Australia has launched a new tourism campaign starring singer <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/kylie-minogue-sparkles-on-glastonbury-stage-14-years-after-cancer-battle-231919">Kylie Minogue</a> aiming to attract British tourists fatigued by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/queen-stresses-reconciliation-after-bruising-brexit-year-269917">Brexit </a>to escape on a laid-back Down Under holiday.

The three-minute advertisement, which premiered ahead of the queen's televised Christmas Day address in Britain, begins with a primly dressed Minogue apparently at Sandringham, the monarch's country home, before the set disappears to show the pop star on a beach of the same name in Australia.

London-based Minogue begins by singing&nbsp;"This year's been tough and confusing, but&nbsp;progress&nbsp;is moving" before antipodean comedian Adam Hills jumps in with "Well, at a glacial pace".

"But all of Australia loves you, and we'll never judge you," the 51-year-old former Neighbours star continues.

The "Matesong" video later alludes to Brexit again with the lyrics "negotiating tricky trade deals&nbsp;is a shocker".

Tourism Australia said the Aus$15 million ($10 million) campaign was its largest investment in the British market for more than a decade.

"At a time of uncertainty in the UK, the light-hearted musical tribute represents a symbolic hand of friendship from Australia that warmly celebrates the deep and long-standing ties that exist between the two countries," the marketing agency said in a statement.

While the ad is timed to reach Brits as they face the chill of winter, it also comes as Australia's tourism industry weighs the potentially negative effects of devastating bushfires that have been raging across the country for months.

With Sydney's usually pristine blue harbour regularly obscured by thick smoke haze and badly burned koalas losing large swathes of their habitat, traditional tourism drawcards have featured heavily in global media coverage of the disaster.

Some internet users noted an incongruity between the reality of the bushfire crisis and the advertised&nbsp;images of clear blue skies and healthy marsupials.

The ad which also features world tennis number one Ashleigh Barty, Olympic swimmer<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/end-gold-medal-targets-says-australian-ian-thorpe-142334"> Ian Thorpe</a>, and ex-cricketer <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/shane-warne-hired-to-coach-lords-based-london-team-in-the-hundred-241877">Shane Warne</a> is part of a three-year global Tourism Australia campaign worth Aus$38 million.

Australia has launched a new tourism campaign starring singer Kylie Minogue aiming to attract British tourists fatigued by Brexit to escape on a laid-back Down Under holiday.

Australia has launched a new tourism campaign starring singer Kylie Minogue aiming to attract British tourists fatigued by Brexit to escape on a laid-back Down Under holiday. The three-minute advertisement, which premiered ahead of the queen's televised Christmas Day address in Britain, begins with a primly dressed Minogue apparently at Sandringham, the monarch's country home, before the set disappears to show the pop star on a beach of the same name in Australia. London-based Minogue begins by singing "This year's been tough and confusing, but progress is moving" before antipodean comedian Adam Hills jumps in with "Well, at a glacial pace". "But all of Australia loves you, and we'll never judge you," the 51-year-old former Neighbours star continues. The "Matesong" video later alludes to Brexit again with the lyrics "negotiating tricky trade deals is a shocker". Tourism Australia said the Aus$15 million ($10 million) campaign was its largest investment in the British market for more than a decade. "At a time of uncertainty in the UK, the light-hearted musical tribute represents a symbolic hand of friendship from Australia that warmly celebrates the deep and long-standing ties that exist between the two countries," the marketing agency said in a statement. While the ad is timed to reach Brits as they face the chill of winter, it also comes as Australia's tourism industry weighs the potentially negative effects of devastating bushfires that have been raging across the country for months. With Sydney's usually pristine blue harbour regularly obscured by thick smoke haze and badly burned koalas losing large swathes of their habitat, traditional tourism drawcards have featured heavily in global media coverage of the disaster. Some internet users noted an incongruity between the reality of the bushfire crisis and the advertised images of clear blue skies and healthy marsupials. The ad which also features world tennis number one Ashleigh Barty, Olympic swimmer Ian Thorpe, and ex-cricketer Shane Warne is part of a three-year global Tourism Australia campaign worth Aus$38 million.

Escape Brexit with Down Under holiday, Australia tells UK

Britain`s Prince Philip, the 98-year-old husband of Queen Elizabeth, left a London hospital on Tuesday where he had been receiving treatment since Friday. 
 
A Reuters photographer said Philip, whose official title is the Duke of Edinburgh, walked out of the King Edward VII Hospital, and got into a car before being driven away. 
 
Philip had been taken to hospital as a precautionary measure for treatment for a pre-existing condition, Buckingham Palace said on Friday.

Britain`s Prince Philip, the 98-year-old husband of Queen Elizabeth, left a London hospital on Tuesday where he had been receiving treatment since Friday. A Reuters photographer said Philip, whose official title is the Duke of Edinburgh, walked out of the King Edward VII Hospital, and got into a car before being driven away.

Britain`s Prince Philip, the 98-year-old husband of Queen Elizabeth, left a London hospital on Tuesday where he had been receiving treatment since Friday. A Reuters photographer said Philip, whose official title is the Duke of Edinburgh, walked out of the King Edward VII Hospital, and got into a car before being driven away. Philip had been taken to hospital as a precautionary measure for treatment for a pre-existing condition, Buckingham Palace said on Friday.

Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth, leaves hospital

The Briton who made public a message in a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/entertainment-prince-william-and-kate-release-christmas-card-and-its-adorable-27198">Christmas card</a> claiming to be from Chinese prisoners involved in forced labour on Monday dismissed Beijing's denial as "lies".

Peter Humphrey, a former fraud investigator, and journalist wrote an article about the note allegedly penned by foreign inmates in Shanghai's Qingpu prison&nbsp;where he himself was once held.

A spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry denied there was any forced labour by foreign convicts at Qingpu and attacked Humphrey for inventing a "farce" to "hype himself up".

Contacted by AFP for his response, Humphrey who is now based in Britain said: "It's the kind of answer they have given to every allegation of human rights abuses that is ever mentioned.

"This is really completely to be expected because nothing except lies ever comes back to the world when any such issue arises," he said.

The note was found by a London schoolgirl in a Christmas card sold by supermarket giant <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/tesco-suspends-chinese-supplier-after-suspected-prisoner-message-269636">Tesco</a>, and claimed to be from foreign prisoners in Qingpu "forced to work against our will".

Tesco expressed shock at the revelation and announced it was both stopping the sale of the cards and ceasing production at the Chinese factory involved while it investigated.

The note asked whoever received it to contact Humphrey, who spent nine months in Qingpu during almost two years in custody in China for illegally obtaining personal information charges he dismissed as "bogus".

He told AFP he had never met the girl or her family, but when they got in touch and showed him a copy of the note, "I absolutely knew it was true, in my gut, because I know the handwriting."

He would not name the author for fear of repercussions but noted it was not the first time prisoners in China had got a message out this way.

"It's too dangerous for them to use correspondence, phone calls or consular meetings" to raise concerns about conditions, he said.

Humphrey said he did not hold Tesco responsible if it were found to have used prison labour.

"China makes it impossible for a company to drill down right to the bottom of the supply chain to identify the small contractors," he said.

And he said he believed the prisoners involved were working against their will.

"They don't mean that they are chained to a factory table and whipped. What they mean is that they have been put in a position where&nbsp;they are coerced," he said.

Humphrey said he had heard from former prisoners that in the last 12-18 months, the jail had blocked remittances from families for inmates' daily necessities like toiletries.

"They blocked that as a way to try and force the prisoners to work in the labour production, where they can earn £10 to £12&nbsp;worth of renminbi per month," he said.

He added that a merit system allowing prisoners to shave time off their sentences, for example by working or studying, was now open only to those prepared to do labour.

The Briton who made public a message in a Christmas card claiming to be from Chinese prisoners involved in forced labour on Monday dismissed Beijing's denial as "lies".

The Briton who made public a message in a Christmas card claiming to be from Chinese prisoners involved in forced labour on Monday dismissed Beijing's denial as "lies". Peter Humphrey, a former fraud investigator, and journalist wrote an article about the note allegedly penned by foreign inmates in Shanghai's Qingpu prison where he himself was once held. A spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry denied there was any forced labour by foreign convicts at Qingpu and attacked Humphrey for inventing a "farce" to "hype himself up". Contacted by AFP for his response, Humphrey who is now based in Britain said: "It's the kind of answer they have given to every allegation of human rights abuses that is ever mentioned. "This is really completely to be expected because nothing except lies ever comes back to the world when any such issue arises," he said. The note was found by a London schoolgirl in a Christmas card sold by supermarket giant Tesco, and claimed to be from foreign prisoners in Qingpu "forced to work against our will". Tesco expressed shock at the revelation and announced it was both stopping the sale of the cards and ceasing production at the Chinese factory involved while it investigated. The note asked whoever received it to contact Humphrey, who spent nine months in Qingpu during almost two years in custody in China for illegally obtaining personal information charges he dismissed as "bogus". He told AFP he had never met the girl or her family, but when they got in touch and showed him a copy of the note, "I absolutely knew it was true, in my gut, because I know the handwriting." He would not name the author for fear of repercussions but noted it was not the first time prisoners in China had got a message out this way. "It's too dangerous for them to use correspondence, phone calls or consular meetings" to raise concerns about conditions, he said. Humphrey said he did not hold Tesco responsible if it were found to have used prison labour. "China makes it impossible for a company to drill down right to the bottom of the supply chain to identify the small contractors," he said. And he said he believed the prisoners involved were working against their will. "They don't mean that they are chained to a factory table and whipped. What they mean is that they have been put in a position where they are coerced," he said. Humphrey said he had heard from former prisoners that in the last 12-18 months, the jail had blocked remittances from families for inmates' daily necessities like toiletries. "They blocked that as a way to try and force the prisoners to work in the labour production, where they can earn £10 to £12 worth of renminbi per month," he said. He added that a merit system allowing prisoners to shave time off their sentences, for example by working or studying, was now open only to those prepared to do labour.

Ex-inmate hits back at China 'lies' over prison labour row

By David Hastings Dunn

Boris Johnson has taken the scale of the Conservative Party’s election victory as an emphatic mandate to leave the European Union in 2020. But what of the implications of the vote for the UK-US relationship? Despite enthusiastic tweets from President Donald Trump, the longer-term consequences of Johnson’s 80-seat majority for the “special relationship” may point in a different direction to the short-term lessons.

In the immediate aftermath of the election, the Trump White House will be relieved that it doesn’t have to deal with Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister, a man who has spent his life railing against American imperialism and opposing US foreign and security policies on almost all issues. For the rest of his tenure, whether re-elected or not, Trump can look forward to dealing with Johnson.

I have researched the US-UK relationship and how it has evolved under different presidencies. Although Corbyn was looked on with more suspicion by Trump, in practice, the UK’s departure from the EU is the more seismic disruption to transatlantic relations.

In the short term, Trump will see positive implications in the Conservative victory for his own re-election in November 2020. The defeat of big government socialism by populist nationalism will encourage Trump in the belief that he can repeat the success of the “Britain Trump”.

Corbyn’s defeat has also been seized upon in the Democratic leadership contest with presidential candidate Joe Biden warning: “Look what happens when the Labour Party moves so, so far to the left.” There are lessons to be drawn for both parties about the importance of embracing a leadership candidate who appears credible and popular to swing voters.

Deals brewing

Trump will also be pleased that Britain will be leaving the EU, which he sees mainly as a competitor trading block rather than a promoter of liberal values and rules-based international order. What weakens the EU and its progressive agenda will be welcomed by Trump. For the “America first” president, however, Brexit is mainly seen as an opportunity to “strike a massive new trade deal” with “the potential to be far bigger and more lucrative than any deal that could be made with the EU”.

With the UK sending 45 per cent of its exports of goods and services to the EU in 2018 as opposed to 19 per cent&nbsp;to the US, this would represent quite a change in trade policy. For such a change to occur, a “clean break Brexit” is necessary where regulatory alignment with the EU ends so that trade policy could come into line with US food and manufacturing standards. This is the line that Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party advocate to accelerate the transition to such a US trade deal.

