Under The Radar – 10 September

Mat Napo on Unsplash

This week, we discuss:

1. The military coup in Guinea

2. The recent developments in Britney Spears’ conservatorship case

3. The vaccine mandate debate in the U.S.

Another military takeover

What happened?

The President of Guinea, Alpha Condé, has been overthrown in a military coup after being captured by soldiers on Sunday. The leader of the coup, Commander Colonel Mahamady Doumbouya, confirmed the military takeover on state TV and promised a unity government in the coming weeks.

What does it mean?

The coup – the fourth successful military takeover this year after Myanmar, Mali and Afghanistan – marks the end of President Condé’s troubled presidency. The 83-year old spent his career building democracy in Guinea and, as such, both citizens and commentators alike had high hopes for ‘Guinea’s Mandela’ after his historic election victory in 2010.

But in the years following his victory Condé chipped away at Guinea’s embryonic democracy: he manipulated the constitution in order to extend his term and undermined key institutions along the way, whilst his third election victory in 2020 was widely disputed and met with international condemnation. Thousands took to the streets to protest the result, resulting in dozens of deaths, hundreds of arrests and the end of the country’s experiment with democracy. After the violence, many anticipated that the President would fall victim to a popular uprising or military coup, with the latter having now transpired.

Unfortunately for Guineans, a military dictatorship is no better than a corrupt resident and is just as unlikely to deliver freedom and prosperity. Commander Doumbouya may intend to hand the reins of power over eventually but, like his predecessor, may well have already developed his own taste for power by then.

#FreeBritney

What happened?

Britney Spears’ father, Jamie Spears, has filed to end the controversial conservatorship that has controlled his daughter’s life for the last 13 years.

What does it mean?

Britney’s conservatorship has received considerable attention over the past few months, following a high-profile documentary on the pop star that aired earlier this year. Since then, the unusual legal arrangement has come in for intense criticism from both the public and Britney herself. The singer has now attempted to remove her father from the conservatorship twice in the last two years. At the end of June, Britney appeared in open court for the first time to speak out against the legal agreement that she called “abusive”, and described her father’s treatment of her as “cruelty”. Then, in July, she told a judge that she wished to file charges against her father for “conservator abuse”. As a result, the case has increasingly drawn the attention of women’s rights activists and groups. Yesterday, Jamie Spears submitted that his daughter “is entitled to have this court now seriously consider whether this conservatorship is no longer required”. He cited that recent events and changing circumstances have called into question whether a conservatorship for Britney is still needed. Britney’s conservatorship finally appears set to end in the coming months, but without social media and the legions of fans who have continued to shine a light on her tragic situation, it is likely she would still find herself under the control of her father.

ACLU supports vaccine mandates

What happened?

Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) declared its support for vaccine mandates, arguing that “far from compromising them, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties”.

What does it mean?

Renowned American economist Thomas Sowell once said: “There are no solutions. Only tradeoffs”. So, it’s not particularly noteworthy to favour public policy compromising bodily autonomy for the common good. What is newsworthy, however, is for an organisation – historically defined by an absolutist commitment to civil liberties – to advocate for something so inimical to its modus operandi. And moreover, to garb the concession in the claim that a clear infringement of civil liberties is, in fact, the opposite. But this is only a continuation of the ACLU’s transformation in recent years. Indeed, post-Trump’s ascension to the White House, there has been a noticeable drift from its traditional non-partisanship. Most glaringly when it poured $800,000 into campaign ads for Democrat Stacey Abrams, but also when it actively opposed the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. As culture wars have gripped America, the ACLU has felt compelled to wade in – and no doubt it will continue to do so. With a new crop of activist-lawyers at the ALCU – following a huge hiring drive after the 2016 election – expect civil liberties to fall even lower on the agenda in place of political posturing.

This Week’s Must Reads

1. ‘China and Big Tech: Xi’s blueprint for a digital dictatorship’ by James Kynge & Sun Yu for The FT

2. ‘Hurricane Ida drowned 11 New Yorkers in their own homes. The climate crisis is here’ by Ross Barkan for The Guardian

3. ‘We have learnt the wrong lessons from 9/11’ by David Aaronovitch for The Times

4. ‘Legislating in the Name of God’ by Linda Greenhouse for The New York Times

Chart of the week

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

Company

Industry

Under The Radar – 3 September

This week, we discuss:

1. The latest chapter of the Labour party’s ‘civil war’

2. The US Supreme Courts decision in landmark Texas vote

3. Appeasement in the Middle East

Labour – The Cult of Magic Grandpa

What happened?

