaged to consist of two elongated ovals, with pathways amidst trees and shrubbery. The two ovals are designed to meet at the midpoint, and the designs mean the bridge would be 30m at its widest, but would then narrow down to a puny 4m at the middle.

"The maximum amount of people who are allowed on the bridge is 2,500 people", claims Wai-King Cheung. The narrowing of the bridge is "an obvious, obvious bottleneck", she adds. Ms Cheung is a leading member of local pressure group Thames Central Open Spaces (TCOS), which is opposed to the Garden Bridge.

A quick end-of-week visit to the spot where the bridge is due to be built, and flyers are clearly visibile, posted onto trees, bearing the TCOS name. The Southbank-side of the bridge is currently a plot of land, dotted with benches and trees close to the ITV studios block.

The bridge is expected to be higher than the ground level on both sides of the river. As a result, once construction is completed, some of the land on both banks will be lost to the access ramp/stair structures leading up to the bridge.

Addressing concerns about a bottleneck, a spokesperson for the Garden Bridge Trust confirmed to Left Handed Dude that although picnics will be permitted on the Bridge, the design is such that visitors will be able to leave the main paths and make use of garden spaces amongst the planting, avoiding the aforementioned bottleneck. TCOS is keen to point out that when they say they'll allow picnics, they don't mean setting down a rug on grass, as you'd expect, owing to the fact that there's no grass to sit down on. Visitors are encouraged to use benches or eat on the move instead.

TCOS shows a great amount of concern about the lack of information about the whole project, from the very beginning. Wai-King Cheung explains:

"We weren't told, 'would you like it?'...they [the trust] did all the preparatory work without even bothering to consult any of the residents...they landed it to us as if it was a fait accompli at a public meeting in the summer of 2014..."

TCOS isn't just concerned about the Bridge's capacity. It's also concerned about Joanna Lumley's role in the whole matter. Critics of the Bridge might say it was a final hurrah for Boris Johnson before he left the Mayoralty. Ms Cheung thinks otherwise:

"It’s not just Boris Johnson, it’s a massive Joanna Lumley and Thomas Heatherwick vanity project...for one person to impose her will on the whole of London...it's incredibly selfish".

It's no secret that Joanna Lumley has history with the Johnson family. Ms Cheung points out that the Absolutely Fabulous actress has been a family friend of the Johnsons since Boris was at least four years old.

To members of TCOS, the whole idea feels a bit like an establishment arrangement, with shadowy players making moves behind closed doors, that have a material impact on their very own doorsteps.

The main purpose of the Garden Bridge project is its intended use as a recreational space, in the heart of Europe's most-populated city. It's hoped that the bridge will last, especially given that fact that the bridge supports are arranged to be constructed using a special copper-nickel alloy called cupro-nickel.

Mining giant Glencore has been in a position to donate the cupro-nickel, a special alloy designed to prevent corrosion, thus keeping the bridge spotless for decades to come; a blemish-free vesitage of the Johnson mayoralty perhaps.

However grand the Garden Bridge may be, some turn to satire to voice their concerns about the project. Will Jennings is an artist and photographer, who set up the Folly for London project in mid-2015. Mr Jennings explains:

"Whereas most competitions look for aspirational, utopian responses, my brief called for the most disrupting, damaging designs that could be imagined...something as environmentally-damaging, pointless and plain stupid as the Garden Bridge...it should also cost at least £60m to build..."

Mr Jennings approaches the project in this way, saying "I think art and satire have an increasingly important part to play in activism and the mediation of information". Mr Jennings has close ties to TCOS, with a friend being a member. He believes the supporters of the bridge project have wrongly dismissed the likes of TCOS as NIMBYs. He continues:

"The Garden Bridge is a hugely troubling thing in itself, but I also quickly realised it was a powerful symbol of so much which I dislike about many things today: lack of public consultation, greenwash and the façade of environmental improvement instead of actual action."

Folly for London is a one-man band right now. Mr Jennings established the Folly for London project as a one-off event back in 2015, and expected to move onto newer projects. However, once he realised this project was attracting as many as 50 ideas from around the globe, he realised he had set something in motion which, in conjunction with TCOS, could serve as a multi-prong attack on the bridge idea.

When asked what the bridge represents, Mr Jennings believes it's all just another example of the following things taking place:

"The privatisation of urban spaces...the blatant waste of public finance in a declared time of austerity, and the cronyism and connections which give the few privileged priority over democratic process."

London Assembly

Photo by Peter Adams

So what is the fate of the Garden Bridge right now? It's complicated. The new Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was seemingly in favour of the idea during the Mayoral race, but people like Will Jennings believe he was just doing this to appease sections of the media, whilst actually being against the idea.

Things seemed to be going swimmingly, until Mr Khan paused approval on further funding in mid-July 2016. The Trust was keen to confirm that the project is still full-steam ahead, but in the last week or so, Newsnight has uncovered a £22m-sized gap in funding. The £175m cost for the project is as follows:

1.) £60m is ready and waiting, collected from taxpayers

2.) £115m is needed from the private sector. What was thought to be a £30m-sized gap is now believed to be £52m, owing to what a BBC article referred to as "a small number of pledges made by interested organisations [which] did not progress to formal funding contracts."

Mr Khan admitted last week in an interview on LBC radio that it was no "state secret" that the Garden Bridge could potentially be scrapped, but in an interview in May, he also claimed that it would be more costly to the taxpayer to scrap the project entirely. For now at least, the waters around Temple and Southbank flow unimpeded. The tree-lined riversides remain intact for another day. For how much longer though? We'll just have to let some water pass under the bridge before we know for sure.

Who's the Nasty Party now?

After hours of waiting, the Labour NEC has voted so that leader Jeremy Corbyn will be automatically included on any upcoming leadership ballot.

The Labour Party's very existence is at stake, this week. After hours of speculation from the rebels and the Corbynistas, the party's national executive committee finally decided to vote in favour of Mr Corbyn, with 18 votes to 14.