The scale of Johnson’s victory, however, means that he can now choose the Brexit he wants, unbeholden to the more extreme wing of his party represented by MPs from the European Research Group. Eager to hang on to the new coalition of working-class voters in the north and Midlands, Johnson may seek a Brexit deal with the EU that is less disruptive and damaging to existing trade policies than that advocated by Farage and Trump. Certainly, the extent to which any aspect of the health sector is opened up to the US market will be greatly scrutinised by the opposition and press. Under these circumstances, Trump may not get the deal he wants.

Questions of power

After the UK leaves the EU, the US will also miss its main source of influence in Brussels. The US embassy in London is the largest in Europe because the UK is seen as the best way of persuading the EU to act in concert with Washington. It is through this link, for example, that the US has historically orchestrated common positions on sanctions policies and relations with Russia. With the UK out of the EU, the US will have less influence in Brussels and the UK will correspondingly be of less value to Washington.

Without the dissenting and cautionary voice of the UK in the EU, the block will also be free to pursue greater integration on defence and security and a more independent European voice in foreign and trade policies. The bridging role that London played in persuading the EU to take a common line with Washington on arms sales to China, or sanctions on Russia will not be easily replaced.

The role that the UK formerly played within Europe as a voice for liberal internationalism has now also been replaced with a government that is seen as a role model for populist nationalism in Europe. Rather than fulfilling a unifying role, post-Brexit Britain will add to the divisions within the west.

The UK’s ability to maintain its place as a veto-wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council will also be questioned once it leaves the EU. Having justified this position for the last 20 years because it represents, along with fellow permanent member France, 500 million Europeans, it will now be difficult to argue that its seat should be maintained to speak for Britain alone.

Trump can probably expect a more obsequious disposition from the UK towards the US as it pursues a new trading relationship with Washington. But future US administrations may come to regret the consequences of this election result and the Brexit that follows on their influence in Europe and the unity of the West in general.

(David Hastings Dunn is Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-enthusiastic-about-boris-johnsons-victory-but-it-wont-be-smooth-sailing-for-the-special-relationship-128727">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

By David Hastings Dunn Boris Johnson has taken the scale of the Conservative Party’s election victory as an emphatic mandate to leave the European Union in 2020.

By David Hastings Dunn Boris Johnson has taken the scale of the Conservative Party’s election victory as an emphatic mandate to leave the European Union in 2020. But what of the implications of the vote for the UK-US relationship? Despite enthusiastic tweets from President Donald Trump, the longer-term consequences of Johnson’s 80-seat majority for the “special relationship” may point in a different direction to the short-term lessons. In the immediate aftermath of the election, the Trump White House will be relieved that it doesn’t have to deal with Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister, a man who has spent his life railing against American imperialism and opposing US foreign and security policies on almost all issues. For the rest of his tenure, whether re-elected or not, Trump can look forward to dealing with Johnson. I have researched the US-UK relationship and how it has evolved under different presidencies. Although Corbyn was looked on with more suspicion by Trump, in practice, the UK’s departure from the EU is the more seismic disruption to transatlantic relations. In the short term, Trump will see positive implications in the Conservative victory for his own re-election in November 2020. The defeat of big government socialism by populist nationalism will encourage Trump in the belief that he can repeat the success of the “Britain Trump”. Corbyn’s defeat has also been seized upon in the Democratic leadership contest with presidential candidate Joe Biden warning: “Look what happens when the Labour Party moves so, so far to the left.” There are lessons to be drawn for both parties about the importance of embracing a leadership candidate who appears credible and popular to swing voters. Deals brewing Trump will also be pleased that Britain will be leaving the EU, which he sees mainly as a competitor trading block rather than a promoter of liberal values and rules-based international order. What weakens the EU and its progressive agenda will be welcomed by Trump. For the “America first” president, however, Brexit is mainly seen as an opportunity to “strike a massive new trade deal” with “the potential to be far bigger and more lucrative than any deal that could be made with the EU”. With the UK sending 45 per cent of its exports of goods and services to the EU in 2018 as opposed to 19 per cent to the US, this would represent quite a change in trade policy. For such a change to occur, a “clean break Brexit” is necessary where regulatory alignment with the EU ends so that trade policy could come into line with US food and manufacturing standards. This is the line that Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party advocate to accelerate the transition to such a US trade deal. The scale of Johnson’s victory, however, means that he can now choose the Brexit he wants, unbeholden to the more extreme wing of his party represented by MPs from the European Research Group. Eager to hang on to the new coalition of working-class voters in the north and Midlands, Johnson may seek a Brexit deal with the EU that is less disruptive and damaging to existing trade policies than that advocated by Farage and Trump. Certainly, the extent to which any aspect of the health sector is opened up to the US market will be greatly scrutinised by the opposition and press. Under these circumstances, Trump may not get the deal he wants. Questions of power After the UK leaves the EU, the US will also miss its main source of influence in Brussels. The US embassy in London is the largest in Europe because the UK is seen as the best way of persuading the EU to act in concert with Washington. It is through this link, for example, that the US has historically orchestrated common positions on sanctions policies and relations with Russia. With the UK out of the EU, the US will have less influence in Brussels and the UK will correspondingly be of less value to Washington. Without the dissenting and cautionary voice of the UK in the EU, the block will also be free to pursue greater integration on defence and security and a more independent European voice in foreign and trade policies. The bridging role that London played in persuading the EU to take a common line with Washington on arms sales to China, or sanctions on Russia will not be easily replaced. The role that the UK formerly played within Europe as a voice for liberal internationalism has now also been replaced with a government that is seen as a role model for populist nationalism in Europe. Rather than fulfilling a unifying role, post-Brexit Britain will add to the divisions within the west. The UK’s ability to maintain its place as a veto-wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council will also be questioned once it leaves the EU. Having justified this position for the last 20 years because it represents, along with fellow permanent member France, 500 million Europeans, it will now be difficult to argue that its seat should be maintained to speak for Britain alone. Trump can probably expect a more obsequious disposition from the UK towards the US as it pursues a new trading relationship with Washington. But future US administrations may come to regret the consequences of this election result and the Brexit that follows on their influence in Europe and the unity of the West in general. (David Hastings Dunn is Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Donald Trump enthusiastic about Boris Johnson’s victory – but it won’t be smooth sailing for them

British <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-talks-with-uks-boris-johnson-pm-modi-resolves-to-work-closely-together-269028">Prime Minister Boris Johnson</a>'s main priority is to deliver Brexit on January 31 and then negotiate a free trade deal with the European Union and other leading global economies, Queen Elizabeth said on Thursday, outlining his plans.

In a ceremony marking the opening of the new parliament after Johnson won a national election last week, Elizabeth listed his government's programme.

"My government's priority is to deliver the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union on the 31st of January," she told members of the upper and lower houses of parliament.

"Thereafter my ministers will seek a future relationship with the European Union based on a free trade agreement that benefits the whole of the United Kingdom. They will also begin trade negotiations with other leading global economies."

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's main priority is to deliver Brexit on January 31 and then negotiate a free trade deal with the European Union and other leading global economies, Queen Elizabeth said on Thursday, outlining his plans.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's main priority is to deliver Brexit on January 31 and then negotiate a free trade deal with the European Union and other leading global economies, Queen Elizabeth said on Thursday, outlining his plans. In a ceremony marking the opening of the new parliament after Johnson won a national election last week, Elizabeth listed his government's programme. "My government's priority is to deliver the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union on the 31st of January," she told members of the upper and lower houses of parliament. "Thereafter my ministers will seek a future relationship with the European Union based on a free trade agreement that benefits the whole of the United Kingdom. They will also begin trade negotiations with other leading global economies."

Britain's Johnson sets Brexit on January 31 as top priority: Queen

Former British prime minister Tony Blair, Labour's most successful leader, on Wednesday urged the party to rebuild from electoral humiliation by rejecting the "protest movement with cult trimmings" created by outgoing leader <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-opposition-chief-corbyn-sorry-for-election-wipeout-268383">Jeremy Corbyn</a>.

Thursday's defeat was Labour's worst since 1935, and a battle for control is now underway between moderates and Corbyn's hard-left allies.

Blair won three elections for Labour by hauling it towards a business-friendly centrist platform and was premier from 1997 to 2007. But he lost favour in part by sending British forces to back the US&nbsp;President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Corbyn's supporters say Blair both betrayed the working classes and undermined faith in politicians, and "Blairism" remains badly tarnished, both inside and outside Labour.

After <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/first-stop-brexit-uks-johnson-gets-down-to-work-268636">Prime Minister Boris Johnson</a>'s party swept up long-standing Labour constituencies in working-class areas of northern and central England, including Blair's old seat, the ex-premier said few would now bet against another decade of Conservative rule.

"The takeover of the Labour Party by the far left turned it into a glorified protest movement with cult trimmings, utterly incapable of being a credible government," Blair said. "The result has brought shame on us."

Labour won just 203 seats, down 59, and saw its vote fall by 7.8 percentage points to 32.2 per cent, while the Conservatives won 365 seats, up 47, on 43.6 per cent&nbsp;of the vote.

Also watch:&nbsp;UK's PM welcomes 109 lawmakers after a landslide victory

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/uks-pm-welcomes-109-lawmakers-after-a-landslide-victory-268710/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Corbyn is standing down in the new year and prominent Labour lawmakers including Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer are considering running to replace him as the leader.

Blair said Labour must now "renew itself as the serious, progressive, non-Conservative competitor for power in British politics, or retreat from such an ambition, in which case over time it will be replaced".

He said Corbyn had personified "an idea, a brand, of quasi-revolutionary socialism, mixing far-left economic policy with deep hostility to Western foreign policy", and that voters had found his "combination of misguided ideology and terminal ineptitude" insulting.

"To win power we need self-discipline, not self-indulgence," he said.

Corbyn had promised a radical socialist programme of higher public spending, sweeping nationalisation and taxes on the wealthy.

Blair said this "wish list" would have caused chaos if implemented.

"Any fool can promise everything for free but the people weren't fooled," he said. "They know life isn't like that."

Blair also said that Corbyn's complicated and equivocal stance on leaving the EU - while Johnson endlessly promised to "<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/boris-johnson-uses-threat-of-brexit-cliff-edge-to-demand-eu-trade-deal-by-end-of-2020-268681">Get Brexit done</a>" - had displeased both opponents and advocates of Brexit. Always ambiguous on EU membership, Corbyn promised voters a second EU referendum, in which he would remain neutral.

"We pursued a path of almost comic indecision, alienated both sides of the debate," Blair said.

"The absence of leadership on what was obviously the biggest question facing the country then reinforced all the other doubts about Jeremy Corbyn."

