Author: labbott858

Performative Politics: Trump’s pageantry in office.

Yesterday the UFC held its 250th event at the white house, to commemorate 250 years since the founding of America, but also for Donald Trump’s birthday. It is not uncommon to see leaders of the world hold events in celebration of history and great achievements. However the celebration of one’s own birthday, partially funded by taxpayers money, is more akin to North Korea and Kim Jong Un .

Trump is well known around the world as a divisive figure, constantly poking the boundaries of what he feasibly can get away with. However beyond the actual policies of his government, to which I shall not comment, there appears a peculiar case of pageantry. This is highlighted by the recent UFC event.

By covering Trump for his recent term, many small factors have to come to light that appear closer to personal narcissism. The huge events, the parades, the statues, the name changes. They all are done with Trump’s image in mind. For him he wishes to represent himself as not just the president, but the best president to ever hold office.

Although this is seperate from actual policy making, it does still hold infulence. Trump’s obsession with appearance bleeds into his decision making. Tariffs, international bullying and his attacking tweets. All of these are factors of strong manning, where an individual attempts to appear more masculine to force through ideas or plans.

In many cases, alot of Trump’s policies rely on appearing successful rather than actually working. Short term success in all of his plans is key, which can be paraded around and weaponised against doubters. The Executive orders are the primary example. Signing his name on a piece of paper, as if that can instantly change the functionality of society. They appear as instant success and progress, yet the reality is very different.

Many of his orders do not actually get implemented. They are either too ambitious, blocked by congress or just downright irresponsibly daft. Yet they appear to be instant and effective.

Trump’s personality and ambition pools into a giant performance. Similiar to Stalin’s Gigantomania, and love all things superfluously large, Trump is all about the bigger, the better. As well all know, the bigger something appears, the weaker the foundations truly are.

Therefore the UFC event, which has caused alot of outrage due to it’s public display of wealth and elitism, is but a symptom of a larger issue. Trump performs his position, and often tends to exaggerate many of his statements. Creating uncertainty around if he should be in the most powerful position in the world.

15th Jun 2026
The far-right’s weaponisation of tragedy

As with all British politics, any major events or shocking tragedies reflect poorly on those in government. Outside of the grieving and the pain caused to local communities and families, these events have a direct effect on politics. For example after the 7th July terrorist attack in London, Tony Blair was forced to introduce the 2006 Terrorism act. As a leader of a country you are held responsible for tragedy. However, what happens when a tragic event, is used to promote and evidence a political belief or manipulated against a political rival?

Murders, violent attacks and hatred is a daily occurence not just in the UK but around the world. It has become engrained and defined a feature of human nature. However certain incidents stand out. For the Far-Right, any violent attack from a person of colour, an immigrant or someone who is different from themselves, becomes an oppurtunity to utilise.

That is not to say that these crimes are not horrific, nor is it to deny that action should be taken against violence on our streets. However the problem is criminals commiting crimes, not their race, ethnicity or religious choices. There is a very clear distinction between the two. Which Far-Right indviduals tend to blur.

For example with the recent murder of university student Henry Nowak. An awful and preventable tragedy. Yet the riots that emerged were against Starmer, the Labour government, policing and immigration. That is not a memorial. It is the manipulation of someone’s death to be used as a political tool for violence. Those rioters, some of who included neo-nazis and white nationalists, caused thousands of pounds worth of damage to Southampton, their own city. That is the issue.

Equally the other day, a man in Belfast was brutally attacked by a sudanese man. However the fact that he is sudanese is virtually irrelevant to the case. He was a criminal commiting a crime. What followed was violent attacks on family homes, and innocent people. How can we as a country condone attacks on families as defending rights and standing up for justice?

It becomes apparent that certain groups and indviduals, prey upon the pain and grief of these tragedies. Manipulating it as evidence of uncontrolled immigration or poor political choices. The colour of someones skin cannot and should not be used as an indicator for a whole group.

The catalyst of these responses comes in the form of its leaders. Both Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson have both directly and indirectly called for protests and anger in response to events such as these. Anger in a place full of pain does no good deed. If anything it increases the volatility of the situation and makes immigrants and POCs targets for hate crimes.