Some had believed the vote being a secret ballot might indicate a possible anti-Corbyn mood in the meeting, but as it turned out, the NEC were satisfied that  Mr Corbyn wasn't compelled to find 51 MPs and MEPs, in order to run for his own job again.

As indicated in the previous post, Labour's rules regarding a leadership challenge when there is no vacancy for the job make no mention of the leader themselves, instead choosing to say "challenger". Angela Eagle has already acquired the 51 nominations to ensure her own spot on the ballot, but it remains unclear what Owen Smith is deciding to do.

It all seemed set. Or was it? Once Mr Corbyn had left the meeting, reports emerged that a new vote had been made by the NEC, concerning the grounds on which members would be able to vote. 

It is now the rule that any members who joined after mid-January are deemed ineligible to vote,  and any members who signed up by paying £3 last summer will need to pay a heftier £25 fee. It's a move that will effectively whittle the eligible voter base down to the core pre-2015 members, if the new intake prove unable to sign up again or lose enthusiasm to do so.

Having apparently got what he wanted out of the day, Mr Corbyn left the NEC meeting in a chirpy mood, and later in the evening, Guardian journalist Benn Quinn filmed John McDonnell and Diane Abbott addressing a rally in Camden (view here). Mr McDonnell was filmed by Quinn saying the following:

"They have been plotting and conniving...the only good thing about it...as plotters, they're fucking useless..."

Diane Abbott, who was onstage with Mr McDonnell, is shown grinning, as she looks out at the crowd watching them. It feels like the "kind and gentle politics" motto that the Corbynites wanted to strive for has run out of legs to stand on. There's just no way the party can heal from such a toxic show of disapproval, when the upper echelons show such contempt for the democratically elected members.

Angela Eagle woke up on the morning of 12th July, to find her constituency office had been vandalised; a mystery assailant had thrown a brick through a window, and she has reportedly been offered police protection. Just let that sink in for a moment. You read that correctly: A British Member of Parliament is being offered police protection, simply for deciding to run against the opposition party leader. It's a phrase that feels unsettling to have to write, but that's how bad things have become.

In a Newsnight interview broadcast just a matter of minutes ago, Angela Eagle reiterated that she has been a Labour member for 40 years, and slammed Mr Corbyn over of bullying in the party, especially through social media, saying he has not shown leadership. She also added that:

"He is a protester; he's not a persuader of people"

As Labour continues to devour itself on the altar of post-Brexit mayhem, the Conservative government has got its act together, and is preparing to welcome our second female Prime Minister, Theresa May, into No. 10 in just a few hours time.

In an infamous 2002 Tory Party conference speech, Theresa May spoke of the perception of the Tory Party being the "Nasty Party". After a day like today, starting with a window shattered by a brick, most of the PLP being branded "fucking useless" and Twitter being fit to burst with vitriol yet again, it might be easy to dub Labour the recipient of such a mantle.

The Eighties strike back

A female Prime Minister, the Pound tumbling against the Dollar, a Labour Party riven with divisions and Rick Astley in the UK top 40 chart. The 1980s have come back, with a bang.

Theresa May is set to become our new Prime Minister on Wednesday evening, following the sudden departure of Andrea Leadsom from the Tory leadership contest.

The day was due to be dominated by the turmoil bubbling inside the Labour Party, with Angela Eagle launching a bid for the leadership at a press conference earlier today.

However, all this was blown out of the water, when whispers began to swirl about the fate of Andrea Leadsom's campaign to become Tory leader around midday today. 

An article published in the Times on 9th July appears to have been the catalyst for today's sudden turn of events: Times journalist Rachel Sylvester conducted an interview with Leadsom a few days ago, where she made the claim that "being a mum means having a very real stake in the future of our country".

Those words proved fatal, given that Theresa May had revealed in an interview with the Mail on Sunday over a week before that she and her husband wanted children but she was unable to. An article written following the Leadsom story, Rachel Sylvester commented that Leadsom's "suggestion that motherhood gave her a 'stake' in the future of the country was crashingly naive than calculatingly cruel".

Whatever Leadsom's reasoning was, it quite likely cost the Brexit faction its remaining shot at clinching No. 10, having lost first Boris Johnson, and then Michael Gove, following his so-called "knifing-in-the-front".

For the Tories, the future is clear; Theresa May will move into No. 10 by Wednesday, and markets are likely to cheer up, now that there won't be a seemingly endless leadership race for an entire summer. Today alone, the domestic-orientated FTSE 250 index rallied 3.3%, bolstered by Andrea Leadsom dropping out it seems.

Mr Cameron will likely visit the Queen after a last hurrah at PMQs, over 6 years after he started his job. Theresa May intends to respect the wishes of the 52% by delivering Brexit, perhaps by 2019-20. A whole new government department will be established especially to facilitate Brexit, headed by a pro-Brexit government minister.

The future for the Labour Party is a whole other kettle of fish. Differing legal advice has left some in a state of confusion over whether Jeremy Corbyn will be included on any leadership ballot or not.

The party's rule-book unhelpfully makes the matter open to interpretation:

"Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference..."

"In this case any nomination must be supported by 20% of the combined Commons members of the [parliamentary Labour party] and members of the [European parliamentary Labour party]. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void"

What is significant is the use of the word "may" rather than "shall" in the first sentence. It makes the 20% of MPs/MEPs bit seem optional, at a time when the party needs a more concrete idea of what constitutes a legitimate leadership bid. Mr Corbyn's allies could read this to mean he doesn't need nominations, and could just run again, by virtue of being leader.

What we know for sure is as follows: Angela Eagle is openly challenging Mr Corbyn for the leadership, and it's being reported that she received enough nominations, according to Iain McNicol, Labour's General Secretary. Owen Smith, who has had 2 shadow ministerial posts since 2012, is reportedly mulling over launching a bid of his own.

Such a move could be risky for the anti-Corbyn faction; it may split the vote and score a spectacular own goal. Of course, it might all be for nought, whatever machinations are put in Jeremy Corbyn's path; there's been another surge in Labour Party membership, taking it to about 515k people.