Ahead of the Labour Party conference later this month, the leader of Young Labour has claimed Jeremy Corbyn will “be refused as a speaker” in what is the latest chapter of Labour’s civil war.

What does it mean?

Only a few months away from the second anniversary of its worst election result since 1935, and the Labour Party still finds itself entangled in the internal toxicity that defined Jeremy Corbyn’s catastrophic tenure as leader. In fact, few stories of late have so clearly highlighted the core tenets of the left-wing echo chamber that Keir Starmer needs to move beyond if Labour is to ever win another election.

First, Jeremy Corbyn himself. One would have expected the Labour Party to have moved on from its worst leader in living memory. Yet, nearly two years on, the party still finds itself embroiled in a never-ending civil war over someone who has still not had the whip restored, while his refusal to bow out of the political arena is staining the party’s futile attempts to detoxify its image.

Unwavering in their support for Corbyn, Young Labour remains problematic. A recent statement expressing solidarity with Cuba’s authoritarian regime should have resulted in their dissolution, as its open opposition to Nato also should have. A serious political party would recognise the electoral and moral problems their existence poses and act accordingly.

Lastly, social media. One of the worst things to have ever happened to the advancement of left-wing politics, it has given rise to a putrid echo chamber that continues to elevate Jeremy Corbyn and the stances held by Young Labour alike. As long as these three tenets continue to influence the Labour Party’s direction of travel, it will remain in opposition.

The Supreme Court ruling paves the way to overturn Roe v Wade in landmark Texas vote

What Happened?

Last night the US Supreme Court refused to block a new law in Texas that amounts to a near-total ban on abortion.

What Does It Mean?

Since Roe v. Wade came into effect in 1973, there have been ferocious attempts by the ‘pro-life’ community to overturn it. Last night’s Supreme Court decision saw one of the most significant movements towards just that.

The controversial Texas heartbeat bill is the first of its kind that has not immediately been slapped down by the courts. At least twelve other states had attempted to enact similar bans, but all had been blocked from going into effect – now the Texas law stands as the strictest abortion law in the country, and the decision will inevitably encourage other states that previously attempted to pass legislation to implement their own harsh laws.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissenting opinion, argued that “the court silently acquiesced in a state’s enactment of a law that flouts nearly fifty years of federal precedents”.

The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has signalled that it is unlikely to uphold Roe as a precedent. And with the court due to consider Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – a challenge to Mississippi’s attempted abortion ban – in the coming months, millions more women could be denied access to legal abortions.

Appeasement in the Middle East

What happened?

Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Blinken said: “The Taliban seeks international legitimacy and support”, and “the Taliban can do that by meeting commitments and obligations”, which include “counter-terrorism”.

What does it mean?

For most, the idea of the Taliban as a counter-terrorism partner is farcical and perverse. And not without reason. Although not formally listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the US, the Taliban has more than earned it. Indeed, several senior roles in the organisation are held by members of the Haqqani Network – itself a designated FTO and a critical player within the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)’s jihadist network.

Despite the U.S. administration’s feeble protestations that the Taliban and the Haqqani Network were distinct groups, this was quickly undercut by a senior Haqqani operative replying “We are the Taliban”. But of course, the State Department knows this. The point of this charade is simply to justify having outsourced security at Kabul airport to the Taliban (which involved giving them the names of Americans and Afghan allies).  The reality is that theocratic terrorists now rule the country. A sombre fact, but one that Western governments must come to terms with if they are to respond effectively. 

However, this is not to say an honest reckoning admits of any easy answers. Russia has suggested that the U.S. ought to unfreeze Afghan state assets and resume foreign aid, in a bid to stabilise the country. But the de facto funding of a terrorist regime raises tricky questions – ethical and legal. Still, after twenty years of idealistic but fruitless intervention, messy moral compromises may be the order of the day.

