Positive thinking

For decades, UK governments have had little interest in improving health and safety legislation. But this week, Number 10 found itself in the unexpected position of drafting new guidelines for workplaces.  The government is considering a number of health and safety measures to reduce the transmission of the coronavirus after easing lockdown restrictions including limits on the time colleagues spend in close proximity and personal protective equipment (PPE). As yet, there has been no detail on what PPE would be required and with shortages already forcing 40% of doctors to source their own , questions remain over how feasible the plans are. PPE has never made the headlines quite like this. For years, personal protection wear was mentioned only in the media as evidence of health and safety “gone mad”. A classic from the Cameron years was the story of schoolchildren being forced to wear safety goggles while playing conkers. Despite the school’s headmaster later revealing it was a...

According to new research by openDemocracy, almost half a million pounds of highly targeted donations from secretive Tory funding clubs bankrolled the Conservatives’ historic gains in Labour-held constituencies in the Midlands and northern England. Although this ‘dark money’ funding is technically legal under UK law, transparency campaigners and opposition parties have demanded a review of British election laws and called on the Conservatives to end the secrecy and publish the names of all those who bankrolled the party’s victory.   Dozens of victorious Conservative candidates in so-called ‘red wall’ seats received significant cash injections from secretive Tory funding clubs, much of it without any need to identify the donors.  Many of the same winning ‘red wall’ candidates also received cash from individual billionaires and obscure companies based in London, far from the constituencies where the money was spent.   The Conservative Pa...

Simon Lee, University of Hull For his forthcoming Budget on March 11, Chancellor Sajid Javid has promised to “unleash Britain’s potential – uniting our great country, opening a new chapter for our economy and ushering in a decade of renewal”. This was on the back of the Conservative Party’s 2019 election manifesto commitment “to use our post-Brexit freedoms to build prosperity and strengthen and level up every part of the country”. Yet so far, the government of Boris Johnson has been noticeably vague as to precisely what is to be “levelled up” or over what time frame – beyond talking about more funding for schools , health, police and infrastructure in England. There are at least three very good reasons for being in no hurry to get into details. 1. The manifesto paradox The Conservatives made manifesto commitments not to raise the rate of VAT, income tax or national insurance, and not to borrow to finance day-to-day current spending. Their plans to borrow to financ...

Victoria Honeyman, University of Leeds With Boris Johnson’s impressive election victory , one of the biggest questions in British politics will be answered: Brexit, in some form, will be done. But what does this election victory mean for Britain’s standing in the world? Who will the UK now count as its allies, and its enemies? The manner of Brexit matters in terms of Britain’s global standing. The large majority he has secured might give Johnson more room for manoeuvre in Westminster, making a softer Brexit possible. This would undoubtedly allow for smoother relations with the UK’s neighbours, but a softer Brexit might also have more advantages globally. Overseas, Brexit is viewed as a form of national self-harm by many, and a softer departure may well prevent Britain’s international standing from being substantially damaged. A softer Brexit, which might involve some freedom of movement, may also allow Britain to strike a stronger bargaining position in future trade neg...

Simon Tormey, University of Bristol And so the UK will head to an election on December 12 to try to resolve the spectacular mess that is Brexit. It’s an outcome many of us had been predicting for some time. The only surprise is that it came about as it did. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has, after all, just managed what seemed nearly impossible a mere few weeks back, which is to both achieve a compromise agreement with the European Union over the terms of withdrawal and convince the House of Commons that it should vote in favour of it , and by a princely majority of 30. So why did Johnson seek an election? And why, at the third attempt, did Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn agree? More generally, will an election get us out of the royal mess the UK finds itself in? It’s not if you Brexit, but how As far as Johnson is concerned, he wants Brexit, but he doesn’t want any old Brexit. He wants a “proper” Brexit, a clean break from the EU that will, as his mantra insists, d...

Andy Knott, University of Brighton UK politics is getting more dramatic, divisive and nastier . Nowhere is this more evident than in the populist turn taken by the Conservative Party. Problematically for them, however, populism is incompatible with some of the central principles of British conservatism. So while playing to the gallery might win votes in the immediate term, the Conservative Party could be managing the fallout for decades to come. Among the core features that distinguish conservatism and populism are their different approaches to the rule of law and their conception of “the people”. The law is not something pivotal to populists, and part of their shtick is to at least appear to flout it, whereas conservatives bestow reverence upon it. The collision course between conservatism and right-wing populism, set in motion by Boris Johnson, is nowhere more apparent than in the Supreme Court’s ruling that the government’s prorogation of parliament was “unlawful” . One ...

Abhinay Muthoo, University of Warwick Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, says he wants to leave the EU on October 31 2019 with a deal, but has repeatedly made a vocal “do or die” pledge to Brexit without one if necessary. Johnson’s latest move – to ask the Queen to suspend parliament – can be seen as a display of commitment to a potential hard Brexit in a bid to pressure the EU into securing a better deal. Is this all a bluff – would Johnson really, when the time comes, Brexit with no deal? And what are the risks should the EU decide to call his bluff – will Johnson “do or die”? Game theory – the study of strategy and decision making – offers some clues. In the language of game theory , Johnson faces a serious “credibility” problem. He needs to convince the various players in the Brexit game – including the EU as a whole, Ireland, MPs in the House of Commons, the public and businesses – that he will indeed have the UK leave the EU, if need be, without a deal in place, on...

Sam Power, University of Sussex Back in November 2017, the Electoral Commission reopened investigations into allegations that Vote Leave, the official exit campaign in the 2016 referendum on UK membership of the European Union, had breached spending rules. Into 2018 this was a story that had rather bubbled under the surface. However, a slow drip of revelations regarding the work of Cambridge Analytica, unearthed by The Guardian, The Observer and Channel 4 News have brought the issue to the front and centre. It is worth reminding ourselves how the case got here, and what it means for the electoral integrity of the UK. The rules During referendums in the UK, there are strict spending rules which designate the amount of money official, or “designated”, campaigns are allowed to spend. In 2016, Vote Leave and Britain Stronger in Europe had a limit of £7m . The £7m spending limit, however, only related to spending by the official campaign for each side – Remain and Leave....