In these times of sorrow and mourning, after violent and cruel attacks, weaponising the victims and the perpertrators as examples of political failings and cultural change, is extremely harmful. Not only to the families of those who have lost loved ones, but the innocent people who make our country a better place to live in. They should not be used to promote ones political views on immigration. Criminality is individual not a representation of a whole group of people.

10th Jun 2026
For the People?: The disparity between politics and the public

Political representation has always been the foundation of modern democracy. In theory there should be a party that represents every base of political thought and belief. However the reality is far from that. Logically no one’s personal political beliefs will align perfectly with any one party. Yet if a large portion of the population do not feel represented by any party, is our democracy flawed?

In a study before the previous general election in 2023 the organisation, UK In A Changing Europe, found that 31% or nearly a third of the UK public did not feel represented by any party. Those interviewed stated that they felt there was no point in voting, because nothing changes and they belived their vote was not significant.

Disillusionment between politics and the public creates a rift between the average voter and those chosen to govern the country. If public trust fails to lie in the government, then their power is obselete. That is not to say that this is the case, as it is still a miniority among the British public, however it does bring to light a range of interesting questions about why people feel under represented.

The trust in democracy and the UK political system itself is still strong, however it is the distrust in politicians that is a large portion of the grievance. The electoral commission in 2024 noted that only 10% of their subjects said they trusted politicians. This result mirrors the growing discontent around the reliability of the UK’s leaders. The connotations of scandals and politicians have become engrained in British Culture, and as it stands to reason, a major factor for why many feel under-represented. These politicians don’t act like them.

Furthermore the trends of these surveys show that there was a large feeling of no representation among the right of UK politics. This can be explained by the recent rise of far-right parties and ideologies, that claim to represent the marginlised British voters. Therefore if there is a disconnection between the mainstream parties and the electoral base, more extreme or niche parties begin to emerge. They attempt to cater to groups who feel isolated by the establishment.

This is encapsulated by a study by the electoral commission highlighting a massive disparity in a desire for strong leadership, among conservatives and Reform compared to Labour or Greens. it makes logical sense, therefore that if a government follows a line of policies that do not align with the individual, they will search for alternatives. However, the alternatives may not be any better.

We cannot know how truly represented people feel in relation to politics, as each individual differs on each individual policy. However there is clearly a division between politicians and the people they represent. These ideas of elitism and being ‘out of touch’ have become synonymous with UK politics. Many feel that politics no longer represents them and that politicians no longer represent the people. It is clear democracy is still intact, yet the division between those in power and those they serve continues to grow.

8th Jun 2026
Fear Sells: The monopolisation of fear in the modern media

Since the start of newspapers in the 17th century, news has become a staple of modern life. Always connected, always informed. The difference today is speed, for which we can access global news within a click of a button. We can see the wars across the globe, the constant pandemics and peril that faces humanity. Yet why is it always so bleak? The answer, as do most things, lies in money.

For the media, money is the sole purpose. It is no different from any other large conglomerate and therefore should not be seen any differently. People wish to be informed on the world’s events and will always interact with news. However fear exponentially increases engagement, and engagement provides money.

The Media itself has never changed, creating a sense of panic has always created greater interest. Yet the modern forms of media, provided by the internet, allows for 24/7 coverage. The wave of impending bad news never ends, nor does the interest.

In recent years this has become more apparent as a method of sustainability for the media. More and more of the public have become disillusioned with how the Media represents itself and it’s underlying motivations. The active choice to cover some stories while avoiding others has put the Media in hot water. Therefore with a declining support base, fear is the one factor that keeps them afloat.

The stories of joy, hope and human resilience are present, they do well in the court of public opinion. But, too much positivity becomes obsolete compared to the engagement of anxiety. Therefore, the majority of stories are on war, famine and the never ending cycle of political scandals. That is what sells best.

This constant barrage of negativity is extremely draining, for all those who read the news regularly. Trump with another pointless war threat, the cost of living in the UK, murders, poverty, terror attacks, genocide. However its equally addicting. To stay connected is to be present, to be a member of the human race, and to know of the world is the purest form of social connectivity.