This Week’s Must Reads

1. ‘After Angela Merkel: how one woman shaped a generation – and Europe’ by Guy Chazan for The FT

2. ‘Disunited kingdom – and all the better for it’ by David Starkey for The Critic

3. ‘Covid’s most toxic scar could be a generational war across Europe’ by Bruno Waterfield for The Times

4. ‘The Problem with Playing God to fix the climate: It might not work’ by Karl Mathiesen for Politico EU

Subscribe

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

Company

Industry

Under The Radar – 20 August

This week, we discuss:

1. The Government’s intervention in the planned £2.6bn takeover of Ultra Electronics

2. Increased productivity in the US

3. Boston’s historic Mayoral election

US Private Equity Swoops in on UK Defence Sector 

What happened?

The British Government has intervened in the planned £2.6bn takeover of Ultra Electronics, a UK-based defence company who supply the Royal Navy, by rival Cobham which is owned by US Private Equity firm Advent International.

What does it mean?

By allowing the acquisition of UK defence companies, Britain loses out on a huge amount of intellectual property (IP) that is critical for defence and military purposes. This reduces our ability to advance military technology and industry, whilst the knock-on effects hold Britain back from re-establishing itself as a leading innovator. All in all, it’s not great for ‘Global Britain’ or ‘levelling-up’.

But pressure on the government to become more interventionist is having the desired effect. Ultra Electronics continues a trend of interventionist policies over the past year by the Conservative government, who are now in the habit of defying regulatory boards’ suggestions. The National Security and Investment Act, which comes into force in January 2022, vests power in ministers, not competition authorities, to block takeovers in seventeen areas including energy, transport, and communications, on the grounds of national security.

With US private equity being frustrated and current scrutiny of the situation in Afghanistan, particularly relating to the UK following America’s lead in deciding to pull out, commentators are beginning to question the extent to which Britain should be beholden to US interests.

Is it time for the so-called ‘special relationship’ to be reconsidered?

The Covid School of Economics

What happened?

New data published Tuesday showed a 2.3 percent annual rate of productivity growth in the US in the second quarter of this year, compared with 1.4 percent from 2005 to 2019.

What does it mean?

Over the last decade, productivity growth in the West was extremely poor. Consequently, these societies saw stagnant wages, growing inequality, and a political malaise borne of discontent.

While the U.K.’s furlough scheme means that our productivity statistics don’t give the clear indication that they otherwise would, the ONS produces a measure of output per job that excludes the furlough factor, which has indeed risen. So, why has Covid-19 counterintuitively caused a sudden burst of productivity in the US and seemingly also in the UK?

One likely explanation is that while the pandemic destroyed jobs, it also created labour shortages. And this forced the hand of employers, who have long procrastinated putting in the time and money to find more efficient ways to operate. If this is the dominant factor in the productivity boom, then the political significance of Covid-19 may be felt for a long while to come.

The pandemic could well prove to have been the trigger that clearly demonstrated – contra to free-market orthodoxy – the benefits of labour restrictions not only to select groups of workers, but to the economic health of the nation more generally.

Boston City on the cusp of historic first election

What happened?

Boston is on the brink of a historic Mayoral election, with an all-ethnic minority short-list of candidates remaining in the race.

What does it mean?

Boston is one of the last remaining big US cities to have only elected white men as their mayor, but a nearly two-hundred-year streak is now certain to end with this historic upcoming election. All five candidates in the preliminary race are people of colour, including four women.

Boston is a city that has struggled with racial tensions and has developed a reputation for being “one of the most unequal places in America”. The city was in the spotlight in the 1970s for violent desegregation protests, and inequality has remained persistent ever since. In 2015, it was reported that the median net worth of white Bostonians was $247,000, whilst the net worth of African American Bostonians, who make up 25% of the local population, was just $8.

The short list of candidates, including two black women, has been hailed as a turning point for the city. The race has, however, not been without controversy – candidate Andrea Campbell faced calls to stand down in order to avoid “splitting the black vote”. In response to this, she spoke out, arguing that “black women are not a monolith”.

Unfortunately, identity politics is once again overshadowing more important debates, especially which candidate has the best programme to tackle deep rooted economic inequality.

This Week’s Must Reads

1. ‘How America Failed In Afghanistan’ by Isaac Chotiner for The New Yorker

2. ‘Green issues expose Tory division and loner Boris Johnson’s distance from his party’ by Isabel Hardman for The Guardian

3. ‘How corporations rebrand poverty?’ by Leo McKinstry for The Spectator

4. ‘Iran’s drones give Houthis an edge in Yemen war’ by Richard Spencer for The Times

Subscribe

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

Company

Industry