This new post-referendum surge may well be just more Corbynistas, joining to protect their leading light. If they give Mr Corbyn a resounding victory, the PLP is highly-likely to split. Owen Smith got into a high-profile Twitter spat with John McDonnell over a potential split, as evidenced below:

Len McCluskey, head of the massive Unite union insists Jeremy Corbyn is going nowhere and Unison's Dave Prentis seconds that. However, according to a fresh YouGov poll of Labour-affiliated trade union members, 58% believe he should quit before the next election. 63% claim he is doing his job poorly, and out of those who want him to quit, 45% think he should leave as soon as possible.

In case Corbynistas were holding onto the belief that affiliates think Mr Corbyn has what it takes to become Prime Minister, they will be disappointed. 76% of respondents from this new YouGov poll also claim they don't believe Mr Corbyn will ever grace the threshold of No. 10, just as Theresa May is due to, come Wednesday evening.

More data on the YouGov poll is available here.

The Brexit Bloodbath

It's approaching two weeks since the most contentious vote in generations, and the leadership of the main political parties has been thrown up in the air like confetti.

Nigel Farage held a press conference this morning, in which he announced his decision to step down as leader of UKIP; in his most recent 6-year stint, he's revitalised the party, from the electoral despair of 2010, to the Brexit outcome he desired for years.

Cue thousands of Britons hoping the door doesn't hit him on the way out. Just another pain in the neck, who launched an escape pod from Terra Firma, after pressing the scorched-Earth button, like Boris.

Boris met his Waterloo last week at the hands of fellow Vote Leave ally Michael Gove; if there's one thing top-class political thrillers leave you asking, it's "who needs enemies, when the friends are like this?"

Loyalty on the battlefield has been no guarantee, in the final climb to the top here. The Prime Minister will soon be gone, and in his wake, he leaves the Tories divided among the Brexiteers and the modern-day wets. At present, Theresa May appears to be rallying more MPs behind her cause.

Michael Gove's treachery has done him no favours; so far, it's estimated he's only got the backing of 20 MPs or thereabouts; Theresa May has over 100. Her nearest rival is likely to be Andrea Leadsom, darling of the Leave campaign. 

Leadsom was elected to the HoC in 2010, and despite claims she's too inexperienced, she's actually been in Parliament longer than David Cameron was when he made a bid for the leadership. The likes of Nigel Farage are hoping for a Brexiter to lead the Tories from here, so it will be interesting to see what lengths her rivals go to, to poison members against her.

Labour would have the right to gloat, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the shadow cabinet seats are vacant. After last week's no-confidence vote, where 172 MPs voted against Mr Corbyn, there's been signs of necrosis setting into the party's high command.

Moderate MPs want Corbyn out. Corbyn reportedly considered going, after a humiliating PMQs last week, but now it appears his inner circle have encouraged him to live and fight another day. It's simply unsustainable for a potential party of government to be so disunited. It's all just a question of who goes first: the PLP rebels or the man at the top. Things could be messy.

The outcome that MPs are really not wanting to have to consider is a split, the thermonuclear option. It would be an admission that Labour has failed to come back from the abyss this time, after flirting with the militant tendency in the 1980s. We're likely to see the birth of a new centrist political project, if rebels decide their efforts are in vain. They might form an SDP/Liberal-style alliance with the Lib Dems, or even join them outright.

It would be a traumatic political event, but would be a step towards reflecting the political fault lines of the country more accurately. If the Tories choose a Brexiter to lead them into the autumn conference and beyond, UKIP will start to feel the pinch, despite having got the Brexit it always wanted. 

A more moderate leader would face sniping over not doing enough for Brexit. UKIP might pose a serious challenge, and risk unseating if they remain gridlocked for a long time.

Update

The following bit is a new development that came to light, just as this article was being polished off for publishing.

Andrea Leadsom reportedly gave a disappointing performance at the first Tory party hustings, in preparation for the leadership election. BuzzFeed's political correspondent Emily Ashton has just reported that an MP leaving the room after the hustings called her performance a "f***ing shambles".

All the leadership contenders were allotted 15 mins to address MPs, and Leadsom reportedly started to lose her audience 3 minutes into her speech. There was allegedly trouble concerning Leadsom and UKIP. BuzzFeed reports she was asked about links to the party 3 times.

The troubles may have arisen, when she reportedly spoke about emotional development and the frontal lobe of the brain, as well as claiming she would activate Article 50 immediately, only to go and say she'd delay it minutes later. These claims are made here.

The Brexit Vacuum

In all of recorded human history, only one person is known to have been exposed to the power of a vacuum and lived to tell the tale.

Jim LeBlanc was working for NASA in the mid-1960s, hired to test one of their prototype lunar spacesuits. Locked into a triple-door chamber, and wearing the suit, LeBlanc seemed to be doing just fine, when disaster struck.

A pressure hose came loose, and LeBlanc was essentially exposed to near-vacuum conditions, albeit briefly. Thankfully, LeBlanc survived the ordeal. Before blacking out due to oxygen deprivation, he distinctly recalls the sensation of saliva evaporating off his tongue.

The political situation, following last Thursday's vote has led to what many call a power vacuum, on both the government's benches, as well as the opposition's side. The Prime Minister, having failed to convince the country to support his plans, intends to resign and a new one will be in place by 9th September 2016, at the last reckoning.

The terrifying ordeal of Jim LeBlanc is a warning from history of what happens in a vacuum. The laws of nature go out the window, and the very things that offer hope and joy boil off into the ether helplessly.

At the time of writing, the government is effectively a zombie administration. The Prime Minister is leaving far sooner than he likely expected to go, and it's unlikely we can expect him to rattle off some revolutionary policies in the remaining 2 months of his premiership.

His successor is an unknown element in all this, and the first of two vacuums emerges for a very good reason. Based off a highly-rated comment on a Guardian website article, it has been suggested that Boris Johnson and Michael Gove never truly wanted a Brexit to be the outcome on June 23rd.

It sounds ridiculous, I know. But when you examine just how fantastically unprepared the Brexit camp have been, you start to realise why. Scotland voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the EU, along with Northern Ireland, but England and Wales went the other way.