Perhaps the news should focus on the positive events of the world. But it would not be as profitable for those who own the Media, so will never come to fruition.

My belief is that the Media, is extremely beneficial for it’s role. To educate, to connect and to inform. But it does not represent the world. It shows a dangerous and divided globe, one of pain and struggle. Reality is far more diverse. There is happiness, love and empathy beyond the fearmongering of the papers. Therefore the Media profits from fear, and we the people can profit by taking news as what it is. A business.

29th May 2026
Brexit or Brejoin: The causes, consequences and future of Britain’s relationship with the EU.

In 2020 Britain left the European Union, and removed itself from the economic and political hub of the European mainland. Brexit itself caused a division within the country, as only 51% had voted to leave in 2016. The propaganda and misinformation that overshadowed the vote, led to a confused and poorly planned election. The effects have been tremendous. Only in hind sight did the British public realise they had been swindled, but why did it happen and what should the future choice be?

The two main causes of Brexit were misinformation and the electoral base. Primarily the government and other politicians facilitated the choice in the first place. Prime Minister David Cameron chose to call a vote as he was under political pressure, and he had wildly assumed that the British public were well versed in the complexities of international affairs. They were not. This allowed fearmongering and scapegoating, suggesting that the EU was a direct threat to British Sovereignty and that independence would provide us the tools to improve our economy and reduce immigration. However these were never feasible outcomes.

On the surface the EU provided trade links and free movement, in exchange for huge fees and detrimental laws. However the intrinsic nature of international communities, is never that simple. Even for those who are well versed in international politics, the EU is a complex and expansive body, not one that can be understood through simplistic terms. Therefore to allow any voter base to tackle such an insurmountable question, was reckless. A choice for which Cameron forever bares the consequences.

This leads on to the electoral base itself, those who were given the power and responsibility to Influence the future of Britain’s European relationship. The journal ‘Economic Policy’, in 2017, conducted a survey on the demographics of the election from which we base this argument. Those from poorer economic backgrounds with fewer qualifications were more likely to vote leave, influenced by the political propaganda machine. This was founded on the belief that leaving the EU would increase job opportunities and improve the cost of living. Another major demographic group was the elderly, who wished to return to socially conservative values, ones that the EU were modernising against. These were encompassed by the overarching theme of white votes, who the majority of voted to leave.

These demographic patterns can be summarised by Thomas Sampson, “Voting to leave the European Union was strongly associated with holding socially conservative political beliefs, opposing cosmopolitanism, and thinking life in Britain is getting worse.” (Sampson, Thomas (2017). “Brexit: The Economics of International Disintegration)

Overall it is clear that a clear association was made between personal and local issues, with a wider European blame. Many of those that did vote leave, either have passed on and cannot experience the consequences, or regret their decision after seeing the negative effects of the Referendum. Yet the question remains, what comes next?

In recent years, the temptation of re-joining the EU has become increasingly appealing. The benefits of the EU are now more apparent than ever, as we are actively missing out on them. However, the Referendum divided the country, and no Prime minister or Government would willingly re-join without the political benefits of doing so. Although it would be divisive even today, it would be a fairly easy endeavour to take our place back in the international community.

The conversation around the descent into federalism, and the potential loss of Sovereignty, takes away from the truth of the situation. We as a nation made a mistake. Could we have done it differently? Absolutely. Yet the past is the past and we must progress nonetheless. The EU will never take our culture nor our independence, and it is time that Britain realises that it is no longer an empire and does in fact need allies. For the benefit of all her citizens and for the rest of Europe.

28th May 2026
Stigma around politics: Why marginalising the Far-Right increases extremism

Recently there was another Tommy Robinson led anti-immigration march in the UK. What banner they say they march under, is very different from the reality of the protest. The supporters of Robinson, and other Far-Right figures, all have different motivations and reasons for going to such an event. The issue is, not what these supporters say or advocate, but the responses to this. Which the majority of the time is negative and demeaning.

