May will allegedly quit if ERG vote for her third meaningful vote

A “reliable” source has told ITV Political correspondent Robert Peston that Theresa May has assured the European Research Group, and a number of other Politicians, that she will quit her post as Prime Minister if they vote for her third meaningful vote, which is theorised to be put forward to Parliament on Tuesday with revisions.

A source has told ITV that Theresa May has contacted Boris Johnson, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Steve Baker, Jacob Rees Mogg, and the Chequers that she will resign as Prime Minister if they vote for her deal, including the controversial backstop arrangement.

The promise allegedly came in a meeting with the Chequers today, following an emergency cabinet meeting this morning.

Theresa May’s Brexit Deal is due to be pushed through Parliament for a third time this week, after the deal was set back by John Bercow last week for being too similar to her second deal, citing a law from 1604 that stopped the same policy being voted on by Parliament in the same sitting.

It is believed that even if the ploy manages to attracted the loyalty of the ERP, the full support of the DUP and even most, if not all, of her own Party’s MPs, the deal will still not pass through parliament.

It is also believed that May will seek to hold a third meaningful vote on her Brexit deal on Tuesday in a final attempt to have her deal passed through Parliament before the withdrawal deadline on the 28th of March.

Welsh UKIP group cancel talk on abolishing Welsh Assembly after “only three people turn up”

A talk, organised by the Welsh branch of the United Kingdom Independence Party and due to be hosted by Gareth Bennett, had to be cancelled after only 3 audience members turned up to the event last night.

The talk was held at the Department of International Politics at Aberystwyth University, and would cover the controversial topic of abolishing the Welsh Assembly in favour of returning to a centralised government.

The student campaign group ‘Yes Cymru Myfyrwyr”, who campaigns for a more independent Wales from Westminster, filmed Garreth Bennett leaving shortly after entering the University’s Politics building without making his planned speech.

Gareth Bennett, who has been a member of the Welsh Assembly representing UKIP since 2016, was reportedly banned from the Welsh Assembly last year after making allegedly trans-phobic comments. Bennett claimed that implementing a legal process to change an individuals legal gender would cause society to “implode”. This ban was later lifted after the politician made a partial apology to the Assembly’s Presiding Officer.

Bennett also garnered controversy in early 2018, when he claimed nearly £10,000 in expenses to set up an office which was never opened.

Bennett currently stands as UKIP’s lead representative in the Welsh Assembly, and won the leadership contest on an anti-devolution platform.

However, a report from the BBC suggested that only 13% of Welsh respondents wanted to Abolish the assembly, and only 3% wanted an Assembly with powers centralised back to Westminster. This was compared to 46% of respondents who wished for a National Assembly with greater powers.

Investment firm Goldman Sachs reports 51% gender pay gap

US-based investment firm Goldman Sachs has reported a gender pay gap of nearly 51% as part of new legislation that forces all businesses to disclose their gender pay statistics.

The bank paid women 50.8% less than men for each hour they worked at the business in 2018 worldwide, which is around 5% lower than its reported gap in 2017. however, the UK branch of the Investment bank reported a gender pay gap of only 17.9%.

The report also highlighted an average financial bonus pay gap of 66.7% for Goldman Sachs International, with an average financial bonus gap of 40.7% for Goldman Sachs UK branch.

However, it was also found that both Goldman Sachs International and the UK branch of the firm give bonuses to a higher proportion of women at the firm than men, and at the lowest salary groupings, women earned on average more than their male co-worker counterparts.

The report was calculated on statistics based on the average salaries of men and women paid at the firm in the UK, irrespective of role, seniority or performance.

The bank has stated that this doesn’t reflect a lack of commitment to the Equal Pay Act, but is instead indicative of a longstanding issue within Investment banking, that men are more likely than women to gain senior roles and work bonuses.

The highest salary grouping for the firm, which commonly constituted the most senior levels of management, found a pay gap of over 63.8% for the International group, and 55.2% for the UK branch.

Similar reports have been found in other banks, such as the Bank of England, which reported an average pay-gap of 21% and reported that their highest paid employees were 70% male, compared to the lowest paid who were 57% female.

Goldman Sachs have also released an outline for how the investment firm plan to deal with the pay gap and the issue of diversity within the business.

The firm has committed to expanding the diversity in the upper management of the bank, including new policies for childcare and eldercare, as well as new healthcare plans for fertility and gender dysphoria.

The firm also aims to gain a 50% female-male quota when hiring analysts from University and from other companies, along with proportional hiring quotas for ethnicity.

