Weekend Box: Locals, Roe v Wade & more
Welcome to The Weekend Box, Audley’s weekly round-up of interesting or obscure political, business, and cultural news from around the world.
RED SKY IN MORNING, PM’S WARNING?
On Thursday, the UK went to the polls for local elections. While a picture of results for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland is still forthcoming, the counts in England have brought some surprises - pleasant for one party, less so for another.
The most significant result for both sides are what can be called the Tories’ capital-L losses, as the party has lost the traditionally Conservative London boroughs of Barnet, Wandsworth, and Westminster to Labour; Wandsworth for the first time since 1978, Barnet and Westminster for the first time in history. It has been called a symbolic victory for Labour, with Sir Kier Starmer describing the results as a “turning point” for the party.
Some of that optimism may have worn off since news broke today that the leader is to be investigated by Durham police over ‘beergate’. While we are on that less positive note, Labour’s results have been described as ‘symbolic’ in more ways than one. Outside of London, the party have not made substantive gains and have also lost the stronghold of Hull to the Liberal Democrats. The BBC’s Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg has said that the results are not the revolutionary advance that would show Labour are about to be "cruising into No 10 - far from it."
Some argue that Prime Minister Boris Johnson will walk away from today confident about his grip on power. For others however – many outgoing Conservative councillors among them – the message Thursday sends is clear. Former Chief of Staff at Number 10 Gavin Barwell took to Twitter (and pinned his tweet, nonetheless) to describe the outcome as “catastrophic,” saying that it should be “a wake up [sic] call for the Conservative Party.” In the leadup to the elections, Tory candidates in various councils distributed leaflets in which they branded themselves ‘local Conservatives’ and made pleas to voters not to ‘punish’ them in the polls for the recent behaviour of their party leader. Alas, it seems it was to little avail.
Councillor Simon Bosher, the Conservative leader for Portsmouth, has warned that despite the more temperate attitude some have taken to the results, “if things don’t change we’ll find ourselves in the exact same position in next year’s elections.” Indeed, in the wake of Partygate, could it be that Boris Johnson, the man who got the Conservatives a victory in 2019, will turn out to be the party's biggest liability?
ROE V WADE: COURT OF INJUSTICE
On the eve of the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump promised his supporters that he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would “automatically” overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark ruling which guaranteed federal constitutional protection of abortion rights. Whilst Trump has a penchant to spread false or misleading claims, in this case he unfortunately kept to his word.
During his term in office Trump transformed the Supreme Court by appointing three right-leaning justices, drastically shifting the ideological balance of the court from liberal to conservative. Fast forward to 2022 and a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion, published by Politico, appears to show that a majority of the court’s justices intend to revoke Roe. The author of the draft, Justice Samuel Altio, labels the legislation as “egregiously wrong from the start.” If this barbaric repudiation of the 1973 decision continues to reflect the court’s position, it could be only months until states will control women’s bodies and futures. The average abortion rate in America is roughly 629,898 per year, meaning that perhaps 12,000 children a week will be born by women for whom those babies were an enforced legal requirement, rather than an autonomous choice. This is an inhumane and heartless thing to do - both for the enforced mother and the child.
If the Supreme Court decides that women are to have less control over their bodies than the deceased, the catastrophic impacts will be far-reaching. Women will be forced to give birth in a country with no paid maternity leave and one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the industrialised world: In 2020 alone, 861 women were identified as having died of maternal causes in the United States. It is expected that this number will surge by 20% if Roe is overturned. It will also place women’s lives in jeopardy as they seek illegal abortions; it will threaten women with punitive measures and those who help them, including the taxi driver who transports them to the clinic and the “abortionist” doctor; and it will mean that more children will grow up in households where they are unable to eat or access quality education - nearly 11 million children in the US are already living in poverty.
This decision will also endanger other societal liberties, including gay marriage and gender reassignment, which are similarly grounded in the right to personal choice. Justice Samuel Altio, says that it will not do so. He argues that no other issue than abortion involves “the critical moral question” - e.g., the rights and the precise ontology of “an unborn human being”, or a “potential life.” Altio’s belief that abortion is a unique issue offers little reassurance. It is startlingly clear that if this antiabortion strategy comes to fruition in the summer, America will become Margaret Atwood's dystopian republic of Gilead: A land where the Supreme Court lord over women’s bodies and encroach on the lives of those who do not fit into the mould of what the Republican lens view as ‘acceptable.’
In Washington, much of the Democrat Party are enraged by the seemingly imminent end to the near 50-year-old constitutional right and have vowed to bring a legislation to vote that would codify a woman’s right to end her pregnancy. However due to the six-justice conservative bloc in the Supreme Court, which is unlikely to be dismantled anytime soon, their options are limited. Their only chance to protect women’s fundamental rights are the November midterm elections.
The women who fought for Roe v Wade may have believed their victory would last forever. Now their granddaughters and great granddaughters' bodies are to become political battlegrounds once again, with Republicans vying to leave them with even fewer rights than their ancestors had. This is America.
PIERS MORGAN CENSURED
It was supposed to be “The most explosive interview of the year.” At least, that’s according to TalkTV, who must have thought they had nothing less than television dynamite with Piers Morgan Uncensored. Instead, what TalkTV have is a bomb, as ratings for the show have slipped a staggering 80% in the week since its launch.