The rules of engagement, concerning the Scottish independence issue have changed dramatically, and the same goes for Northern Ireland, but it doesn't seem to grab the headlines as much. Scotland will fight to retain its status as part of the EU, and in a possible re-run of the so-called indy ref of 2014, Nicola Sturgeon would deliver on the pledge to make Scotland a country in its own right.

Does anybody truly think a potential break-up of the United Kingdom was what Boris Johnson and Michael Gove actually prepared for, when they campaigned for Vote Leave? If the thought had never crossed their minds, they are guilty of making one of the gravest miscalculations in recent political history.

Whoever succeeds Cameron faces the bleak choice: leave the EU, but lose Scotland and Northern Ireland, to the dismay of millions, or abandon invoking Article 50 in a desperate bid to save the UK, but go down in history as the Premier who ignored the will of 17.5m people. Catch 22 on Article 50, it seems.

Now we get to the second vacuum, that is equally as deadly in its ferocity; the gaping black hole of a vacuum at the heart of the Labour Party. It's been just over a year since Jeremy Corbyn rushed to get his name on the 2015 leadership ballot, and he's become one of the most divisive leaders of the Parliamentary Labour Party's 103-year history.

It all began with Hilary Benn being sacked for calling on Mr Corbyn to resign, having failed to convince enough of Labour's support base to back the Remain campaign. 

A cascade of shadow cabinet resignations followed, and now we're at the unprecedented point where all living former Labour leaders, 2 former deputy leaders, the current deputy AND the Prime Minister have called on the leader of the opposition to go. But he refuses to budge, citing the mandate he received from the unions, affiliates and paid-up members, in September 2015.

Mr Corbyn's divisiveness as leader the PLP stems from his refusal to adjust to the gravity of the situation that has gripped the British political system. Mr Cameron's successor is likely to take advantage of Mr Corbyn's crisis of confidence, to call a general election, to shore up Tory dominance in a post-Brexit era.

Mr Corbyn's response has been to refuse responsibility for the vote to Brexit, and Chris Byrant MP (part of the aforementioned cascade of resignations) has been reported to have received no answer, regarding whether Mr Corbyn voted to remain or leave on June 23rd.

A leadership battle is highly likely to emerge, given his recalcitrance to move from his diminishing position of power. Angela Eagle is a potential rival, but anything can happen in the next 24hrs.

Momentum, the group that evolved out of the campaign to help Mr Corbyn into power, has shown repeated contempt for the PLP, and whispers of possible deselection were occasionally seen, when MPs behaved in a way that Momentum didn't like, even before Brexit.

It all becomes an awkward question: who really runs the Labour Party? An outside organisation based around one man, and an army of party members who brand MPs "traitors" when they don't toe the line, or the democratically-elected MPs?

Since the events that unfolded on June 16th, the vitriolic language directed at Labour MPs by sections of the Corbynista movement should make us be as ashamed to be British, just as we are, when we hear stories about anyone who seems remotely foreign being told to go home.

How much longer will our two main parties survive in this vacuum, before someone restores the atmosphere? And if they fail to do so quickly, which party will evaporate into the ether first? The clock is ticking.

UK votes for Brexit

There you have it - the UK has voted in favour of Brexit, after a four-month campaign.

Prime Minister David Cameron announced his intention to resign by early October, to allow a new leader to steer the party and the country through the Conservative Party conference and beyond, to the many months of negotiations to come.

The markets had expected the whole thing to be in the bag for Remain, but by midnight, as results began to come in, that certainty began to diminish. By early morning, panic had set in, and the Pound was down 7% against the Dollar.

Share prices opened sharply lower, as financial institutions took fright. It has been estimated that $2trn has evaporated as a result of the market turbulence of the past day or so. Rating agencies have swooped in, and downgraded their assessments of the UK's creditworthiness, following the vote for Brexit.

As Mr Cameron wrapped up his address outside No10, his voice notably cracked. It was a speech brimming with emotion. Just over 6 years after he walked gleefully into No10, at the helm of a coalition government, Mr Cameron is now facing up to the final days of his stint in office.

Turnout was a respectable 72% up and down the country; turnout of this magnitude hasn't been seen at a general election since the 1990s.

72% turnout equates to about 33m people voting. The Leave option received 17.4m votes, a 51.9% vote share, against Remain, which garnered 16.1m votes or 48.1% of votes.

To put this into perspective, the figures are record-breaking; before June 23rd, the highest number of votes for any one party in UK history had been the shock 14m who voted to keep John Major in No10, during the tumultuous election of 1992.

Fact checking time. Here's a quick run-down of some points:

1.) Claim: the UK has left the EU (FALSE)

The country voted for Brexit, but it's important to remember, the UK is still a member of the EU right at this moment, and will remain so, until the next Prime Minister invokes Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, and the UK completes negotiations. The actual Brexit itself could take a minimum of 2 years.

2.) Claim: the referendum was legally binding (FALSE)

The referendum brought millions out to vote, but it's still not actually legally binding. The AV referendum in 2011 was legally binding, but this was because it concerned a massive overhaul of the UK's voting system. The people have had their say, but ultimate sovereignty remains with the UK Parliament that the people elect to represent them. What happens if Parliament votes to reject leaving the EU?

3.) Claim: £350m a year will now be available for the NHS (UNLIKELY)

Vote Leave repeatedly faced criticism for running with a punchline: £50m per day or £350m per week is sent to the EU, and if we leave, the government can keep the cash, and spend it on the NHS. Adjusting for rebates and EU spending on subsidies and so on, the figure is likely half that at best.

Nigel Farage himself has admitted the pledge is a "mistake", despite having claimed on Question Time that the money would be better spent "helping the communities of Britain".

4.) Claim: Brexit could result in the UK breaking apart (TRUE)

Scotland and Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying, and Nicola Sturgeon has stated that a second independence referendum is "on the table". In the event of one, Scotland is highly likely to be granted its independence, overturning the outcome almost 2 years ago. Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister has called for a border poll, reflecting the fact that NI is the only part of the UK that shares a border with another EU member state.