Former British prime minister Tony Blair, Labour's most successful leader, on Wednesday urged the party to rebuild from electoral humiliation by rejecting the "protest movement with cult trimmings" created by outgoing leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Former British prime minister Tony Blair, Labour's most successful leader, on Wednesday urged the party to rebuild from electoral humiliation by rejecting the "protest movement with cult trimmings" created by outgoing leader Jeremy Corbyn. Thursday's defeat was Labour's worst since 1935, and a battle for control is now underway between moderates and Corbyn's hard-left allies. Blair won three elections for Labour by hauling it towards a business-friendly centrist platform and was premier from 1997 to 2007. But he lost favour in part by sending British forces to back the US President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003. Corbyn's supporters say Blair both betrayed the working classes and undermined faith in politicians, and "Blairism" remains badly tarnished, both inside and outside Labour. After Prime Minister Boris Johnson's party swept up long-standing Labour constituencies in working-class areas of northern and central England, including Blair's old seat, the ex-premier said few would now bet against another decade of Conservative rule. "The takeover of the Labour Party by the far left turned it into a glorified protest movement with cult trimmings, utterly incapable of being a credible government," Blair said. "The result has brought shame on us." Labour won just 203 seats, down 59, and saw its vote fall by 7.8 percentage points to 32.2 per cent, while the Conservatives won 365 seats, up 47, on 43.6 per cent of the vote. Also watch: UK's PM welcomes 109 lawmakers after a landslide victory × Corbyn is standing down in the new year and prominent Labour lawmakers including Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer are considering running to replace him as the leader. Blair said Labour must now "renew itself as the serious, progressive, non-Conservative competitor for power in British politics, or retreat from such an ambition, in which case over time it will be replaced". He said Corbyn had personified "an idea, a brand, of quasi-revolutionary socialism, mixing far-left economic policy with deep hostility to Western foreign policy", and that voters had found his "combination of misguided ideology and terminal ineptitude" insulting. "To win power we need self-discipline, not self-indulgence," he said. Corbyn had promised a radical socialist programme of higher public spending, sweeping nationalisation and taxes on the wealthy. Blair said this "wish list" would have caused chaos if implemented. "Any fool can promise everything for free but the people weren't fooled," he said. "They know life isn't like that." Blair also said that Corbyn's complicated and equivocal stance on leaving the EU - while Johnson endlessly promised to "Get Brexit done" - had displeased both opponents and advocates of Brexit. Always ambiguous on EU membership, Corbyn promised voters a second EU referendum, in which he would remain neutral. "We pursued a path of almost comic indecision, alienated both sides of the debate," Blair said. "The absence of leadership on what was obviously the biggest question facing the country then reinforced all the other doubts about Jeremy Corbyn."

Former PM Blair tells Britain's Labour Party: change or you will disappear

Britain stands to lose more than the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eu-agrees-on-2050-climate-neutrality-without-poland-268400">European Union</a> if the two fail to strike a trade deal by the end of next year, the head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen told the European Parliament on Wednesday.

Britain set a hard <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/boris-johnson-uses-threat-of-brexit-cliff-edge-to-demand-eu-trade-deal-by-end-of-2020-268681">deadline of December 2020</a> on Tuesday to reach a new trade deal with the European Union, betting that the prospect of another Brexit cliff-edge would force Brussels to move quickly to seal an accord.

"The timetable ahead of us is extremely challenging," Von der Leyen said. "It ends by December 2020. It leaves us very little time. In case we cannot conclude an agreement by the end of 2020 we will face again a cliff-edge situation," she said.

"This would clearly harm our interests, but it would impact the UK more than us as the European Union will continue benefiting from its single market, its customs union and the 70 international agreements we have signed with our partners," she said.

Britain stands to lose more than the European Union if the two fail to strike a trade deal by the end of next year, the head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen told the European Parliament on Wednesday.

Britain stands to lose more than the European Union if the two fail to strike a trade deal by the end of next year, the head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen told the European Parliament on Wednesday. Britain set a hard deadline of December 2020 on Tuesday to reach a new trade deal with the European Union, betting that the prospect of another Brexit cliff-edge would force Brussels to move quickly to seal an accord. "The timetable ahead of us is extremely challenging," Von der Leyen said. "It ends by December 2020. It leaves us very little time. In case we cannot conclude an agreement by the end of 2020 we will face again a cliff-edge situation," she said. "This would clearly harm our interests, but it would impact the UK more than us as the European Union will continue benefiting from its single market, its customs union and the 70 international agreements we have signed with our partners," she said.

Britain stands to lose more than European Union from lack of trade deal by end-2020: EU

By Victoria Honeyman

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 negotiations with both the EU and other nations. By remaining at least partially linked to the EU, Britain would be able to present itself in trade negotiations as part of a larger market, giving it more power and a louder voice.

US and China

Beyond Brexit, Johnson and US President Donald Trump will undoubtedly remain close, meaning the so-called “special relationship” will be publicly supported and championed. This public friendship may not make Johnson popular on the global stage, but with his majority, and a potential victory for Trump in November 2020, he may not care.

Bonhomie aside, the extent that camaraderie between Johnson and Trump will benefit Britain is more questionable. Securing a favourable post-Brexit trade deal with the US will remain very challenging.

Britain is already looking to strengthen economic and political ties with Commonwealth countries – Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, swiftly tweeted his congratulations to Johnson. The reality of leaning on the Commonwealth will not be as lucrative as membership of the EU, but the Conservatives are keen to draw on it nonetheless.

Specific countries, like India, will become increasingly important. An economic powerhouse, the UK will want to secure a trade deal with India. But at what cost? For India, any trade deal with the UK will have to come with the promise of a relaxation of the visa requirements for Indian nationals. That pay-off may be difficult for Johnson to sell to an electorate which has been repeatedly promised a reduction in immigration and a tightening up of immigration policy from the Conservatives.

China will be another key relationship to watch in future. Relations with China have not been particularly good over the past 20 years. For example China froze investment into the UK under the coalition government following David Cameron’s meeting with the Dalai Lama in 2012. Johnson’s government will be looking to improve this relationship in the hope of a beneficial trade deal.

But how can this be achieved? One recent example is the Conservative government’s response to the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. It might be expected, because of Britain’s historic links with Hong Kong and Britain’s desire to maintain democracy in the territory, that Johnson’s Conservatives would be outspoken in their support of the democratic movements.

Instead, the Johnson government has been quiet on the violence in the territory, a response which will undoubtedly please the Chinese government. It may be that silence is the cost of a future trade deal with China – a stance which has changed from under the leadership of Theresa May, where Jeremy Hunt was fairly outspoken on Hong Kong while foreign secretary.

Weakened

For a post-Brexit Britain, there will undoubtedly be some economic opportunities, but there is a cost. Outside of the EU, Britain is a much smaller power on the global stage, both economically and politically.

To secure those all-important trade deals, Britain will have to decide what pay-offs it is willing to make. For all his bluster, Johnson may have to swallow some uncomfortable truths and some uncomfortable compromises. Whether he can sell those at home is another matter.

The size of the Conservatives’ victory will hammer the final nail in the coffin of the hopes of those in the EU, and in the UK, who wanted a reversal of Brexit. Johnson is not a popular man in Europe, but Brexit fatigue has made his European counterparts keen to work with him to get Brexit finished. While securing a trade deal with the EU by the end of December 2020 will be tricky, it is also in the EU’s interest to make sure that trade remains smooth. 
 
(Victoria Honeyman is Lecturer in British Politics, University of Leeds) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-boris-johnsons-victory-means-for-britains-place-in-the-world-128738">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

By Victoria Honeyman 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.

By Victoria Honeyman 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 negotiations with both the EU and other nations. By remaining at least partially linked to the EU, Britain would be able to present itself in trade negotiations as part of a larger market, giving it more power and a louder voice. US and China Beyond Brexit, Johnson and US President Donald Trump will undoubtedly remain close, meaning the so-called “special relationship” will be publicly supported and championed. This public friendship may not make Johnson popular on the global stage, but with his majority, and a potential victory for Trump in November 2020, he may not care. Bonhomie aside, the extent that camaraderie between Johnson and Trump will benefit Britain is more questionable. Securing a favourable post-Brexit trade deal with the US will remain very challenging. Britain is already looking to strengthen economic and political ties with Commonwealth countries – Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, swiftly tweeted his congratulations to Johnson. The reality of leaning on the Commonwealth will not be as lucrative as membership of the EU, but the Conservatives are keen to draw on it nonetheless. Specific countries, like India, will become increasingly important. An economic powerhouse, the UK will want to secure a trade deal with India. But at what cost? For India, any trade deal with the UK will have to come with the promise of a relaxation of the visa requirements for Indian nationals. That pay-off may be difficult for Johnson to sell to an electorate which has been repeatedly promised a reduction in immigration and a tightening up of immigration policy from the Conservatives. China will be another key relationship to watch in future. Relations with China have not been particularly good over the past 20 years. For example China froze investment into the UK under the coalition government following David Cameron’s meeting with the Dalai Lama in 2012. Johnson’s government will be looking to improve this relationship in the hope of a beneficial trade deal. But how can this be achieved? One recent example is the Conservative government’s response to the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. It might be expected, because of Britain’s historic links with Hong Kong and Britain’s desire to maintain democracy in the territory, that Johnson’s Conservatives would be outspoken in their support of the democratic movements. Instead, the Johnson government has been quiet on the violence in the territory, a response which will undoubtedly please the Chinese government. It may be that silence is the cost of a future trade deal with China – a stance which has changed from under the leadership of Theresa May, where Jeremy Hunt was fairly outspoken on Hong Kong while foreign secretary. Weakened For a post-Brexit Britain, there will undoubtedly be some economic opportunities, but there is a cost. Outside of the EU, Britain is a much smaller power on the global stage, both economically and politically. To secure those all-important trade deals, Britain will have to decide what pay-offs it is willing to make. For all his bluster, Johnson may have to swallow some uncomfortable truths and some uncomfortable compromises. Whether he can sell those at home is another matter. The size of the Conservatives’ victory will hammer the final nail in the coffin of the hopes of those in the EU, and in the UK, who wanted a reversal of Brexit. Johnson is not a popular man in Europe, but Brexit fatigue has made his European counterparts keen to work with him to get Brexit finished. While securing a trade deal with the EU by the end of December 2020 will be tricky, it is also in the EU’s interest to make sure that trade remains smooth. (Victoria Honeyman is Lecturer in British Politics, University of Leeds) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

UK election: What Boris Johnson’s victory means for Britain’s place in the world

Nepal wants to review its military deal with the British, ahead of the planned recruitment of Nepali women in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/9th-gorkha-rifles-bi-centenary-celebrations-held-in-nepal-12076">Gorkha Brigade </a>for the first time in two centuries, its foreign minister said on Friday.&nbsp;

After India gained independence in 1947, an agreement was reached among New Delhi, London and Kathmandu that allowed India and Britan to share and recruit Gorkhas.&nbsp;

In 2007, Britain shared its plans to recruit Gorkha women in its forces, adding, however, that issues of recruitment and selection standards needed to be settled.&nbsp;

"(Some) provisions of that agreement have become irrelevant now. Therefore, we have told Britain that we should review it ... make bilateral arrangements," Foreign Minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali said in an interview to news agency Reuters.&nbsp;

"We should define the presence of the government of Nepal in the (recruitment) process."

The foreign minister added that a new agreement should address issues such as pensions and other benefits, which retired Gurkha servicemen claim are not at par to what their Brtish counterparts get.

Gurkhas, a Nepalese&nbsp;tribe, are being enlisted in the British Army since 1815 as they are known for their combat abilities.&nbsp;

Nepal wants to review its military deal with the British, ahead of the planned recruitment of Nepali women in the Gorkha Brigade for the first time in two centuries, its foreign minister said on Friday.

Nepal wants to review its military deal with the British, ahead of the planned recruitment of Nepali women in the Gorkha Brigade for the first time in two centuries, its foreign minister said on Friday. After India gained independence in 1947, an agreement was reached among New Delhi, London and Kathmandu that allowed India and Britan to share and recruit Gorkhas. In 2007, Britain shared its plans to recruit Gorkha women in its forces, adding, however, that issues of recruitment and selection standards needed to be settled. "(Some) provisions of that agreement have become irrelevant now. Therefore, we have told Britain that we should review it ... make bilateral arrangements," Foreign Minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali said in an interview to news agency Reuters. "We should define the presence of the government of Nepal in the (recruitment) process." The foreign minister added that a new agreement should address issues such as pensions and other benefits, which retired Gurkha servicemen claim are not at par to what their Brtish counterparts get. Gurkhas, a Nepalese tribe, are being enlisted in the British Army since 1815 as they are known for their combat abilities.

Nepal seeks to review Gorkha recruitment agreement with Britain

As Boris Johnson Secures A Simple Majority, Is The Path To Brexit Clear Now?