Fighting for the future: Youth climate strikes and the opportunity for change

On the 15th of March more than 1.4 million young people, according to environmental campaigners, took part in the international school strikes for climate change. The protests were inspired by the now famous 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, who refused to attend school in order to camp outside the Swedish parliament until they met her demands. Riding on this wave of solo protest, school children and young people across an estimated 128 countries have taken to the streets as part of the Fridays for future movement.

Some, like the Australian prime minister Scott Morrison have expressed annoyance, stating that “What we want is more learning in schools and less activism in schools“, a sentiment later echoed by Theresa May. But should we expect anything less from the prime ministers that govern countries which rank among the top ten for emissions per capita? No, of course not, these politicians are wedded to the industries and practices that cause climate breakdown. The youth realise this and they are trying to speak truth to power.

Despite the top news stories frequently published in major newspapers and on major news sites, Brexit will not cause the end of the human race, what will do that is climate breakdown but climate breakdown isn’t just global warming and it isn’t simply about reducing fossil fuel emissions it is a war on multiple fronts. It’s armies include: mass extinction, soil degradation, desertification, global warming, more and stronger hurricanes, sea level rise, an ice-free arctic and huge migrations of climate refugees.

Perhaps, we should take the demands of the school strikers more seriously because they are not the only movement challenging the inactive governments of the world. Multiple indigenous activist groups have exposed the hypocrisy of supposedly liberal politicians like Justin Trudeau and their vested interested (Transcanada pipeline protests).

But climate breakdown isn’t an isolated case, it sits comfortably in a world where fascism seems to be raising its ugly head, privatisation is unrelenting and loneliness plagues many. We have a system that is failing us, a system that needs overhauling. But do we start with the individual, as many have been led to believe? Use less plastic, take less flights, eat less meat? Actually, yes, but that alone won’t solve the existential crisis, when just 90 companies have contributed to 50% of emissions since the industrial revolution, and the world’s richest 1% own 82% of global wealth, the issue is with the system and it is precisely there we should aim our straightest arrow, at capitalism. A system that relies on unlimited growth in a world of finite resources, boom and bust cycles and disproportionate distribution of wealth. The youth that strike are the very same youth that are now discovering and backing socialism over capitalism and no wonder, when productivity has increased rapidly but wages have stagnated and millennials now face worse job prospects than their parents, despite being better trained. It seems that at some point somebody was sold a false dream.

If we have identified the cause as capitalism, the arbiters as inactive and vested politicians, wedded to climate destroying corporations, what then is the cure? Is it socialism, as the youth now seem to favour? or is something new, something more adaptive and relevant to our modern afflictions?

There have been those like Murray Bookchin, who have attempted to build on socialist and anarchist principles , outlining a more democratic, collaborative system, based on ecological concepts, something being enacted now in northern Syria. Others have taken the principles and cultures of their indigenous ancestors and forcibly reclaimed their common land for the people who till it, like las zapatistas. Even one issue movements like the extinction rebellion have a community based ethic and are promoting large democratic citizens assemblies.

However, as the school strike protests have shown, whatever system emerges to combat climate breakdown and emancipate the people from the cage of capitalism, it must be: youth-led (because they will be the ones who inherit the earth), international (because capitalism and climate breakdown recognise no borders), democratic (because all people must participate), and most of all hopeful. It must claim a vision for the planet and the human race, a way to solve the crisis, but also a means by which we, as people, can exist together and achieve a better, greater destiny for humanity

Climate breakdown is a threat and an attack but it is also an opportunity for change, an opportunity to construct a new world. Rosa Luxemburg once gave the choice of socialism or barbarism, today we face the choice of hope or despair, make your choice.

Speaker denies May a third meaningful vote on Brexit Deal

The speaker of the house, John Bercow, has denied Theresa May a third vote on her Brexit Deal without changes to her Motion, it has been revealed today.

Bercow has stated that he will not allow a third vote on a motion that was described as “substantially the same” motion that MPs rejected last week.

The Speaker has cited a parliamentary law, created in 1604, that a defeated motion is not allowed by be brought back to be discussed and voted for in parliament during the course of the same parliamentary session.

Bercow had previously called the second vote on May’s deal as different enough to be “in order”, but that further motions must be different enough to be classified as a new motion.

The announcement comes following another round of humiliating votes in parliament against the current Government, with the Conservative Party whipping MPs against a motion the Party itself had put forward for a vote, with MPs eventually deciding overwhelmingly to delay Brexit past the March 29th deadline for Article 50 if a deal cannot be agreed to before then.

Bercow’s statement comes as another setback among many for May’s Brexit Deal, which must now be agreed to by the 29th of March to save another blow to the Government when it will be obligated to ask the European Union for an extension to Article 50.