The story is simple: Brexit isn't quite the sunlit upland people were told it was going to be, and significant numbers of voters are now starting to question whether the Leave campaign's pledges can be upheld. Then there's the question about whether the UK will come out of this whole ordeal intact.

Looking ahead, here are two intrigiuing theories to consider:

Our next PM might just proceed to invoke Article 50, and the Brexit goes ahead, resulting in the break-up of the UK. 300 years of union will go up in a puff of smoke, just like that. England and Wales plod on, and that's that.

The other theory is not immediately apparent, but worth bearing in mind. Our next PM might just reject the idea of Brexit altogether for the sake of keeping the UK intact. In doing so, they would be sacrificing themselves and the Conservatives, going against the wishes of the 52%.

Whether it's Boris Johnson, Theresa May or Francis Urqhart, Mr Cameron's successor will have a massive in-tray on day one.

Market panic, as Brexit takes lead in handful of polls

£80bn wiped off London stock markets in four days, as odds on Brexit jump.

Photo by Images Money (Flickr) / CC BY

Nine days out from one of the most anticipated votes in post-war British history, markets are in a state of fear, as a flurry of opinion polls indicated that the UK might exit the European Union on June 23rd.

Today alone, pension pots will have felt a pinch, as the FTSE 100 shed 2% of its value. Betting markets have been fairly relaxed about the likelihood of a Brexit, having claimed just over the weekend that it was only a 25% possibility.

The price of Gold in GBP has jumped to £900 per ounce in recent days, as a reflection of investors seeking hard assets, during a period of economic uncertainty. To compound all this, Rupert Murdoch's best-selling newspaper the Sun has come out in favour of Brexit.

Mr Murdoch's editorial decision is intriguing, given that the Sun has the habit of coming out in support of the party that would go to win every election since 1979.

Where did this sudden tumble in markets begin? Cue an avalanche of statistics from multiple polling agencies over the weekend. They were enough for some to consider that the calculus has shifted. Now betting odds on a Brexit have risen to roughly 40%. 

However, Number Cruncher Politics, an independent psephology stats site claims the gap is just a bit wider.

NCP has seen the likelihood of a Brexit rise in recent days, but it estimates that there's actually a 33% likelihood of a Brexit. It is important to note that NCP was hailed for foreseeing the controversy over inaccurate polling in the run-up to the May 2015 general election.

So where does this leave us? The most important things to consider, when reading an opinion poll on the EU referendum are the following: 

1.) Does the poll include or exclude voters from Northern Ireland? 

If NI voters are excluded, there's a chance the poll is skewed somewhat. Polls carried out exclusively inside Northern Ireland find support for remaining in the EU far exceeding support for a Brexit.

2.) Polls are the political equivalent of breath on a pane of glass; things happen and views change

Peter Kellner, former President of YouGov writes in the Staggers that past referendums in the UK have tended to see a last-minute boost in support towards the status quo, whatever that may be.

The headlines are filled with a curious paradox; on one hand, people are confident a Brexit is so unlikely, that they're willing to bet money on Britain staying, and yet on the other, the markets are so jittery.

Only nine days to go, till the biggest poll of them all comes to town.

Brexit: The Movie (Review)

Six weeks to go, and this will all be over (I promise!)

From the film-maker who told you that breast implant concerns were overstated and, on repeated ocassions tried to prove that climate change is a myth, Martin Durkin presents "Brexit: The Movie".

The film, which runs for about 70mins, was funded by £100k worth of contributions through crowd-funding. The film features the darlings of British Euroscepticism, who join forces for an hour-and-a-bit campaign of disinformation about the European Union.

Here are some of the big guns that were asked to give a penny for their thoughts, and ended up giving a bucket load of pennies worth: Nigel Farage, Melanie Phillips, Kelvin MacKenzie, Nigel Lawson, James Delingpole and Janet Daley, to name a few.

Let's look at some of the zingers and bones of contention.

1.) The film uses ignorance as an excuse

Photo by Mats Halldin / CC BY

The film makes its first error, showing Martin Durkin stepping into a Brussels taxi. In his best French, he makes the most cringe-worthy request imaginable: "The EU...s'il vous plait".

The driver looks back at him, as if he's just insulted his whole family. No surprise really. It's a bit like hopping into a black cab after landing in the UK, and asking the driver to take you to the Anglosphere.

The segment then wastes a few seconds making a point about the seemingly endless number of fancy buildings and important-sounding jobs held by people in Brussels and elsewhere.

Vox pops then get sprung upon us. UK and Brussels residents are shown an array of faces (e.g. Martin Schultz) and have no idea who the people are. The scenes are supposed to leave us with the impression that, if we don't know who our MEPs are, it's not worth looking them up, because they're either powerless, suspicious, or shouldn't be trusted.

Ask any Brit if they recognised an array of pictures of current MPs in the UK Parliament, and they probably wouldn't have a clue either. You don't see people suggesting we abolish parliamentary democracy as a result though. In the Internet age, there's far less of an excuse for people to be clueless, you could argue. If you feel so frustrated about not knowing who your MEP is, it's fair to say, just Google it, instead of getting all hot and bothered.

In a previous post on this site, a vox pop was used to write an article, but if you know anything about sample sizes, vox pops aren't actually useful gauges of public opinion as you might think. If you only chat to less than 50 people, it's estimated the margin of error can be as high as 15% or more. Not the kind of margin you'd want, for an issue like the referendum.

2.) The Sun has epically fallen out of love with David Cameron

Photo by Duncan Hull / CC BY

The Sun basks in the privilege of being one of the most-read papers in the country. Physical sales have collapsed, but it still finds its ways to lure readers in.

Liverpool has boycotted the Sun, ever since its shameful coverage of the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. In some circles, the paper is political radioactive waste. One of Ed Miliband's biggest gaffes as Labour leader was to hold up a copy of the paper for a photo-shoot, grinning ear to ear.

The paper has gained the reputation of picking sides in the run-up to general elections. This started in earnest with Mrs Thatcher in the 1970s, and the paper remained loyal to the Conservatives...until it wasn't. It performed a switcheroo in the 1990s to New Labour under Tony Blair, but then did an about turn, back to David Cameron's supposed de-toxified Conservative Party.