Gravitas: What Boris Johnson's victory means for Britain & Brexit

Former British Paralympian Victoria Aggar has resigned from the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) Athlete Committee over the organisation's handling of the Russian doping scandal.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/wada-imposes-four-year-ban-on-russia-over-doping-data-manipulation-267195">WADA has banned Russia</a> from all major sporting events for four years for tampering with doping tests, but left the door open for its athletes to compete at next year's Tokyo Games as neutrals under the Olympic flag.

Russia's Olympic Committee has described the sanctions as "illogical and excessive" while President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/putin-says-moscow-could-appeal-russia-sports-ban-267320">could appeal WADA's decision</a>.

However, Aggar, who won a rowing bronze at the Beijing Games in 2008, said WADA had not gone far enough and had broken promises by not imposing a blanket ban on Russian athletes.

"I do not feel that WADA exists any more," she said on Twitter

"Too many political games (or machinations), too many conflicts and too much self-interest has led to too many bad decisions, compromises and broken promises.

"Most recently the biggest blow to athletes is the decision by WADA to ignore calls from its very own Athlete Committee for Russia to be banned from competing at the next Olympic and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/paralympics-chief-disgusted-with-russia-for-letting-down-nations-clean-athletes-267410">Paralympic Games</a>."

Aggar, one of 17 committee members, said WADA had refused to publish several Athlete Committee statements on its website.

"The concept of silencing athletes is one of the reasons why we are seeing so much abuse in sport," she said.

"I believe every athlete has the right to clean sport and in such an environment I don't believe Russian athletes will have this choice.

"Yes, they will suffer in the short term with a blanket ban but in the long term we may be able to contribute to a change of culture for the future young generations."

WADA director-general Olivier Niggli told the BBC in response to Aggar's resignation that the decision not to publish the statements was due to the lack of a "clear majority" among committee members.

"Nine members were in favour of issuing a statement objecting to the (independent compliance review committee's) recommendation (on Russia), while eight were against and had prepared an alternative statement," he said.&nbsp;

"Therefore, there was no consensus, and it would have been very strange - to say the least - for WADA to publish two different statements from its own Athlete Committee. In my view, it is simply not correct to mislead in this fashion."

Former British Paralympian Victoria Aggar has resigned from the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) Athlete Committee over the organisation's handling of the Russian doping scandal.

Former British Paralympian Victoria Aggar has resigned from the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) Athlete Committee over the organisation's handling of the Russian doping scandal. WADA has banned Russia from all major sporting events for four years for tampering with doping tests, but left the door open for its athletes to compete at next year's Tokyo Games as neutrals under the Olympic flag. Russia's Olympic Committee has described the sanctions as "illogical and excessive" while President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow could appeal WADA's decision. However, Aggar, who won a rowing bronze at the Beijing Games in 2008, said WADA had not gone far enough and had broken promises by not imposing a blanket ban on Russian athletes. "I do not feel that WADA exists any more," she said on Twitter "Too many political games (or machinations), too many conflicts and too much self-interest has led to too many bad decisions, compromises and broken promises. "Most recently the biggest blow to athletes is the decision by WADA to ignore calls from its very own Athlete Committee for Russia to be banned from competing at the next Olympic and Paralympic Games." Aggar, one of 17 committee members, said WADA had refused to publish several Athlete Committee statements on its website. "The concept of silencing athletes is one of the reasons why we are seeing so much abuse in sport," she said. "I believe every athlete has the right to clean sport and in such an environment I don't believe Russian athletes will have this choice. "Yes, they will suffer in the short term with a blanket ban but in the long term we may be able to contribute to a change of culture for the future young generations." WADA director-general Olivier Niggli told the BBC in response to Aggar's resignation that the decision not to publish the statements was due to the lack of a "clear majority" among committee members. "Nine members were in favour of issuing a statement objecting to the (independent compliance review committee's) recommendation (on Russia), while eight were against and had prepared an alternative statement," he said. "Therefore, there was no consensus, and it would have been very strange - to say the least - for WADA to publish two different statements from its own Athlete Committee. In my view, it is simply not correct to mislead in this fashion."

Britain's Aggar quits WADA role over Russia scandal

Scotland must be allowed to hold another referendum on its place inside the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-general-election-a-look-at-possible-outcomes-of-the-uk-vote-267764">United Kingdom</a> following the crushing victory of the nationalists in the election, leader Nicola Sturgeon said on Friday.

The exit poll predicted that the Scottish National Party would win 55 of the 59 seats in Scotland.

"There is a mandate now to offer the people of Scotland the choice over our own future," Sturgeon told Sky News.

"There is a clear desire and endorsement for the notion that Scotland should not be landed with a Boris Johnson government and ripped out of Europe against our own will.

"<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brexit-beckons-as-uks-johnson-coasts-to-commanding-win-267999">Boris Johnson</a> may have the mandate to take England out of the European Union. He emphatically does not have the mandate to take Scotland out of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/european-leaders-welcome-brexit-clarity-from-conservative-victory-267987">European Union</a>. Scotland must have a choice over our own future."

Scotland must be allowed to hold another referendum on its place inside the United Kingdom following the crushing victory of the nationalists in the election, leader Nicola Sturgeon said on Friday.

Scotland must be allowed to hold another referendum on its place inside the United Kingdom following the crushing victory of the nationalists in the election, leader Nicola Sturgeon said on Friday. The exit poll predicted that the Scottish National Party would win 55 of the 59 seats in Scotland. "There is a mandate now to offer the people of Scotland the choice over our own future," Sturgeon told Sky News. "There is a clear desire and endorsement for the notion that Scotland should not be landed with a Boris Johnson government and ripped out of Europe against our own will. "Boris Johnson may have the mandate to take England out of the European Union. He emphatically does not have the mandate to take Scotland out of the European Union. Scotland must have a choice over our own future."

Scotland must be given new independence vote: Nicola Sturgeon

A record number of women were elected as lawmakers in Britain's general election, with women's rights campaigners on Friday cheering the result but saying progress towards equal representation must speed up.

Women now represent just over a third of all members of parliament (MPs), taking 220 seats out of 650 in Britain's lower house compared to 208 in the previous election, after a dramatic night that saw the ruling Conservative party make major gains.

One seat was yet to declare a result on Friday afternoon.

"More women MPs than ever before is very welcome but we are inching forwards, up from 32 per cent&nbsp;to just 34 per cent," said Sam Smethers, the chief executive of women's rights group the Fawcett Society.

"Instead of congratulating ourselves for extremely slow progress let's see a commitment from all the political parties to an action to make the step change that is needed. It is time for equal power."&nbsp;

Parties are facing growing scrutiny over the diversity of their candidates, but women's campaigners say toxic politics and high levels of gendered abuse are driving away female MPs.

Two-thirds of female lawmakers told a survey by parliament's Women and Equalities Committee in November that progress on tackling violence and online abuse against women in politics impacted their willingness to stand for re-election.

A number of female candidates chose not to stand again in the December 12 election, with several citing the level of abuse they had experienced in the role as a factor.

The rise in representation largely came from a boost in female MPs for the ruling Conservative party although only about a quarter of its seats are filled by women.

Meanwhile, the left-wing Labour party was left with a majority of female MPs - 104 to 98 men - after a night which saw it suffer heavy losses.

At the current rate of progress, it will take decades to reach equality, said campaigners at the 50:50 Parliament group, which has run a campaign to encourage more women to stand for election to parliament.

"Clearly much more work needs to be done to build a better democracy that draws upon the talent and experience of the 32 million UK women," said the group's director Frances Scott.

A record number of women were elected as lawmakers in Britain's general election, with women's rights campaigners on Friday cheering the result but saying progress towards equal representation must speed up.

A record number of women were elected as lawmakers in Britain's general election, with women's rights campaigners on Friday cheering the result but saying progress towards equal representation must speed up. Women now represent just over a third of all members of parliament (MPs), taking 220 seats out of 650 in Britain's lower house compared to 208 in the previous election, after a dramatic night that saw the ruling Conservative party make major gains. One seat was yet to declare a result on Friday afternoon. "More women MPs than ever before is very welcome but we are inching forwards, up from 32 per cent to just 34 per cent," said Sam Smethers, the chief executive of women's rights group the Fawcett Society. "Instead of congratulating ourselves for extremely slow progress let's see a commitment from all the political parties to an action to make the step change that is needed. It is time for equal power." Parties are facing growing scrutiny over the diversity of their candidates, but women's campaigners say toxic politics and high levels of gendered abuse are driving away female MPs. Two-thirds of female lawmakers told a survey by parliament's Women and Equalities Committee in November that progress on tackling violence and online abuse against women in politics impacted their willingness to stand for re-election. A number of female candidates chose not to stand again in the December 12 election, with several citing the level of abuse they had experienced in the role as a factor. The rise in representation largely came from a boost in female MPs for the ruling Conservative party although only about a quarter of its seats are filled by women. Meanwhile, the left-wing Labour party was left with a majority of female MPs - 104 to 98 men - after a night which saw it suffer heavy losses. At the current rate of progress, it will take decades to reach equality, said campaigners at the 50:50 Parliament group, which has run a campaign to encourage more women to stand for election to parliament. "Clearly much more work needs to be done to build a better democracy that draws upon the talent and experience of the 32 million UK women," said the group's director Frances Scott.

Britain elects record number of female lawmakers in 2019 election

Northern Ireland elected more Irish nationalists to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-pm-johnson-we-have-a-powerful-mandate-for-brexit-268022">Britain's parliament</a> than pro-British unionists for the first time on Friday, after the largest nationalist party Sinn Fein narrowly won the final of the region's 18 seats.

That meant Sinn Fein kept its seven seats and the resurgent fellow pro-Irish SDLP won two, combining to pass the Democratic Unionist Party, which fell from 10 seats to eight.

The cross-community Alliance Party took the final seat, adding to the majority of anti-Brexit MPs after its share of the total vote rocketed by almost 10 per cent.

A first since the partition of Ireland in 1921, the result led to increased calls from Sinn Fein for a vote to split from the rest of the United Kingdom, as <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brexit-beckons-as-uks-johnson-coasts-to-commanding-win-267999">Prime Minister Boris Johnson</a> won a resounding majority across the union.

Northern Ireland elected more Irish nationalists to Britain's parliament than pro-British unionists for the first time on Friday, after the largest nationalist party Sinn Fein narrowly won the final of the region's 18 seats.

Northern Ireland elected more Irish nationalists to Britain's parliament than pro-British unionists for the first time on Friday, after the largest nationalist party Sinn Fein narrowly won the final of the region's 18 seats. That meant Sinn Fein kept its seven seats and the resurgent fellow pro-Irish SDLP won two, combining to pass the Democratic Unionist Party, which fell from 10 seats to eight. The cross-community Alliance Party took the final seat, adding to the majority of anti-Brexit MPs after its share of the total vote rocketed by almost 10 per cent. A first since the partition of Ireland in 1921, the result led to increased calls from Sinn Fein for a vote to split from the rest of the United Kingdom, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson won a resounding majority across the union.

In a first, Irish nationalists overtake unionists at UK election

On Thursday, Britons will vote for what will be the third <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/with-brexit-and-economy-at-stake-britain-braces-for-third-election-in-four-years-267352">general election </a>in less than five years. Britain Prime Minister Boris Johnson describes the polls as the most important in a generation.&nbsp;

So, as the UK heads to polls, let's look at how the last three elections played out.&nbsp;

2010 election: Coalition government

Ahead of the global financial crisis in 2007, Labour's Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair and became the prime minister of the country in 2007.

In the 2010 election, televised debates of leaders took place for the first time. The support for Liberal Democrats rose after Clegg's performance in the debate.&nbsp;

The trends showed that the support for the centre-left Labour declined as voters turned to David Cameron's Conservatives and Nick Clegg's centrist Liberal Democrats.

However, when the results were announced, Britain witnessed hung parliament, the second since World War II. The Conservatives won 306 seats and Liberal Democrat ended with 57 seats. The hung parliament is rare in Britain as they follow the first-past-the-post system. &nbsp;

Immediately after the results, Cameron reached out to the Liberal Democrats. Brown remained in the office during the coalition talks, hoping to persuade Clegg to shake hands with Labour.&nbsp;

However, Cameron became the prime minister of Britain as Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed an alliance.