There are a number of theoretically possible ways to move around the denial by the Speaker of the House, and the former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, suggested that a substantial difference to the Deal could be to ask Parliament to also vote for putting the deal to a referendum. Another possibility would be to change the Parliament, calling a full general election and possibly changing the Speak of the House role itself, a position John Bercow has held for almost 10 years.

Exposed: The extremist sub-forums that contributed to the radicalisation of the New Zealand Shooter

The terrorist attack in New Zealand has been marked as one of the worst tragedies in the Western World in recent years, however the details of this attack are a damning similarity to other ethno-nationalist and far-right attacks in the past, all revolving around one internet enclave operating out of two hugely popular and extremely controversial internet forums.

The forums in question are known as 4Chan and 8Chan, and the characteristics that have garnered a cultural following among internet-users of almost all walks of life, hobbies, and views are also among their most controversial- complete anonymity for its users.

4Chan and 8Chan do not require users to create an account and identity to converse on their forums, and instead anyone is allowed to freely post information on its various sub-forums, with each post simply being labelled as having been posted by “anonymous”. This has led many to see these websites as a “libertarian utopia” free from biases, both from the government and between individuals. The reality, however, if far from the truth.

While 4Chan is generally known to be the less extreme website of the two, far-right views can still easily be found on the board’s /pol/ sub forum, also known as the “politically incorrect” section of the website. The general pretext for this sub forum is that the majority of posts are in-jokes or intentionally shocking for audiences not affiliated with the general 4Chan community, also known as “shitposting”. However, there is a considerable number of posts, from both anonymous and registered users, that connote that 4Chan’s /pol/ board is significantly less self-aware than it would appear.

One post, sent several days after the Christ-Church Shooting, alludes to a conspiracy theory developed since the attack that the shooting was in some way staged by the now widely defunct Islamic State.

One user, under an account named “Turkishguy” spreads an image which appears to allege that the New Zealand shooter was a member of the so-called Islamic State.

Another post, written on Saturday by an anonymous user, citicizes the New Zealand Shooter for not “eliminating” the right people, instead referring to an anti-Semitic right-wing conspiracy theory that governments are being influenced by “subversive zionists”. Another anonymous user responding to the post refers to right-wing terrorists as “heroes” and asks whether the actions of them were “in the best interest of the white race”.


Two anonymous users, with one being traced to a US-based IP address, discuss right-wing conspiracy theories. Profanity has been censored.

4Chan and 8Chan is not a difficult website to access. These images were not taken from a closed off internet fringe website, or collected from somewhere within the dark-web, they were collected from a public website which can be accessed from most search engines and from a sub-forum that can be accessed by anyone, regardless of age.

4Chan is one of the largest internet forums in the world, with approximately 1.8 billion posts since it’s creation in 2004, and roughly 1 million posts made each day, with an average monthly view count of 703 million. The /pol/ sub-forum is placed prominently on the website’s front page.

The more recent image board of the two, 8Chan, is generally known for it’s more extreme views within its political sub-forums, and 8Chan is the forum that the New Zealand shooter was known to frequent, and also the website where he first announced his attack while approaching the Christ Church Mosque.

8Chan is where the most extreme white-supremacist views can be found, including numerous posts portraying the New Zealand attack as a “heroic sacrifice” and listing ways to “honor” the Christ-Church Shooter.

Profanity has been censored, as have terms or links distributing right-wing material.

The data analytics website SimilarWeb has estimated 8Chan’s monthly traffic to be around 14-16 million views, with around half of the site’s views coming from America. The third highest country in terms of proportional viewer count is the UK, with around 5% of the site’s traffic taken up by UK registered computers. All images included in this article have been taken from the front pages of both political sub-forums at the time of writing.

Would these messages have been posted if 4Chan and 8Chan required its members to attach an account and identity? Probably not, many social media websites, such as twitter and facebook allow its users to hide behind fake account names, including the social media accounts of the New Zealand Shooter himself, who’s accounts were under a pseudonym, and the phenomenon of twitter and facebook “trolling” has been widely publicised in recent years.

Numerous media outlets have reported on the toxicity and potential for extremist content of both 4Chan and 8Chan, such as Vice back in 2016, however legislation on these forums has been sparse, and many countries are yet to enact any meaningful legislation against 4Chan and 8Chan and its use by citizens.

Three Dead in Possible Terrorist Attack

Just days after a rogue gunman shot 50 people dead in Christchurch, New Zealand a further shooting has occurred in the Netherlands.