However, it seems that the Sun's editor, Kelvin MacKenzie has fallen out of love with the Prime Minister, big time. In a segment for the film, he tears into Mr Cameron:

"Toff...tries to hide it, probably quite a nasty piece of work"

Tell us how you really feel, Mr MacKenzie!

3.) The film goes all Tea Party, and brings up the Magna Carta

Photo by Jappalang / CC BY

The film helpfully points out a game-changing moment in English history: last year was the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta, or Great Charter.

The film paints it as a triumpant moment, where the English people managed to rise up and demand the right to demand how much they should be taxed, and how it should be spent. The whole issue is then spun, in a way that makes it seem as if the EU is corrupt, because we supposedly have no say over the money.

First, it's important to point out that, for all the glitz of name dropping the document, the Magna Carta still failed to end the system of serfdom, one of the most egregious abuses of working people in Medieval England. It was only following the Black Death, where half the population perished, that labourers began to wield more power over their labour, and even dared to withdraw it and take it elsewhere, in the search for a better standard of living.

Labour following the Black Death was so scarce, and because wages were more closely based on the supply of labour, a huge drop in the workforce corresponded to a huge rise in wage growth, more than serfdom would have ever hoped to achieve. Second, not to belittle the document, but writings by JC Holt point to the fact that, by 1350, about half the clauses in the Magna Carta had been succeeded by more relevant laws of the day. That stems from the fact that times changed. The document became inflexible in various ways.

It's easy to see why Martin Durkin brought it up. Tea Party-types in the US use the US constitution as the totem of their faith, but Britain doesn't have a codified constitution. The Magna Carta serves as a romantic, sweet little reminder of Medieval English history. The problem is just that, though: it's Medieval.

4.) The film skims through the post-war era, when the European Project began

The European Coal and Steel Community, omitted from "Brexit: The Movie"

Photo by JLogan / CC BY

About a quarter of the way through, the film looks back at Britain at the height of the Industrial Revolution, exporting its way to prosperity. Then it takes a darker turn, with the two world wars. The state imposing itself over the course of this period becomes the next big issue.

A contrast is made with post-war Germany, which was used to show how less regulation helped it outpace Britain, and enjoy a post-war boom. The film makes the mistake of not reminding viewers about the birth of the European project, namely the European Steel and Coal Community, which Germany and other countries were part of, but not Britain.

Instead, the film skims through from 1945 straight to 1973, when Britain joined the EEC. In doing so, the film has conveniently avoided having to include the fact that the European Project was instrumental in ensuring a lasting economic recovery on the continent. The film treats Germany's boom as if it was caused by a sprinkle of deregulation and little else.

5.) The European Project is dismissed as a snobbish, artsy fad

Photo by Spicymystery / CC BY

Noted climate change sceptic and conservative writer James Delingpole sneers at the idea of the EU, saying:

"There's a tremendous snobbery built into the whole project, the idea that you are part of the elite, which should decide how the little people live their lives"

James Delingpole, it should be noted, is guilty of preaching to the masses, having authored a book titled "Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Childrens' Future". For such a dramatic title, you'd expect anyone who tries to write about climate change to have at least some understanding of the science backing it up.

However, Mr Delingpole openly admitted:

“I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware"

Kelvin MacKenzie is then shown, and heard saying:

"These people up here, the intellectuals...are looking down on the plebs, and saying, 'you're not bright enough to decide the future of your country'"

This quote is frankly astonishing, coming from the editor of a newspaper, which has a column called "The Sun Says", where the reader is practically told what to think.

6.) The film depicts lazy and racist stereotypes

Photo by Lobo / CC BY

The film continues to go on about regulation in present day. One scene depicts two alpha male European men in a factory wearing vests. Instead of working, one of them is flirting with a woman, and the other is getting all vexed. Europe is being depicted as work-shy and uncompetitive.

Then the scene shifts to an Asian factory somewhere. Two oriental men are shown with clipboards, looking studiously at a childishly easy maths sum. Durkin exclaims about one of them:

"Look how good he is at maths!"

(Bangs head repeatedly against a wall)

For good measure, the film even depicts a Frenchman, complete with stripy shirt, beret, a ring of garlic round his neck, a baguette and a bottle of wine nearby.

7.) Switzerland is shown as a model for a post-Brexit scenario

Photo by Mei Burgin / CC BY

Towards the end of the film, Martin Durkin travels to Switzerland, and gets told by all his interviewees how free the Swiss feel with trade deals, despite not being in the EU.

It's just a shame Martin Durkin forgot to mention that Roberto Balzaretti the Swiss ambassador to the EU was quoted back in March as having said:

“What they should know is the situation of Switzerland. Being a member state is much more comfortable"

So there you have it; a run-down of some of the clangers in Martin Durkin's "Brexit: The Movie". Somehow, you get the feeling there won't be a sequel.

Sadiq Khan elected London Mayor

In the fifth London Mayoral election, voters chose Sadiq Khan over his rival, Zac Goldsmith, by over 300k votes.

As local election, Welsh/Irish assembly and Scottish Parliament results trickled on 6th May, London's 2016 Mayoral candidates waited with trepidation. 

It was reported that a computer glitch was to blame for a last minute delay for the declaration. It took until about half past midnight for the final results to come through, and they were impressive, in many ways.

Turnout at the 2016 contest was at a record high of 45.3%, on par with 2008. However, given the growth in London's population since then, the total quantity of votes cast is at an all time high.

In the first round, Mr Khan clinched over 1m votes, with Zac Goldsmith trailing with roughly 900k. For months, the polls had given Mr Khan a sizeable lead over his rival, and the final result proved not too dissimilar from the Opinium poll quoted in the previous Left Handed Dude post on the race.

In a very telling move, ex-Conservative Party chair Sayeeda Warsi tweeted the following, as the final declaration countdown began:

It is important for the Conservative Party to take note of this message, or it may struggle to regain the Mayoralty in the future. London is an ethnically diverse chunk of the UK, and is representative of a more socially liberal future for British politics in general. 