2015: Suprise victory for Cameron

Cameron pledged in 2015 that if he will get another term, a referendum will be held to decide Britain's membership in the European Union.&nbsp;

The poll pundits predicted another hung parliament, however, when results were declared, Conservatives pulled off a slender victory and improved its 2010 tally with 330 seats. The results meant that Conservatives can form the government on their own.&nbsp;

The elections saw the worst tally for Liberal Democrats since their formation in 1988, winning only eight seats. The Scottish National Party (SNP) gained big as it won 56 out of the 59 seats in Scotland.

The vote share of Labour improved but, still, they lost more seats as compared to 2010.

2017: Theresa May's gamble fails

After the Brexit referendum, Theresa May became the prime minister of the UK. May feared that in order to pass Brexit a small majority might not be enough and therefore she called a snap election.

However, the gamble did not pay off and the Conservatives lost 13 seats to end up with 307. The results meant that a Conservative minority government came to power after getting support from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionists (DUP).

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's energetic campaign and May's wooden performances were the reasons behind the decline of the Conservatives.&nbsp;

In this election, voters once again entrusted the main parties as the Conservatives won 42 per cent and Labour 40 per cent of votes.&nbsp;

May failed to get the Brexit done and was replaced by Boris Johnson after she quit in July 2019.&nbsp;

(with inputs from AFP)

On Thursday, Britons will vote for what will be the third general election in less than five years. Britain Prime Minister Boris Johnson describes the polls as the most important in a generation.

On Thursday, Britons will vote for what will be the third general election in less than five years. Britain Prime Minister Boris Johnson describes the polls as the most important in a generation. So, as the UK heads to polls, let's look at how the last three elections played out. 2010 election: Coalition government Ahead of the global financial crisis in 2007, Labour's Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair and became the prime minister of the country in 2007. In the 2010 election, televised debates of leaders took place for the first time. The support for Liberal Democrats rose after Clegg's performance in the debate. The trends showed that the support for the centre-left Labour declined as voters turned to David Cameron's Conservatives and Nick Clegg's centrist Liberal Democrats. However, when the results were announced, Britain witnessed hung parliament, the second since World War II. The Conservatives won 306 seats and Liberal Democrat ended with 57 seats. The hung parliament is rare in Britain as they follow the first-past-the-post system. Immediately after the results, Cameron reached out to the Liberal Democrats. Brown remained in the office during the coalition talks, hoping to persuade Clegg to shake hands with Labour. However, Cameron became the prime minister of Britain as Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed an alliance. 2015: Suprise victory for Cameron Cameron pledged in 2015 that if he will get another term, a referendum will be held to decide Britain's membership in the European Union. The poll pundits predicted another hung parliament, however, when results were declared, Conservatives pulled off a slender victory and improved its 2010 tally with 330 seats. The results meant that Conservatives can form the government on their own. The elections saw the worst tally for Liberal Democrats since their formation in 1988, winning only eight seats. The Scottish National Party (SNP) gained big as it won 56 out of the 59 seats in Scotland. The vote share of Labour improved but, still, they lost more seats as compared to 2010. 2017: Theresa May's gamble fails After the Brexit referendum, Theresa May became the prime minister of the UK. May feared that in order to pass Brexit a small majority might not be enough and therefore she called a snap election. However, the gamble did not pay off and the Conservatives lost 13 seats to end up with 307. The results meant that a Conservative minority government came to power after getting support from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionists (DUP). Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's energetic campaign and May's wooden performances were the reasons behind the decline of the Conservatives. In this election, voters once again entrusted the main parties as the Conservatives won 42 per cent and Labour 40 per cent of votes. May failed to get the Brexit done and was replaced by Boris Johnson after she quit in July 2019. (with inputs from AFP)

As Britain heads to polls, a glance at last three elections

Just before 24 hours left before Britain's goes back to the ballot boxes to pick its Prime Minister. UK elections are supposed to be held every five years but elections for 2019, is a third since 2015. watch this report to know more:

UK Elections 2019: Will Johnson's Brexit Gamble pay off?

Johnson fights to keep power. He backs Britain's exit from the E.U

UK: Boris Johnson fights to retain the position

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/deutsche-bank-says-to-slash-18000-jobs-by-2022-233897">Deutsche Bank</a> pared back its revenue growth target on Tuesday, blaming rock-bottom interest rates for hurting its business in a downbeat presentation to investors.

The German bank said it expected revenue at its core banking business to grow by just 1% in the run-up to 2022, half the growth level estimated in July. It put emphasis instead on efforts to cut billions of euros in costs.

Chief Executive <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-congressional-probe-finds-possible-lapses-in-deutsche-bank-controls-report-247969">Christian Sewing</a> pointed to "significant progress" in recent months in turning around the bank in the presentation ahead of an investor day. But the bank highlighted the impact of low interest rates in the eurozone on its business.

Deutsche said such low rates would hurt its retail bank as well as corporate banking in the medium term, but it predicted that growth at its investment bank would partly make up for this.

The bank said it had taken steps to cope with low rates, including lending more and "selectively" passing on to customers the costs it faces for keeping cash at the central bank.

Deutsche Bank also said that the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-criticises-federal-reserve-for-not-acting-quickly-as-european-central-bank-249248">European Central Bank</a> had reduced the lender's capital ratio requirement, following a review.

Deutsche Bank pared back its revenue growth target on Tuesday, blaming rock-bottom interest rates for hurting its business in a downbeat presentation to investors.

Deutsche Bank pared back its revenue growth target on Tuesday, blaming rock-bottom interest rates for hurting its business in a downbeat presentation to investors. The German bank said it expected revenue at its core banking business to grow by just 1% in the run-up to 2022, half the growth level estimated in July. It put emphasis instead on efforts to cut billions of euros in costs. Chief Executive Christian Sewing pointed to "significant progress" in recent months in turning around the bank in the presentation ahead of an investor day. But the bank highlighted the impact of low interest rates in the eurozone on its business. Deutsche said such low rates would hurt its retail bank as well as corporate banking in the medium term, but it predicted that growth at its investment bank would partly make up for this. The bank said it had taken steps to cope with low rates, including lending more and "selectively" passing on to customers the costs it faces for keeping cash at the central bank. Deutsche Bank also said that the European Central Bank had reduced the lender's capital ratio requirement, following a review.

Deutsche Bank predicts meagre growth due to low rates

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ted-baker-posts-loss-warns-on-full-year-results-253424">Ted Baker Plc</a> said on Tuesday its chief executive officer and chairman have stepped down, and the British fashion retailer also cut its full-year outlook again and suspended its dividend.

Recently appointed Chief Financial Officer, Rachel Osborne, will take on the CEO role from Lindsay Page on an interim basis.

The departures come a week after the company said it may have overstated inventory by as much as 25 million pounds ($32.08 million).

Page was promoted to the role in April after founder <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/shock-waves-of-metoo-reach-the-city-of-london-184453">Ray Kelvin</a> stepped down after allegations of misconduct at the company.

Sharon Baylay has assumed the role of acting chair, replacing David Bernstein.

Ted Baker Plc said on Tuesday its chief executive officer and chairman have stepped down, and the British fashion retailer also cut its full-year outlook again and suspended its dividend.

Ted Baker Plc said on Tuesday its chief executive officer and chairman have stepped down, and the British fashion retailer also cut its full-year outlook again and suspended its dividend. Recently appointed Chief Financial Officer, Rachel Osborne, will take on the CEO role from Lindsay Page on an interim basis. The departures come a week after the company said it may have overstated inventory by as much as 25 million pounds ($32.08 million). Page was promoted to the role in April after founder Ray Kelvin stepped down after allegations of misconduct at the company. Sharon Baylay has assumed the role of acting chair, replacing David Bernstein.

Ted Baker CEO, chairman step down; outlook cut, dividend suspended

A Global Trend: The rising might of Indian Diaspora.

Conservative friends of India campaign release Video

As the world's sole superpower, the United States has difficulty to adapt change, said a British business leader in an interview on Monday.

US has difficulty to adapt change of world: UK business leader

A court in Zimbabwe on Thursday appointed <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/life-and-times-of-zimbabwes-robert-mugabe-from-liberator-to-oppressor-247919">Robert Mugabe</a>'s daughter to identify assets left by the late former leader so they can be distributed to his beneficiaries, his lawyer said.

Zimbabweans are keen to know how much wealth Mugabe accrued during his 37 years in power. Many assume that he and his family amassed a vast fortune - perhaps as much as $1 billion, according to a leaked US&nbsp;diplomatic cable from 2001.

The Master of High Court in Harare appointed Bona Chikore executor of her father's estate, the Mugabe family lawyer Terrence Hussein told reporters, adding that this had been agreed by family members.

Hussein said Mugabe's wife Grace and Bona attended Thursday's meeting at the court but sons Robert Jr and Bellarmine Chatunga were away. They, however, gave written consent that their sister should be appointed executor.

For many years, Mugabe and Grace were widely reported by Zimbabwean and foreign media to have deposited money and bought properties abroad, including in Asia, where they spent most of their annual family holidays. The family has denied this.

But a legal dispute that spilled into the public in 2014 over a $5 million villa in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/business-activity-in-hong-kong-shrinks-the-most-in-21-years-pmi-266073">Hong Kong</a> suggested Mugabe's family had been buying overseas property. The government said it owned the house.

Hussein said journalists and United States and Britain, who were critical of Mugabe, should prove that he had properties abroad so they could be registered with the court.

"This is the good thing about saying falsehoods, those falsehoods will be exposed. Where are the properties?" Hussein said when asked about reports that Mugabe had properties abroad.

Hussein told Reuters on Tuesday that the process of establishing Mugabe's assets would take some time, casting doubt on a state media report that the former leader left $10 million and some properties in the capital.

A court in Zimbabwe on Thursday appointed Robert Mugabe's daughter to identify assets left by the late former leader so they can be distributed to his beneficiaries, his lawyer said.

A court in Zimbabwe on Thursday appointed Robert Mugabe's daughter to identify assets left by the late former leader so they can be distributed to his beneficiaries, his lawyer said. Zimbabweans are keen to know how much wealth Mugabe accrued during his 37 years in power. Many assume that he and his family amassed a vast fortune - perhaps as much as $1 billion, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable from 2001. The Master of High Court in Harare appointed Bona Chikore executor of her father's estate, the Mugabe family lawyer Terrence Hussein told reporters, adding that this had been agreed by family members. Hussein said Mugabe's wife Grace and Bona attended Thursday's meeting at the court but sons Robert Jr and Bellarmine Chatunga were away. They, however, gave written consent that their sister should be appointed executor. For many years, Mugabe and Grace were widely reported by Zimbabwean and foreign media to have deposited money and bought properties abroad, including in Asia, where they spent most of their annual family holidays. The family has denied this. But a legal dispute that spilled into the public in 2014 over a $5 million villa in Hong Kong suggested Mugabe's family had been buying overseas property. The government said it owned the house. Hussein said journalists and United States and Britain, who were critical of Mugabe, should prove that he had properties abroad so they could be registered with the court. "This is the good thing about saying falsehoods, those falsehoods will be exposed. Where are the properties?" Hussein said when asked about reports that Mugabe had properties abroad. Hussein told Reuters on Tuesday that the process of establishing Mugabe's assets would take some time, casting doubt on a state media report that the former leader left $10 million and some properties in the capital.

Zimbabwe court appoints Mugabe daughter to identify his assets

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/terror-checks-intensified-as-london-attack-enters-election-fray-265598">British Prime Minister Boris Johnson</a> said on Sunday he would strengthen prison sentences, vowing to boost security after an attack in&nbsp;London&nbsp;by a man jailed for terrorism who had been released early.

Less than two weeks before Britain heads to the polls, law and order has taken top billing since Usman Khan, wearing a fake suicide vest and wielding knives, killed two people on Friday before being shot dead by police.

