The General Election 2017: national security, deradicalisation, and citizenship

As we head into the elections this Thursday, national security is a burning issue. The UK has been the target of three major terrorist attacks in the past few months. The latest attack in London comes within just two weeks of the bombing in Manchester last month. The involvement of British nationals in perpetrating these attacks has brought many questions about extremism, radicalisation and integration to the forefront.

Dr Devyani Prabhat, Lecturer in Law, Bristol School of Law

Party leaders are laying out their strategies for counter-terrorism. Theresa May has announced plans to set up a new counter-terrorism agency, monitor social media and web content for extremism, have stronger custodial sentences for terrorism, and work on integration of communities. Meanwhile Jeremy Corbyn has focused on the problems of British foreign policy, funding for terrorist activities, and the lack of policing resources. These plans are not reflected in their respective party manifestos and do not engage directly with the issue of alienated citizens. In fact, Prevent, a mainstay of counter-terrorism, is not even mentioned in the Conservative party manifesto, while the Labour manifesto merely mentions a review of Prevent. Both major parties are, however, likely to comprehensively rethink the current Prevent programme in light of the recent attacks. The Liberal Democrats and Green Party have already announced plans to replace Prevent. When such replacement or revision takes place, parties need to consider why minority citizens can become alienated and what British citizenship means to them as part of long term deradicalisation programmes. Continue reading

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page

Manifesto promises on pensions

Image with an old persons hand, the image is split with a zip and behind it is coins and money.

Dr Hugh Pemberton
Reader in Contemporary British History, University of Bristol and lead –  Thatcher’s Pension Reforms project.

The most dull and predictable general election in modern British history has its interesting aspects. First, it may mark a turning point in the major parties’ ideological stances. Second, it may mark a return to two-party politics (with polls indicating around 4 in 5 votes will go to one of the two main political ).

In the arena of pensions policy, Labour offers much more to voters than do the Conservatives.

Labour’s promises on pensions

Labour’s manifesto is its longest ever, packed with policy proposals and spending promises – not least on pensions – to be funded by higher taxes on the better off and on companies in a faster growing economy. Continue reading

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page

How UKIP’s decline could provide a major boost for Theresa May

Ron Johnston, Professor of Geography, University of Bristol

The British prime minister Theresa May called a snap general election in the expectation that it will deliver her a substantially increased parliamentary majority. This in turn would give her the “strong and stable government” she hopes for as she enters the crucial Brexit negotiations.

So far, opinion polls suggest that the Conservatives have a large lead over Labour. But in order to attain the desired majority, they need to win a substantial number of seats from Labour. There were, however, fewer marginal seats following the 2015 general election than after any previous election since World War II – just 42, for example, where Labour won by a majority of less than ten percentage points over the Conservatives.

If the Conservatives were to win all of them, they would have 374 MPs in the new parliament compared to Labour’s 195 and a majority over all parties of 98.

So how winnable are those 42 seats? The likelihood of many Labour voters from 2015 switching to the Conservatives in 2017 is small, so the Conservatives will have to gain most of the extra votes from other sources. One likely source is those who last time voted for UKIP. Continue reading

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page

#BristolBrexit: a city responds to Brexit

Stokes Croft, Bristol. Jim Killock/Flickr. (CC 2.0 by-nc-nd)

Dr Jon Fox, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies

Jon Fox is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Sociology, Politics, and International Studies and the Assistant Director of the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship at the University of Bristol.  His research focusses on racism in relation to East European nationals living and working in the UK. He tweets @jonefox23.

Uncertainty is plaguing the transition to a post-Brexit Britain. Cities can, and must, address it head on in ways that work best for them.

The plot thickens. When Theresa May called a snap general election for 8 June she introduced the latest twist in the sordid Brexit tale that has been unravelling over the past year. The emerging plotline is peopled by a colourful cast of heroes and villains (though who fills which role is a matter of personal taste), teeming with intrigue and innuendo, and vacillating daily (or hourly) between tragedy and comedy.

We can ask how we got here, or prophesise about what the future holds, or pound the streets with our campaign of choice. We can also wring our hands, pray to our gods, and retreat into a life of Brexit-free asceticism. Or we can do something about the uncertainty that Brexit has produced. All these plot twists, the relentless manoeuvrings, and the onslaught of contradicting predictions have produced for many a paralysing uncertainty. Post-Brexit Britain has become a world of ‘what ifs’, and until documents are signed in Brussels it will remain as such. It’s not Brexit we need to deal with, it’s the uncertainty Brexit has created. Continue reading

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page