So-called dog-whistle tactics of the kind employed during Mr Goldsmith's campaign may have worked in the 1970s, when Britain was a more homogenous place, ethnically and socially. However, times have changed. 

The population has grown, and the age of social media means that it was far easier for Mr Goldsmith's critics to denounce his views and disseminate their disgust, it could be argued.

The Greens powered into third place with 150k votes, closely followed by the Lib Dems on 120k. Both parties managed to actually improve their respective vote shares respectively, compared to 2012.

One of the differences with last time was the lack of a major independent candidate, to follow in Siobahn Benita's footsteps. In 2012, she received over 80k votes.

This year's independent, Prince Zylinski, an eccentric West London resident who owns a lavish mansion, came the second from last, with 13k votes. He famously rose to prominence in 2014, by challenging Nigel Farage to a sword fight.

UKIP candidate Peter Whittle grew his party's vote share this time round, but still failed to garner 100k votes, settling for 94k in first round votes instead. The BNP saw its voter base halve, and its candidate was notably absent from the declaration.

Also absent from the stage was Respect Party candidate George Galloway; he mustered 37k votes in first round votes, narrowly ahead of Britain First candidate Paul Golding. This time four years ago, Mr Galloway was newly-elected MP for Bradford West, boasting of a "Bradford Spring", endorsing ex-Mayor Ken Livingstone for the 2012 race.

Four years on, Mr Galloway finds himself without a constituency to represent, having lost it in the 2015 election, but still has a job as a presenter for an RT programme, Sputnik, to fall back on. Mr Galloway had dropped hints about possibly running for Respect in Sadiq Khan's Tooting constituency, in the event of Labour winning the Mayoralty.

Mr Galloway took to Twitter over the ensuing hours, criticising the mainstream media for a supposed blackout of his performance. He claimed as many as 100k votes had been cast for him, by including second preferences. It must be noted however that his second preferences aren't really applicable, given how far down the results table he came.

One of the major moments of Mr Khan's inaugural speech as Britain First candidate Paul Golding's controversial decision to face his back to Mr Khan, as he spoke. Some observers on social media wrongly identified him as the BNP candidate initially.

On Twitter, some made light of the act, mocking Paul Golding. User Joe Cox tweeted:

On a lighter note, Katie Hopkins has attracted much unwanted media attention, thanks to a pre-election tweet she made:

Charming as always!

Countdown to Mayoral Election 2016

Labour Mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan remains firmly in the lead, against Conservative rival Zac Goldsmith, two days before election day, says poll.

Photo by Peter Adams

It was supposed to be easy. When Zac Goldsmith became the Conservative candidate for London Mayor in October 2015, he was probably hoping some of his predecessor's supposed golden touch would rub off on him.

Mr Goldsmith's Mayoral campaign is now stuck with the moniker "dog-whistle politics", following statements about Mr Khan, such as the fact that he was allegedly "playing the race card".

The campaign received fresh criticism following the printing of a Zac Goldsmith-penned article in the Mail on Sunday. The headline read:

"On Thursday, are we really going to hand the world's greatest city to a Labour Party that thinks terrorists are its friends?".

The article carried an image of the wreckage of the Tavistock Square bus, which was one of the targets of the 7/7 Attacks in July 2005. As a sign of how poorly perceived the article was, ex-Conservative Party Chair Sayeeda Warsi took to Twitter to say:

Source: @SayeedaWarsi (Twitter)

Two days before election day, Mr Goldsmith remains 9 points behind Sadiq Khan in first preferences, a new Opinium poll suggests. In the second round, where the two would go head-to-head, Mr Khan's lead extends to 14 points over Mr Goldsmith.

The race is, on the face of it, a two-horse race. The remaining candidates are somewhat obscure, some might say. Here's a look at the field of other party candidates.

Caroline Pidgeon, Liberal Democrat candidate

The Liberal Democrat candidate Caroline Pidgeon remains confident that her campaign will make progress, despite the fact that she remain stuck at an average poll share of about 5% of respondents. Early in the year, her press team emailed Left Handed Dude to say that her campaign was:

"getting a very positive response...People are keen to hear about my plans, particularly my ideas about how to deliver the extra homes London needs, a fairer fares regime on TfL's Tube and rail services and how we tackle the cost of childcare in the capital".

Sian Berry, Green Party Candidate

Green candidate Sian Berry is marking her second attempt to become Mayor, after her 2008 bid. Her campaign has made effective use of billboards, one of which is on display near Ealing Common Tube Station, albeit tucked away from the high street somewhat. Her poll rating is roughly 4% at present.

In an election campaign film, Berry rattles off her party's list of proposals, as she walks through the streets of the city. Berry highlights how the Generation Rent group has rated her campaign highly, for proposing a renters' union to stick up for private renters, in order to tackle the issue of soaring rents in the capital.

Peter Whittle, UKIP Candidate

Openly gay UKIP candidate Mr Whittle shares Mr Goldsmith's support for a Brexit on 23rd June, and he has tried to diversify his party's message in the capital. He made waves in back in February, when he claimed "white, middle-class liberals" are the "most hostile, close-minded group", but his poll ratings remain stuck at much the same level as the Greens and Lib Dems, at about 5%. He has focused on social housing, making the following pledge:

" I would give priority to Londoners on social housing if you have lived in a London bourough for 5 years".

George Galloway, Respect Party Candidate

Perhaps one of the more controversial candidates, ex-MP George Galloway has been campaigning to become London's first Respect Party Mayor. However, his campaign has failed to make much of an impact since he announced his intention to run, in May 2015. His poll ratings have failed to budge over 2% consistently. 

In a move which indicates his candidacy is more of a stepping stone towards other projects, Mr Galloway has claimed he will try to run as the Respect candidate in Tooting, if a by-electon is called, in the event of Mr Khan winning the Mayoralty.

The Respect brand is struggling at present. Its membership base is estimated at just over 600 members as of 2014, and it was alleged that one-time Respect leader Salma Yaqoob made a failed attempt to join the Labour Party last year. To compound the sense of discontent, the Spectator claimed Respect had assets totalling under just £2k. When considering Respect, it's perhaps best to view it as a personal vehicle for George Galloway, as opposed to a fully fledged party.