317,000 viewers tuned in last week to watch the inaugural episode of Uncensored, featuring part one of Morgan’s interview with Donald Trump, and see the former-Good Morning Britain host join TalkTV’s distinguished ranks of disgraced daytime tyrant Jeremy Kyle and journalist-turned-radio-presenter Mike Graham, who once argued to a climate activist that it was possible to grow concrete. The second part of the interview, broadcast the following night, only mustered 215,000 viewers: a staggering drop of over 100,000 viewers from one night to the next. Unfortunately for TalkTV and Morgan, the numbers have only worsened since; Monday’s edition of Uncensored peaked at merely 75,800 viewers.
The failure could be chalked up to misleading marketing. Teasers promised high drama, as they showed Trump walking out of the interview. However, viewers who tuned into the first part were hardly treated to fireworks. Perhaps the one genuine highlight was Morgan recounting his GMB exit to the former US president, only for Trump to respond that he had seen it, adding: “I think you overreacted, by the way.”
The two thirds of viewers who stuck around for the second part were bemused to find the much-publicised exit by Trump was, in fact, manufactured in editing. At the end, interviewer and subject agree to bring proceedings to a close. Trump offers some parting shots about the interview overrunning, and that’s that. Not a bang, but a whimper.
Or perhaps ‘a lot of hot air’, which is also an apt summary of Morgan as a presence. For all of that he extols the vague concept of ‘freedom of speech’, he has never had much trouble finding large platforms where he can (very loudly) air his views. That lack of substance to back up the surface level impression of a firebrand may also explain the dismal ratings. Advertisements for Piers Morgan Uncensored have argued that, love or hate the man, “You won’t want to miss him.” In a way, they’re right. After this, one cannot imagine they would miss him being on TV.
KEEPING TECH IN CHECK
Earlier this week, news broke that the government would scrap plans for robust tech regulation by its Digital Markets Unit (DMU), preventing the UK from challenging the market hegemony of Big Tech. Controversy ensued, which may explain their sudden change of heart: Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries has now set out plans for new powers for the DMU that will allow it to fine tech companies up to 10% of their global turnover.
The plans will fulfil the ambitions that the government originally set out for DMU in 2020. At the time, the government promised that the unit would be granted the power to enforce codes of conduct for major tech companies such as Google and Facebook. In addition, the Unit, which forms part of the Competition and Markets Authority, will have the power to clamp down on inappropriate practices by companies and enable mobile device users to switch between devices without losing contacts and data.
However, the government is yet to confirm when this legislation will take effect, suggesting there is still a hint of uncertainty around the plans after the Financial Times reported on Monday that they would be scrapped. The DMU’s powers had been expected to form part of the government’s new legislative programme to be announced next Tuesday as part of the State Opening of Parliament. However, according to the report, Boris Johnson’s deputy chief of staff David Canzini told colleagues to lower their expectations for new legislation they could demand, as the Prime Minister had become wary of “intervening in the economy.”
While no decision was officially announced, the news provoked a storm of criticism. After the European Commission announced that EU lawmakers had reached a consensus on the Digital Services Act two weeks ago, heralding a new era of tech regulation in the EU, it appeared that Britain was falling short of the mark.
The government has promised that the DMU legislation will arrive “in due course.” While this may not tell us much, let us take consolation in the fact that they are on the right track this time.
ALL THAT GLITTERS…
The Met Gala is no stranger to criticism. Last year’s gala sparked controversy due to Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s white dress that said “Tax the Rich”; ironic, given that tickets to attend the event cost upwards of $35,000. In those terms, this year was no exception.
The organisers of the 2022 Met Gala, including American Vogue editor Anna Wintour, are facing backlash for this year’s theme: “Gilded Glamour and White Tie.” Many view the throwback to the prosperity and opulence of the late 19th century as “out of touch” and insensitive to the dire economic situation most Americans are currently grappling with. Just last month inflation surged to a 40-year high of 7.9%, catalysed by skyrocketing costs for gas, food, and houses.
Many took to social media to slam the celebration of extravagance as tone-deaf. One user tweeted: “Am I the only one who thinks this year’s #MetGala theme out of touch? Inequality is at the highest levels since the Gilded Age; a pandemic & economic meltdown wrecked us; and inflation is out of control … but cool, let’s wear #GildedAge themed dresses & laughs about inequality … this year’s theme is a slap in the face to average Americans.”
Many also pointed out the bitter irony of the Met’s jollification of opulence amid the enduring crisis in Ukraine. In an ironic echo of Mary Atoinette, another Twitter user wrote: “Gilded glamour at a time of war, let them eat cake[.]”
Speaking to The Independent, a representative for Condé Nast attempted to bat off criticism by driving home the point that the aim of the gala is to be a fundraiser. “[The Met Gala] is the main source of annual funding for the Costume Institute’s exhibitions, acquisitions, and capital improvements,” she said. “I think that often gets lost in the narrative, when it is actually the fundamental purpose of the evening.” The question is, then, whose fault it is that it “often gets lost in the narrative.”
And that’s it for this week. I hope you found something of interest that you might want to delve into further. If so, please get in touch at cwilkins@audley.uk.com.
For now, that’s the weekend box officially closed.