Johnson's Conservatives have championed tough police and prison measures, but opponents have criticised them for overseeing almost a decade of cuts to public services.

Johnson said if he won the Dec. 12 election, he would invest more in the prison system and toughen sentences.

"I absolutely deplore the fact that this man was out on the street, I think it was absolutely repulsive and we are going to take action," he told BBC interviewer Andrew Marr.

He portrayed his rival for prime minister, Jeremy Corbyn, as weak on crime, blaming the Labour Party for a law passed more than a decade ago that provided for some prisoners to be released early automatically.

Johnson said around 74 people convicted of serious offences had been released under the legislation, and that they were <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/uk-judge-warned-of-london-bridge-attack-convicts-plans-to-carry-out-attack-in-kashmir-265543">being monitored</a> to prevent any threat to the public.

Corbyn, a veteran peace campaigner, said convicted terrorists should "not necessarily" serve their full prison terms.

"It depends on the circumstances, it depends on the sentence, but crucially it depends on what they've done in the prison," he told Sky News.

Watch: London Bridge attack - UK PM Johnson visits attack site

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/london-bridge-attack-uk-pm-boris-johnson-visits-attack-site-265509/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Election echoes

Corbyn said Conservative cuts to community policing and to probation, mental health, youth and social services could "lead to missed chances to intervene in the lives of people who go on to commit inexcusable acts".

"You can't keep people safe on the cheap," he said in a speech.

Khan's attack, which took place on&nbsp;London&nbsp;Bridge, stirred memories of the last election in 2017, when three militants killed eight people and injured at least 48 in the same part of the capital.

On Friday, bystanders wrestled Khan to the ground before police shot him dead. The police found no immediate evidence to suggest Khan had been working with others.

The two people killed were Jack Merritt, 25, and Saskia Jones, 23, police said.

Both were graduates involved in a prisoner rehabilitation programme that was <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/london-bridge-attack-corbyn-says-convicted-terrorists-should-not-necessarily-serve-full-sentence-265566">organising a conference that Khan was attending</a>, where he chose to start his attack.

Two people remained in hospital in a stable condition on Sunday, while a third left hospital.

The attack brought a sombre tone to a rancorous election campaign, which is presenting voters with a stark choice between Labour, with its promise to raise taxes on the rich and businesses to fund a much-expanded state, and the Conservatives' pledge to "get Brexit done" and move on to other issues.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Sunday he would strengthen prison sentences, vowing to boost security after an attack in London by a man jailed for terrorism who had been released early.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Sunday he would strengthen prison sentences, vowing to boost security after an attack in London by a man jailed for terrorism who had been released early. Less than two weeks before Britain heads to the polls, law and order has taken top billing since Usman Khan, wearing a fake suicide vest and wielding knives, killed two people on Friday before being shot dead by police. Johnson's Conservatives have championed tough police and prison measures, but opponents have criticised them for overseeing almost a decade of cuts to public services. Johnson said if he won the Dec. 12 election, he would invest more in the prison system and toughen sentences. "I absolutely deplore the fact that this man was out on the street, I think it was absolutely repulsive and we are going to take action," he told BBC interviewer Andrew Marr. He portrayed his rival for prime minister, Jeremy Corbyn, as weak on crime, blaming the Labour Party for a law passed more than a decade ago that provided for some prisoners to be released early automatically. Johnson said around 74 people convicted of serious offences had been released under the legislation, and that they were being monitored to prevent any threat to the public. Corbyn, a veteran peace campaigner, said convicted terrorists should "not necessarily" serve their full prison terms. "It depends on the circumstances, it depends on the sentence, but crucially it depends on what they've done in the prison," he told Sky News. Watch: London Bridge attack - UK PM Johnson visits attack site Election echoes Corbyn said Conservative cuts to community policing and to probation, mental health, youth and social services could "lead to missed chances to intervene in the lives of people who go on to commit inexcusable acts". "You can't keep people safe on the cheap," he said in a speech. Khan's attack, which took place on London Bridge, stirred memories of the last election in 2017, when three militants killed eight people and injured at least 48 in the same part of the capital. On Friday, bystanders wrestled Khan to the ground before police shot him dead. The police found no immediate evidence to suggest Khan had been working with others. The two people killed were Jack Merritt, 25, and Saskia Jones, 23, police said. Both were graduates involved in a prisoner rehabilitation programme that was organising a conference that Khan was attending, where he chose to start his attack. Two people remained in hospital in a stable condition on Sunday, while a third left hospital. The attack brought a sombre tone to a rancorous election campaign, which is presenting voters with a stark choice between Labour, with its promise to raise taxes on the rich and businesses to fund a much-expanded state, and the Conservatives' pledge to "get Brexit done" and move on to other issues.

Will strengthen prison sentences after London Bridge attack: UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson

By Rainbow Murray and Robin Pettitt

If you live in a safe seat, don’t feel inspired by the choices on offer, and/or would rather spend December 12 doing your Christmas shopping, you might be considering not voting in the 2019 general election – then here are five reasons to change your mind.

1. Your vote does matter

The first and by far and away the most important reason to vote is that, regardless of what anyone might tell you, it matters. The ongoing saga of Brexit is very much a case in point. The way people voted in 2015 resulted in a majority Conservative Party government, which paved the way for the 2016 Brexit referendum. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered.

In the referendum of 2016, a majority of those who voted, voted for Leave. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered.

The way people voted in 2017 deprived Theresa May of a parliamentary majority – which meant the then prime minister was unable to get her deal through parliament, a problem inherited by her successor, Boris Johnson. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered.

It is true that in many parts of the UK some parties utterly dominate. There are areas of the UK that have been represented by MPs from the same party since the 1800s. In areas where one party has a massive majority it may seem that voting will make little difference, which can be deeply frustrating. However, not voting is the one thing guaranteed to make no difference.

Even if voting will not affect the outcome of the result in an individual constituency, it will affect national vote shares for the parties. Parties that cannot win can still get their agendas taken seriously by the other parties if their vote share is strong. Part of the reason why the former prime minister, David Cameron, decided to call a referendum in the first place was the rise of UKIP as a political force. The newer party had no significant presence in parliament but had Cameron’s Conservatives running scared every time it increased its vote share.

In addition, national vote share is increasingly part of the political debate after elections and your vote can be part of that story, even if it doesn’t swing your constituency result. Again, voting matters.

2. Turn up to change the system

Even if you have no hope of your vote making a difference in your constituency, at least consider going to your local polling station and spoiling your ballot paper. This is not a pointless exercise. If thousands of voters in safe constituencies spoiled their ballot papers it would give ammunition to those who are campaigning to replace the UK’s antiquated electoral system with something that gives votes everywhere more weight. The number of spoiled ballots is recorded in each constituency.

3. Defending democracy

Having the right to vote cannot be taken for granted. Just as the right to vote can be obtained, so it can be lost. There are numerous examples of countries where democratic standards were undermined, sometimes fatally so.

The UK’s democracy is still seen as being in good health. However, the Windrush scandal, the government’s attempt to prorogue parliament to avoid debate, and the potential impact of Brexit on human rights shows that the freedoms we have now are not immutable. The most simple and basic thing anyone can do to keep democracy strong is to vote. Arguably, voting is not enough in itself to protect freedoms, but it is a necessary minimum.

4. Don’t vote, can’t moan 
 
Any complaints you may have about anything related to politics (and everything is related to politics) will ring rather hollow after December 12 if you do not do the absolute minimum to make a difference by voting. Quite apart from Brexit, the plans presented by the main parties in their manifestos offer radically different futures for the country.

Voting is the most fundamental way of expressing an opinion on what the parties are planning on doing if elected. Failing to do so makes any subsequent complaints about what the government is doing fairly hypocritical. Don’t vote? Can’t moan! Want to moan? Got to vote!

5. Paying respects 
 
Having a system of government where ordinary people have a say in how they are governed is not automatic. Indeed, it was not always so in the United Kingdom.

The extension of the right to vote in the UK was a long and hard struggle with very real human costs – as exemplified by the 18 killed and hundreds injured during the Peterloo Massacre just over 200 years when cavalry (yes, men, on horses, wielding swords) attacked protesters demanding a greater say in how parliament was put together. This atrocity, and the brutality experienced by those who fought for the right of women to vote remind us how controversial the right to vote really is. Voting is a way of paying respect to those who suffered and died to secure that vote.

And finally, one last reason to vote, if the above still aren’t good enough, is that if people didn’t turn out on election day, we would not have #dogsatpollingstations.

 
(Rainbow Murray is Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London; Robin Pettitt is Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Kingston University) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-reasons-to-vote-in-this-election-127666">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

By Rainbow Murray and Robin Pettitt If you live in a safe seat, don’t feel inspired by the choices on offer, and/or would rather spend December 12 doing your Christmas shopping, you might be considering not voting in the 2019 general election – then here are five reasons to change your mind.

By Rainbow Murray and Robin Pettitt If you live in a safe seat, don’t feel inspired by the choices on offer, and/or would rather spend December 12 doing your Christmas shopping, you might be considering not voting in the 2019 general election – then here are five reasons to change your mind. 1. Your vote does matter The first and by far and away the most important reason to vote is that, regardless of what anyone might tell you, it matters. The ongoing saga of Brexit is very much a case in point. The way people voted in 2015 resulted in a majority Conservative Party government, which paved the way for the 2016 Brexit referendum. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered. In the referendum of 2016, a majority of those who voted, voted for Leave. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered. The way people voted in 2017 deprived Theresa May of a parliamentary majority – which meant the then prime minister was unable to get her deal through parliament, a problem inherited by her successor, Boris Johnson. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered. It is true that in many parts of the UK some parties utterly dominate. There are areas of the UK that have been represented by MPs from the same party since the 1800s. In areas where one party has a massive majority it may seem that voting will make little difference, which can be deeply frustrating. However, not voting is the one thing guaranteed to make no difference. Even if voting will not affect the outcome of the result in an individual constituency, it will affect national vote shares for the parties. Parties that cannot win can still get their agendas taken seriously by the other parties if their vote share is strong. Part of the reason why the former prime minister, David Cameron, decided to call a referendum in the first place was the rise of UKIP as a political force. The newer party had no significant presence in parliament but had Cameron’s Conservatives running scared every time it increased its vote share. In addition, national vote share is increasingly part of the political debate after elections and your vote can be part of that story, even if it doesn’t swing your constituency result. Again, voting matters. 2. Turn up to change the system Even if you have no hope of your vote making a difference in your constituency, at least consider going to your local polling station and spoiling your ballot paper. This is not a pointless exercise. If thousands of voters in safe constituencies spoiled their ballot papers it would give ammunition to those who are campaigning to replace the UK’s antiquated electoral system with something that gives votes everywhere more weight. The number of spoiled ballots is recorded in each constituency. 3. Defending democracy Having the right to vote cannot be taken for granted. Just as the right to vote can be obtained, so it can be lost. There are numerous examples of countries where democratic standards were undermined, sometimes fatally so. The UK’s democracy is still seen as being in good health. However, the Windrush scandal, the government’s attempt to prorogue parliament to avoid debate, and the potential impact of Brexit on human rights shows that the freedoms we have now are not immutable. The most simple and basic thing anyone can do to keep democracy strong is to vote. Arguably, voting is not enough in itself to protect freedoms, but it is a necessary minimum. 4. Don’t vote, can’t moan Any complaints you may have about anything related to politics (and everything is related to politics) will ring rather hollow after December 12 if you do not do the absolute minimum to make a difference by voting. Quite apart from Brexit, the plans presented by the main parties in their manifestos offer radically different futures for the country. Voting is the most fundamental way of expressing an opinion on what the parties are planning on doing if elected. Failing to do so makes any subsequent complaints about what the government is doing fairly hypocritical. Don’t vote? Can’t moan! Want to moan? Got to vote! 5. Paying respects Having a system of government where ordinary people have a say in how they are governed is not automatic. Indeed, it was not always so in the United Kingdom. The extension of the right to vote in the UK was a long and hard struggle with very real human costs – as exemplified by the 18 killed and hundreds injured during the Peterloo Massacre just over 200 years when cavalry (yes, men, on horses, wielding swords) attacked protesters demanding a greater say in how parliament was put together. This atrocity, and the brutality experienced by those who fought for the right of women to vote remind us how controversial the right to vote really is. Voting is a way of paying respect to those who suffered and died to secure that vote. And finally, one last reason to vote, if the above still aren’t good enough, is that if people didn’t turn out on election day, we would not have #dogsatpollingstations. (Rainbow Murray is Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London; Robin Pettitt is Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Kingston University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

UK elections 2019: Five reasons to vote

By Jonquil Lowe

Brexit may be the main reason for the UK’s upcoming general election, but voters are also invited to choose between two radically different types of social system with different implications for both the taxes households pay, as well as the benefits and public services they receive.