Mr Galloway tweeted the following message as part of his online campaign in February:

"Elect a leader that will fight for all not just those dripping in GOLD".

The tweet drew ridicule from a small group of tweeters, including user Marc Blanc, who wondered: "Is 'dripping in gold' a euphemism for something now? I didn't attend the meeting".

Writer Jeremy Duns teased the tweet later that day, saying: "Rappers have rights, too, George".

Ignoring the polls, what ever the final results are, the 2016 Mayoral election will have a serious impact on the current political environment. A Labour victory will be used by Corbyn allies to show support for the party's new direction is vindicated. Moderates might argue however that Mr Khan might win in spite of Mr Corbyn, not thanks to him. Failure to win will be a blow to Mr Goldsmith and the Conservatives, bringing an end to major election victories over Labour since 2008.

If Mr Goldsmith wins, the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party will feel emboldened, and will compound the sense of victory for the party as a whole, if the government makes gains in local elections throughout the country. Losing to Mr Goldsmith will be seen as a huge blow to confidence in Jeremy Corbyn's position, some might say. If Labour can't get back the Mayoralty, it might be a sign of the party being poorly placed to regain Number 10 in 2020.

Two days to go till voting day itself. If you plan to vote in the London Mayoral election, remember to place your preferences on the lilac ballot paper, and rank your favoured candidates in order of preference. Remember to check the orange ballot paper, to help elect members to the London Assembly.

At present, Labour holds 12 seats on the Assembly, with the Conservatives on 9 seats, plus the Lib Dems and Greens both holding 2 seats respectively.

Brexiters bash POTUS

It was supposed to be a short and fairly chummy visit by President Obama, at the end of this week. His UK trip managed to coincide with the Queen's 90th birthday, and it became clear he would use the visit to reiterate his pro-EU views.

Mr Obama's visit was accompanied by an article he authored, published in the Telegraph, addressing readers in the following way:

"As your friend, let me say that the EU makes Britain even greater".

Then Boris put pen to paper.

Boris Johnson used a column in the Sun newspaper, to try and claim that Mr Obama had shown proven anti-British sentiments since his first day as POTUS, by removing a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office, and reportedly having it sent to the British Embassy in Washington.

His comments quickly attracted ridicule. Mr Churchill's own grandson, sitting MP Nicholas Soames poured criticism on Mr Johnson's comments, saying:

When the descendants of historical figures you've chosen to invoke start debunking your arguments, you know you're having a bad day.

Mr Johnson's comments largely drew criticism over him choosing to mention Mr Obama's part-Kenyan heritage, as part of his column. It echoes the sentiments that flared up in 2011, when Donald Trump demanded that Mr Obama release his birth certificate. Mr Obama found them, and as expected, they proved he was born in Hawaii afterall. He later roasted Mr Trump at the April 2011 Correspondents Dinner.

The fact that people keep bringing up the Kenyan connection is troubling; it comes down to an inability to provide a logical argument to whatever Mr Obama is championing. Instead of creating a rational opposing argument, Mr Johnson and Mr Trump have resorted to making ancestry the issue.

Some might simply call this an example of dog-whistle politics. It's been seen to an extent with the 2016 London Mayoral Campaign. Sadiq Khan was accused by rival Zac Goldsmith of "giving cover to extremists".

You could say this outburst by Mr Johnson is some kind of bonkers siren call to Britain's closet xenophobes. Maybe Mr Johnson is testing the waters, to see just how far he's allowed to go. Or he might just genuinely think the Kenyan thing actually matters.

Such a move might have backfired on the Brexit campaign however. Mr Obama enjoyed very high approval ratings amongst a sample of Brits polled by the Pew Research Centre in 2015. 76% of UK respondents had a lot of confidence that Mr Obama was "doing the right thing regarding world affairs".

In comparison, his predecessor, George W Bush was only about half as well-received across the pond. Here in the UK during the Bush Junior years, about only half of respondents thought he was doing the right thing. How times have changed.

Having the mascot for the Brexit campaign openly bashing a US President that Brits actually quite like is just the latest controversy in a campaign that's still got another 7 weeks left to go.

Panama Papers leak

Members of the global elite are in spasms of panic, following the leak of millions of documents, from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.

Photo by Christian Taube / CC BY

Reports began to trickle in on social media, at about 10pm GMT about the leak. German publication Süddeutsche Zeitung has been credited with receiving the documents, which were eventually passed onto the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).

It is estimated they acquired about 11.5m documents, dating back to the 1970s, which go into great detail about years worth of transactions by wealthy individuals, using about 214k offshore companies in the process, it is alleged.

It is a sensitive revelation for global elites, because some of those involved currently hold high office, in some cases reportedly.

The scale of the leak is unprecedented. It dwarfs the Wikileaks Cablegate leak of 2010, with emails, photos, PDFs and a range of other files all adding up to 2.6 Terabytes.

To put this into perspective, you would supposedly require 40 Blu-Ray disks, just to store 1TB worth of data.

VIPs linked to the Panama Papers

Of significance to UK readers, David Cameron's late father has been reportedly mentioned.

Much focus, however, has been given to transactions relating to the President of Argentina, Mauricio Macri, as well as documents reportedly pertaining to associates close to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

RT (formerly Russia Today) predictably reacted to the news, by claiming the media were giving excessive coverage to the documents which implicated those close to President Putin.

This is yet another demonstration of the outlet's bias, given that RT omitted actually including details about said documents. The bulk of this article decided to focus on a series of tweets about the coverage instead of the leak itself.

There is also mention of documents, reportedly relating to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Ukrainian NGO/exclusively online news outlet Hromadkse.TV showed some enthusiasm in publishing information about his alleged involvement in the matter.

One of their English-language reporters, Ian Bateson tweeted the following, which serves as an effective contrast between the ways people chose to cover the story:

Source: @IanBateson (Twitter)

The offshore companies mentioned in the leaked documents will be fully published in early May, according to the ICIJ.