Armed police are searching multiple buildings in Utrecht after a Turkish gunman opened fire on a tram, killing three. A police spokesman, Bernhard Jens, said a “terrorist motive” could not be excluded, but added that police were “not 100% sure” about the motive. “It could still be a domestic dispute,” he said. “We will wait for the investigation before we say more.”

A state-run news agency in Turkey claimed the man shot a relative due to ‘family reasons’ and then shot at civilians who tried to help the victim. The mayor of Utrecht said that three were killed, and a further nine injured. Three more of which needed serious medical attention.

Van Zanen said that the police were searching for ‘definitely one’ suspect who had already been identified after liaison with the suspects family.

Utrecht police issued a CCTV picture of the suspect, named as Turkish-born Gökmen Tanis, 37, and warned people not to approach him but to alert the authorities if they saw him. They also appealed for witness photographs.

It is unclear as to whether this was a full-blown terrorist attack or not, but one thing is for certain. The war against terror isn’t over yet.

The Independent Group: What a Stupid Idea.

It’s safe to say not much has happened since the formation of The Independent Group.

Just what have they done? Well, I’m going to give my opinion on each stage of their formation and what they have done since. Let’s begin, shall we?

 

Leaving the Labour Party:

As we all know, The Independent Group (TIG) formed after 7 Labour MP’s split from the party, citing Antisemitism and institutional racism as their reasons for leaving the party. There are some fundamental issues with this, first of them being that by leaving the Labour Party, they ensure an extended period of Tory rule. Let’s have some backstory.

The English media are some of the worst in the world. Antisemitism against the Labour Party, in particular, has taken over headlines across the country. This is problematic, and not for the reason you think. While it is true, the Labour Party do have an issue with antisemitism, the media continue to focus on it entirely. What you don’t hear about anymore, is Islamophobia.

Islamophobia and Antisemitism should bring about an equal concern, especially amongst the media, however, it doesn’t.  Muslims are repetitively and routinely harassed. As are Jews, but we never hear about it. Especially considering the party TIG are supporting, the Conservatives, could be argued as institutionally racist against Muslims.

Leaving the Labour Party was henceforth: STUPID

 

Forming an ‘Independent’ Group.

Look, we all know Chuka Umunna’s insane levels of narcissism will lead to him founding an official party of some kind, but the formation of an Independent Group truly is strange.

The hilarious part is, they’ve given each other roles. They’re literally pretending to be the opposition. It’s like when you’re on a mad one with your mates, and you’re so drunk you start pretending to run the country. It is truly amusing.

Chuka’s face when Gavin Shuker was announced as the group leader; priceless.

Luciana and Chuka could have just formed their own party, instead of creating an Independent Group and giving up the leadership and direction when they’re so hell-bent on having it. That really was: STUPID

 

Submitting their Second Referendum amendment.

Well, this one’s hilarious.

It takes an incredible amount of skill and talent to have Peoples Vote advise against voting for your own People’s Vote Amendment.

There’s not really much more to be said. The very organisation you’re pretending to represent just shot you down. Where do you go from there? Well, the answer is clear. Obscurity.

It’s so blatantly obvious that the only service TIG provides is to better it’s own MP’s political careers, oh, and to gain some clout in the process. STUPID.

 

TIG really are going to descend into a pit of nothingness.

 

Oh, and by the way, their Nando’s meal was great, it was a bit like the last supper, except everyone thought they were Jesus.

Editor & Writer: Samuel J. Booker

Samuel J. Booker is the Director of Social Media and Marketing at TPN. He edits and writes alongside his other duties, posts he has held since the beginning of 2019. At just 16 years of age, he has already founded a political youth movement and has high hopes for a future political career. He hopes to have a positive impact on the world through international communication and cooperation.

No More Tears For Tommy

June 16th, 2016, Yorkshire – Jo Cox MP, a 42-year-old member of parliament campaigning for the UK to retain its EU membership was walking towards her monthly surgery in Batley and Spen. Moments later, her constituent Thomas Mair ambushed her. She was shot in the head three times and tortured to death with a dagger, while the assailant cried the words “Britain First.”
The Brussels’ regime that Jo Cox sought to work with had ruled what it undeniably looked down upon as provincial backwaters – like Greece and England – with unrelenting authority for nearly fourty years, but that does not absolve the fringe of nationalistic, reactionary opposition groups who had discovered a decisively more destructive way to make their grievances heard than Jo Cox, with her diligent “Better To Improve Than Leave” ethos. They used weapons and declared war, under the guise of half-baked theories of self-determination.
“More In Common,” a sorrowful but sweet solidarity campaign, raised millions of pounds for charities dear to her heart in just a week after Jo Cox’s murder. The spirit of tolerance Thomas Mair had so ruthlessly tried to suppress began to find its voice around the world, with his crude weapons impotent to stop the force of a more sophisticated philosophy of love and tolerance that reverberated on a deeper, more fundamental level than any crooked slogan in a thug’s arsenal, inspiring eulogies from young children in Yorkshire and Barack Obama alike.