The Conservative Party’s manifesto presents a modest £2.9 billion spending increase compared to Labour’s £82.9 billion spending programme. One approach is characterised by a smaller state, lower taxes and less welfare provision. The other by a larger state, more welfare and an increase in tax that is largely directed at business and the wealthy, though it could also cause tax rises for everyone.

Both parties are looking to business to fund a major part of their manifesto proposals. The Conservatives have cancelled a mooted cut in corporation tax. This enables it to spend slightly more, mostly on the National Health Service (NHS) and a National Skills Fund, but also to promise a cut in National Insurance.

Since 2010, the coalition and then Conservative governments have raised the threshold at which income tax starts to be paid (the personal allowance) from £6,475 (2010-11) to £12,500 (2019-20). The Conservatives claim that this has taken 5.7 million people on low incomes “out of tax altogether”. However, this is not strictly correct, because many will be low earners who have continued to pay National Insurance contributions, which start on earnings over £8,632 (in 2019-20).

The Conservative manifesto announces an ambition – not a promise – to increase that National Insurance threshold to £12,500 as well as the personal allowance. This would save £464 per person. But the manifesto only pledges to take the first step toward this aim by raising the National Insurance threshold to £9,500 from 2020-21.

Given that, by default, the threshold would increase anyway in line with inflation, the manifesto commitment is worth about £83 a year to every employee earning above, say, £8,805 in 2020-21. Lower earners already below the threshold do not benefit.

The Labour manifesto sets out more radical and expansive reforms to welfare benefits and public services, including for example abolishing student tuition fees, free personal care for the over 65s, reforms to universal credit, increased public sector pay and higher spending on health, education and local authorities.

A large part of this would be funded through a major increase in corporation tax (with the main rate rising from its current 19 per cent&nbsp;to 26 per cent&nbsp;by 2023-24). But personal taxes would also rise, with the additional income tax rate (45 per cent) kicking in from earnings of £80,000 a year rather than the current £150,000 and a new 50 per cent&nbsp;rate on incomes over £125,000.

However, it is misleading to assume that the increase in corporation tax proposed by Labour would not also affect households, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank has pointed out. The nature and size of the impact depends on how companies would respond to the increase. It could be passed on to consumers in higher prices, to workers in lower wages, or shareholders in lower dividends (which would also depress share prices). It should be borne in mind that individuals are major shareholders through their pension savings.

Continue or take a leap 
 
In 1990, Danish sociolologist, Gøsta Esping-Andersen, published an influential taxonomy of national welfare systems. He suggested there are three distinct types:

“Liberal” regimes with a heavy reliance on work ethic and market efficiency. State benefits tend to be means-tested, minimal and sometimes stigmatised. Citizens typically pay less in tax but have to spend more personally on insurance and services or go without. Esping-Andersen pointed to the US, Canada and Australia as examples.

“Conservative corporatist” regimes that revolve around the traditional family, with the right to welfare benefits accruing to workers who then support their dependent family. Esping-Andersen cited Austria, France, Germany and Italy as examples.

“Social democratic” regimes which are characterised by the principle of equality, with relatively generous welfare state and public services available to all. Tax rates are typically higher but citizens have to spend less personally on the insurance and services they need. This model is most evident in Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden and Denmark.

Pure examples of these regimes are rare and, as in many countries, the UK has elements of all three. But when the electorate goes to the polls on December 12, UK citizens will be invited to vote for a marked swing towards the “social democratic” system if they vote for Labour or a continuation of a dominantly “liberal” regime if they vote Conservative.

It is an intriguing ideological choice: Continue with the low-tax, small state, individualist regime that has largely characterised the UK since the Thatcher era. Or take a leap into a more “social democratic” regime with more generous and inclusive state provision but a substantial and, at this stage, largely unknown price tag.

(Jonquil Lowe is Senior Lecturer in Economics and Personal Finance, The Open University) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-election-2019-a-choice-between-low-tax-individualism-or-generous-state-with-unknown-price-tag-127738">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

By Jonquil Lowe Brexit may be the main reason for the UK’s upcoming general election, but voters are also invited to choose between two radically different types of social system with different implications for both the taxes households pay, as well as the benefits and public services they receive.

By Jonquil Lowe Brexit may be the main reason for the UK’s upcoming general election, but voters are also invited to choose between two radically different types of social system with different implications for both the taxes households pay, as well as the benefits and public services they receive. The Conservative Party’s manifesto presents a modest £2.9 billion spending increase compared to Labour’s £82.9 billion spending programme. One approach is characterised by a smaller state, lower taxes and less welfare provision. The other by a larger state, more welfare and an increase in tax that is largely directed at business and the wealthy, though it could also cause tax rises for everyone. Both parties are looking to business to fund a major part of their manifesto proposals. The Conservatives have cancelled a mooted cut in corporation tax. This enables it to spend slightly more, mostly on the National Health Service (NHS) and a National Skills Fund, but also to promise a cut in National Insurance. Since 2010, the coalition and then Conservative governments have raised the threshold at which income tax starts to be paid (the personal allowance) from £6,475 (2010-11) to £12,500 (2019-20). The Conservatives claim that this has taken 5.7 million people on low incomes “out of tax altogether”. However, this is not strictly correct, because many will be low earners who have continued to pay National Insurance contributions, which start on earnings over £8,632 (in 2019-20). The Conservative manifesto announces an ambition – not a promise – to increase that National Insurance threshold to £12,500 as well as the personal allowance. This would save £464 per person. But the manifesto only pledges to take the first step toward this aim by raising the National Insurance threshold to £9,500 from 2020-21. Given that, by default, the threshold would increase anyway in line with inflation, the manifesto commitment is worth about £83 a year to every employee earning above, say, £8,805 in 2020-21. Lower earners already below the threshold do not benefit. The Labour manifesto sets out more radical and expansive reforms to welfare benefits and public services, including for example abolishing student tuition fees, free personal care for the over 65s, reforms to universal credit, increased public sector pay and higher spending on health, education and local authorities. A large part of this would be funded through a major increase in corporation tax (with the main rate rising from its current 19 per cent to 26 per cent by 2023-24). But personal taxes would also rise, with the additional income tax rate (45 per cent) kicking in from earnings of £80,000 a year rather than the current £150,000 and a new 50 per cent rate on incomes over £125,000. However, it is misleading to assume that the increase in corporation tax proposed by Labour would not also affect households, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank has pointed out. The nature and size of the impact depends on how companies would respond to the increase. It could be passed on to consumers in higher prices, to workers in lower wages, or shareholders in lower dividends (which would also depress share prices). It should be borne in mind that individuals are major shareholders through their pension savings. Continue or take a leap In 1990, Danish sociolologist, Gøsta Esping-Andersen, published an influential taxonomy of national welfare systems. He suggested there are three distinct types: “Liberal” regimes with a heavy reliance on work ethic and market efficiency. State benefits tend to be means-tested, minimal and sometimes stigmatised. Citizens typically pay less in tax but have to spend more personally on insurance and services or go without. Esping-Andersen pointed to the US, Canada and Australia as examples. “Conservative corporatist” regimes that revolve around the traditional family, with the right to welfare benefits accruing to workers who then support their dependent family. Esping-Andersen cited Austria, France, Germany and Italy as examples. “Social democratic” regimes which are characterised by the principle of equality, with relatively generous welfare state and public services available to all. Tax rates are typically higher but citizens have to spend less personally on the insurance and services they need. This model is most evident in Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden and Denmark. Pure examples of these regimes are rare and, as in many countries, the UK has elements of all three. But when the electorate goes to the polls on December 12, UK citizens will be invited to vote for a marked swing towards the “social democratic” system if they vote for Labour or a continuation of a dominantly “liberal” regime if they vote Conservative. It is an intriguing ideological choice: Continue with the low-tax, small state, individualist regime that has largely characterised the UK since the Thatcher era. Or take a leap into a more “social democratic” regime with more generous and inclusive state provision but a substantial and, at this stage, largely unknown price tag. (Jonquil Lowe is Senior Lecturer in Economics and Personal Finance, The Open University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

UK election 2019: A choice between low-tax, individualism or generous state with unknown price tag

Great Britain joined Russia and Canada in the final four of tennis' new-look Davis Cup on Friday when they took an unassailable 2-0 lead over Germany.

Kyle Edmund beat German Philipp Kohlschreiber 6-3, 7-5 in the first rubber with Daniel Evans taking three sets to see off Jan-Lennard Struff 7-6 (8/6), 3-6, 7-6 (7/2).

Andy Murray was rested on Friday but will likely feature in the semi-finals where they face the winner of Spain against Argentina.

Rafael Nadal pulled Spain level at 1-1 with Argentina with a 6-1, 6-2 win over Diego Schwartzman.

Guido Pella had put the Argentines ahead with a three-set victory over Pablo Carreno 6-7 (3/7), 7-6 (7/4), 6-1.

"I was serving well and was playing at a high level, so let's see how it goes," said Nadal when revealing he would line up in the doubles rubber late Friday.

Earlier Russia beat <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/novak-djokovic-guides-serbia-into-davis-cup-quarter-finals-263723">Novak Djokovic's</a> Serbia to reach the semi-finals following a cliff-hanger match that went all the way to a deciding tie-breaker.

With the quarter-final level at 1-1 following the singles, the Russian pairing of Karen Khachanov and Andrey Rublev faced Djokovic and Viktor Troicki in the deciding rubber.

After a see-saw match of high drama, the Russians came out 6-4, 4-6, 7-6 (10/8) winners and face Canada, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/tennis-hurting-hewitt-pans-davis-cup-scheduling-after-australia-eliminated-263860">quarter-final victors over Australia</a>, in Saturday's semi-finals.

"It was heads or tails and the coin fell on our side," Rublev said.

"God gave me a chance to be a hero," he added.

Kachanov was already looking forward to the next match.

"We'll have to get it together for Canada," he said of the semi-final.&nbsp;

"Luck was on our side here, but this was one of the biggest games of either our careers."

Earlier in the day, Rublev won the first singles over Filip Krajinovic 6-1, 6-2 to give Russia a lead, cancelled out later by Djokovic, who overcame Khachanov 6-3, 6-3.

The world No.2 Djokovic, winner of 16 Grand Slams said the match had been "a real roller-coaster of a game, very, very emotional and very tense".

"Sport&nbsp;is not all about winning and losing but this hurts me personally," said the 32-year-old.

"Anyway the season is over now, we'll get over it. Tomorrow is another day."

Great Britain joined Russia and Canada in the final four of tennis' new-look Davis Cup on Friday when they took an unassailable 2-0 lead over Germany. Kyle Edmund beat German Philipp Kohlschreiber 6-3, 7-5 in the first rubber with Daniel Evans taking three sets to see off Jan-Lennard Struff 7-6 (8/6), 3-6, 7-6 (7/2).