The U K was not alone; from England to Poland, the far right has been fomenting extreme violence throughout Europe. Recently Gdansk mayor Panel Adamowicz grabbed his torso and collapsed, later dying in a hospital, after a vicious stabbing at a charity event in the city. The assailant bore the same hatred of tolerance and multiculturalism that spurred on Mair, citing similar reasons for his senseless murder. The Night of Long Knives, a tremendous wave of Nazi violence that set the scene for continued repression of dissidents in 1930s Germany, was made possible by the far right monopoly on government, media and public platforms that enabled them to determine a violent, oppressive new path for their society.

In the context of recent demands by Labour Party MP Tom Watson to YouTube to take down Britain First poster boy Tommy Robinson’s vlog, which disseminates his jingoistic agenda, this begs the critical question: are the far right, as targets in a campaign against all anti-government dissidents, martyrs of free speech, or are they hateful opportunists who abuse free speech and bandwagon off more genuine human rights oppressions?

Millions of Facebook likes; 8 years in politics; 1 network connecting more fascist sympathisers in England and Europe than since the Moseley era. It is arguable that Britain First represents a significant percentage of the popular will, at least insofar as it is constituted by Facebook likes at all; today it may well do.

There is further cause to reflect on the possible censorship of Britain First is censorship of the lumpenproletariat, who, fooled though they are by the outdated racial categories of neo-fascist divide and rule, yet have the same rights to free expression and association as everyone else. On the other hand, Paul Golding and Freyda Jansen’s upcycling of BNP politics has, precisely through its appeal to the white proletariat, become a fundamental platform for isolating, attacking, disenfranchising already hindered minority ethnic voices in society, making their participation in politics harder than ever. So, it seems satisfyingly persuasive to say that, because it suppresses intersectional politics, movements that normalise fascism in the working classes are the antithesis of free speech axioms which determine that it must be shared and accessed equally by everyone at all times regardless of social stratification. More free speech for fascists isn’t more free speech for everyone.

It isn’t easy to answer whether it is right to shut down far-right speakers on the internet, especially when their prejudices are unchallenged, acceptable when couched in more couth rhetoric by the Tories, who get away with it and then shift the blame squarely to Britain First when they are also at fault. With the organisation moving decidedly away from BNP class elitism to embrace ordinary people surfing social media, the main source of Britain First’s support, it seems their main crime from the eyes of the establishment is nothing worse than being uncouth.

There is, though, the counterpoint that the discourse on the relationship between the web matrix and free speech isn’t yet sophisticated enough to know whether freedom of speech constitutes the freedom to stoke mass hysteria with hateful memes. Memes have become a Mecca for islamophobic smear and advertising – by connecting consumers to popular prejudices and delusions of white persecution, Britain First has helped to articulate Nazi philosophy for the 21st-century British internet and enrol ever more disenchanted grifters into its swelling ranks. Its importance for spreading fringe messages of Euroscepticism and racial hatred into the political mainstream is immeasurable; the Conservative party’s genuflecting to demands for an EU membership referendum in their cynical, opportunistic 2016 manifesto is a testament to this.

Free speech is the exchange of ideas. Anyone who claims to have hard and fast answers about what is right by the principles of free speech hasn’t spent long enough thinking about the nuance. In an age of rampant no-platforming, reverse no-platforming, it is easy to assume there is a crusade of intolerance of tolerance. If the tolerant are those who value unrestricted rights to self-expression for everyone, the tolerant are those who oppose the way Britain First make it harder for minorities to exercise their civil liberties. The intolerant are those who wheel out tired, banal platitudes about the freedom to defend Britain First against a righteous boycott. Boycotts are essential in a democracy, and it’s high time we remembered that.

 

Article by: Meg Sherman

 

Editor’s Comments:

 

Tommy Robinson is a violent and controversial man. Founder of the EDL and Supporter of Britain First, he is widely regarded as a Racist, Fascist and an Islamophobe. It’s important that we recognise his poor actions and condone any positive press he receives.

Editor: Samuel J. Booker

Samuel J. Booker is the Director of Social Media and Marketing at TPN. He edits and writes alongside his other duties. At just 16 years of age, he has founded a political youth movement and has high hopes for a future political career. He to have a positive impact on the world through international communication and cooperation.