Great Britain joined Russia and Canada in the final four of tennis' new-look Davis Cup on Friday when they took an unassailable 2-0 lead over Germany. Kyle Edmund beat German Philipp Kohlschreiber 6-3, 7-5 in the first rubber with Daniel Evans taking three sets to see off Jan-Lennard Struff 7-6 (8/6), 3-6, 7-6 (7/2). Andy Murray was rested on Friday but will likely feature in the semi-finals where they face the winner of Spain against Argentina. Rafael Nadal pulled Spain level at 1-1 with Argentina with a 6-1, 6-2 win over Diego Schwartzman. Guido Pella had put the Argentines ahead with a three-set victory over Pablo Carreno 6-7 (3/7), 7-6 (7/4), 6-1. "I was serving well and was playing at a high level, so let's see how it goes," said Nadal when revealing he would line up in the doubles rubber late Friday. Earlier Russia beat Novak Djokovic's Serbia to reach the semi-finals following a cliff-hanger match that went all the way to a deciding tie-breaker. With the quarter-final level at 1-1 following the singles, the Russian pairing of Karen Khachanov and Andrey Rublev faced Djokovic and Viktor Troicki in the deciding rubber. After a see-saw match of high drama, the Russians came out 6-4, 4-6, 7-6 (10/8) winners and face Canada, quarter-final victors over Australia, in Saturday's semi-finals. "It was heads or tails and the coin fell on our side," Rublev said. "God gave me a chance to be a hero," he added. Kachanov was already looking forward to the next match. "We'll have to get it together for Canada," he said of the semi-final. "Luck was on our side here, but this was one of the biggest games of either our careers." Earlier in the day, Rublev won the first singles over Filip Krajinovic 6-1, 6-2 to give Russia a lead, cancelled out later by Djokovic, who overcame Khachanov 6-3, 6-3. The world No.2 Djokovic, winner of 16 Grand Slams said the match had been "a real roller-coaster of a game, very, very emotional and very tense". "Sport is not all about winning and losing but this hurts me personally," said the 32-year-old. "Anyway the season is over now, we'll get over it. Tomorrow is another day."

Britain ease past Germany to join Russia, Canada in Davis Cup semis

What happens to Britain in case of no clear election result?

Watch in WION Dispatch: Britain's Prince quits royal duties over Epstein scandal. Watch this video as WION's Correspondent Natalie Powell from London tells you more on this. #WIONDispatch #WION

WION Dispatch: Britain's Prince quits royal duties over Epstein scandal

Britain's Prince Andrew stepped down from public duties on Wednesday, saying the controversy surrounding his ill-judged association with late U.S. financier Jeffrey Epstein had caused major disruption to the royal family's work.

Britain's Prince Andrew halts public duties over sex scandal, move after infamous interview

The UN nuclear watchdog on Thursday urged Iran to explain the presence of uranium particles at an undeclared site, as a landmark deal aimed at curbing Tehran's atomic activities threatens to collapse.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a report made public last week that its inspectors had "<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uranium-particles-detected-at-undeclared-site-in-iran-iaea-report-261503">detected natural uranium particles</a> of anthropogenic origin at a location in Iran not declared to the agency".&nbsp;

The agency's acting head Cornel Feruta said IAEA and Iranian officials would meet in Tehran next week to discuss the matter, adding that the UN body had not received any additional information.&nbsp;

"The matter remains unresolved... It is essential that Iran works with the agency to resolve this matter promptly," he told IAEA member states at a meeting of the agency's board of governors.

A diplomatic source told AFP that the IAEA would send a high-ranking technical delegation to Iran next week.

The particles are understood to be the product of uranium which has been mined and undergone initial processing, but not enriched.

While the IAEA has not named the site in question, diplomatic sources have previously said the agency asked Iran about a site in the Turquzabad district of Tehran where Israel has alleged secret atomic activity in the past.

Sources say the IAEA took samples from the site in the spring and that Iran has been slow in providing answers to explain the test results.

The 2015 deal between Iran and world powers has been faltering since last year when the United States pulled out and started to reinstate punishing sanctions on Tehran, leaving the other signatories struggling to salvage the agreement.

Over the past few months, Iran has breached several parts of the deal it signed with the US as well as Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia, in which it committed to scaling back its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

But Britain, France and Germany have said they are extremely <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-accuses-europeans-of-hypocrisy-over-nuclear-deal-261577">concerned by Iran's actions</a> in stepping up its uranium enrichment and other breaches.

Enrichment is the process that produces fuel for nuclear power plants but also, in highly extended form, the fissile core for a warhead.

On Monday, the IAEA confirmed Iran's stock of heavy water for reactors has surpassed the 130-tonne limit set under the agreement.

Heavy water is not itself radioactive but is used in nuclear reactors to absorb neutrons from nuclear fission.

Heavy water reactors can be used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons as an alternative to enriched uranium.

The IAEA has also said one of its inspectors was briefly prevented from leaving Iran, calling her treatment "not acceptable".

Iran has cancelled the inspector's accreditation, saying she triggered a security check at the entrance gate to the Natanz enrichment plant last month.

The IAEA has disputed the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-rejects-reports-of-iaea-finding-traces-of-uranium-at-unnamed-site-261172">Iranian account of the incident</a>, without going into details.

The UN nuclear watchdog on Thursday urged Iran to explain the presence of uranium particles at an undeclared site, as a landmark deal aimed at curbing Tehran's atomic activities threatens to collapse.

The UN nuclear watchdog on Thursday urged Iran to explain the presence of uranium particles at an undeclared site, as a landmark deal aimed at curbing Tehran's atomic activities threatens to collapse. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a report made public last week that its inspectors had "detected natural uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at a location in Iran not declared to the agency". The agency's acting head Cornel Feruta said IAEA and Iranian officials would meet in Tehran next week to discuss the matter, adding that the UN body had not received any additional information. "The matter remains unresolved... It is essential that Iran works with the agency to resolve this matter promptly," he told IAEA member states at a meeting of the agency's board of governors. A diplomatic source told AFP that the IAEA would send a high-ranking technical delegation to Iran next week. The particles are understood to be the product of uranium which has been mined and undergone initial processing, but not enriched. While the IAEA has not named the site in question, diplomatic sources have previously said the agency asked Iran about a site in the Turquzabad district of Tehran where Israel has alleged secret atomic activity in the past. Sources say the IAEA took samples from the site in the spring and that Iran has been slow in providing answers to explain the test results. The 2015 deal between Iran and world powers has been faltering since last year when the United States pulled out and started to reinstate punishing sanctions on Tehran, leaving the other signatories struggling to salvage the agreement. Over the past few months, Iran has breached several parts of the deal it signed with the US as well as Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia, in which it committed to scaling back its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. But Britain, France and Germany have said they are extremely concerned by Iran's actions in stepping up its uranium enrichment and other breaches. Enrichment is the process that produces fuel for nuclear power plants but also, in highly extended form, the fissile core for a warhead. On Monday, the IAEA confirmed Iran's stock of heavy water for reactors has surpassed the 130-tonne limit set under the agreement. Heavy water is not itself radioactive but is used in nuclear reactors to absorb neutrons from nuclear fission. Heavy water reactors can be used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons as an alternative to enriched uranium. The IAEA has also said one of its inspectors was briefly prevented from leaving Iran, calling her treatment "not acceptable". Iran has cancelled the inspector's accreditation, saying she triggered a security check at the entrance gate to the Natanz enrichment plant last month. The IAEA has disputed the Iranian account of the incident, without going into details.

IAEA urges Iran to explain uranium particles at undeclared site

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/labour-partys-brexit-policy-explained-263619">Labour Party</a> leader Jeremy Corbyn will unveil his opposition party's election manifesto on Thursday, setting out how in government he plans to transform Britain with "the most radical and ambitious plan" in decades.

With three weeks before Britain votes in its second election in just over two years, Corbyn will press his message that only Labour can challenge the status quo, fighting for ordinary people against "bankers, billionaires and the establishment".

Lagging in the polls, the 70-year-old socialist will hope his message of change will drown out criticism of his Brexit stance, which even some in his party say lacks the clarity of Prime Minister Boris Johnson's vow to "get Brexit done".

Both parties have promised to end economic austerity and relax the purse strings for stretched public services before the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-set-for-third-election-in-four-years-to-try-to-break-brexit-gridlock-258692">December&nbsp;12 election</a>, which will determine how, when and even whether Britain's departure from the European Union happens.

Trying to combat criticism from Johnson's Conservative Party over Labour's spending plans, Corbyn will say how he plans to pay for his manifesto, which includes scrapping university fees, reducing the working week and nationalising utilities.

"This is a manifesto of hope. A manifesto that will bring real change. A manifesto full of popular policies that the political establishment has blocked for a generation," Corbyn will say, according to excerpts of his speech.

"Those policies are fully costed, with no tax increases for 95 per cent&nbsp;of taxpayers."

Held after three years of negotiations to leave the European Union, the December election for the first time will show how far <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/brexit-why-is-there-an-irish-backstop-188953">Brexit </a>has torn traditional political allegiances apart and will test an electorate increasingly tired of voting.

Most polls put the Conservative Party in front, but few are able or willing to predict a victor in the election.

Labour has put at the forefront of its campaign its attack on "vested interests", taking aim at Johnson, who was educated at England's elite Eton public school, has considerable personal wealth and whose party has wealthy backers.

Corbyn has also said it will move to reverse privatisations began by former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, promising to nationalise rail, mail, water, and BT's broadband network to provide free internet for all.

Those pledges have been mocked by the Conservatives, with Johnson calling plans to nationalise broadband as a "crazed Communist scheme".

Corbyn is defiant.

"Over the next three weeks, the most powerful people in Britain and their supporters are going to tell you that everything in this manifesto is impossible," he will say.

"But they know we mean what we say. They know we will deliver our plans, which is why they want to stop us being elected."

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn will unveil his opposition party's election manifesto on Thursday, setting out how in government he plans to transform Britain with "the most radical and ambitious plan" in decades.

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn will unveil his opposition party's election manifesto on Thursday, setting out how in government he plans to transform Britain with "the most radical and ambitious plan" in decades. With three weeks before Britain votes in its second election in just over two years, Corbyn will press his message that only Labour can challenge the status quo, fighting for ordinary people against "bankers, billionaires and the establishment". Lagging in the polls, the 70-year-old socialist will hope his message of change will drown out criticism of his Brexit stance, which even some in his party say lacks the clarity of Prime Minister Boris Johnson's vow to "get Brexit done". Both parties have promised to end economic austerity and relax the purse strings for stretched public services before the December 12 election, which will determine how, when and even whether Britain's departure from the European Union happens. Trying to combat criticism from Johnson's Conservative Party over Labour's spending plans, Corbyn will say how he plans to pay for his manifesto, which includes scrapping university fees, reducing the working week and nationalising utilities. "This is a manifesto of hope. A manifesto that will bring real change. A manifesto full of popular policies that the political establishment has blocked for a generation," Corbyn will say, according to excerpts of his speech. "Those policies are fully costed, with no tax increases for 95 per cent of taxpayers." Held after three years of negotiations to leave the European Union, the December election for the first time will show how far Brexit has torn traditional political allegiances apart and will test an electorate increasingly tired of voting. Most polls put the Conservative Party in front, but few are able or willing to predict a victor in the election. Labour has put at the forefront of its campaign its attack on "vested interests", taking aim at Johnson, who was educated at England's elite Eton public school, has considerable personal wealth and whose party has wealthy backers. Corbyn has also said it will move to reverse privatisations began by former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, promising to nationalise rail, mail, water, and BT's broadband network to provide free internet for all. Those pledges have been mocked by the Conservatives, with Johnson calling plans to nationalise broadband as a "crazed Communist scheme". Corbyn is defiant. "Over the next three weeks, the most powerful people in Britain and their supporters are going to tell you that everything in this manifesto is impossible," he will say. "But they know we mean what we say. They know we will deliver our plans, which is why they want to stop us being elected."

Ready for change? Britain's Labour unveils 'radical' manifesto

britain

Britain, News on Britain, stories on Britain, articles on Britain, Britain stories at Wion, Britain news, Britain latest news