The point of this article is to express that Far-Right beliefs have always exsisted in a miniority, yet the reason they become mainstream sources are because of societies’ marganlisation of their views.

A range of views became apparent within these groups, some believe immigration is draining the economy, some believe that politicians have let them down, and some are indeed racist. The question arises, how can such a diverse collection of ideas all accumulate into hate towards immigrants? and by condmening and isolating these people, will it change their attitiude towards extreme beliefs?

The underlying reasoning plays a large part in attempting to answer these questions, and to an extent some overgeneralisations must be made to supplement the argument. These factors include, under education, poor economic backgrounds, cultural and family traditions and misinformation. These factors all feed into the support base for the Far-Right, positioning a singular and relatively minor problem, as the sole cause of all their personal issues.

Yet how can those who are educated, judge others who are not so? The ability to make sound and reasonable political judgement stems from research, education and interaction with opposing beliefs. Many people have not been provided such a privilege. Therefore they are susceptible to misinformantion, fearmongering and the attractiveness of hate.

In my opinon, the followers of Far-Right doctrine are for the most part normal people, who have been abandonded by the system, destined to shift towards extremism. That is not to say that evil does not exist within these groups, but those who are there, in regard for personal reasons, should not be shunned by society.

They do not know any better.

It is for this reason, that I believe that the stigma against Far-Right supporters, pushes them further into extremism. When faced with a group that provides them answers, and a group that blames them for their circumstances, it becomes clear how extreme views garner mainstream support.

The solution is simple; empathy. Not to judge by their words, but to try and think how they think, to understand why they say what they say. Only then can we begin to re-educate, to teach others, and to rebuild a truly United Kingdom. Isolating a volatile and abandoned group, makes them only more volatile and abandoned. The solution to ending Far-Right extremism, is to see them as people.

19th May 2026
Politics by the people, for the people: Has ‘First Past the Post ‘voting become outdated?

The current UK political system has been in place since the 1950s, and the voting method, namely First-Past-the-Post, has been a focus of conversation for years. Voters, on Election Day, choose an MP to represent their constituency within parliament, however the total number of MP’s country wide determines the election winner. This creates a problem, where people either vote for their favorite party at the cost of a poor MP, or vote for their favorite MP at the cost of their desired government.

This has led to outcomes, where a party can receive the majority of national votes, but not win the election overall. First-Past-the-Post has therefore become a subject of debate, with the alternative option of Representative voting has garnered support.

Proportional Representative voting, means that if a party won 40% of the votes they would then be allocated 40% of the governmental seats. This to many people, seems like the fairer and more accurate display of the national voting intention. However it comes with downsides as well. Proportional voting would allow voters from the other side of the country to influence your local MPs and vice versa.

Either method of election has both pros and cons, and each can be argued for in turn. Yet as the current system stands First-Past-the-Post does work, and has done so for a long time. It is a personal question as to which would be more efficient in deciding the country’s government.

11th May 2026
Rise of Reform UK: The breeding ground of divisive populism

The best way to categorise how reform has garnered such a large and devoted support base is through the lens of populism. Various scholars, such as Ernesto Laclau, and Cas Mudde, set out a list of requirements that Reform encapsulates.

Firstly, populists attempt to define a homogeneous body, who are the true people of that country, what their culture is, and what they look like. In Reform’s case, this is white British nationals, especially the working class. Secondly, Populism is anti-establishmentarian, moving away from the status quo of usual politics, offering a new pathway to successful representation. Reform epitomises this technique, critiquing the two-party dominance of Labour and the Conservatives. Finally, it requires a charismatic leader, who, for Reform, is Nigel Farage. These factors are the foundation for a successful populist party.

Reform UK is by definition a populist party, claiming to represent the true popular will of the people, against the government that no longer represents the public. The environmental conditions of UK politics have opened the floodgates for parties like Reform to appeal to the previously secure support bases of other parties. Poor economic conditions, scandals and wars have ruined public trust in politics, and thus a new divisive party becomes very appealing.

Image: Member of the European Parliament Nigel Farage speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbour, Maryland taken by Gage Skidmore. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nigel_Farage_(33149364955).jpg

Populism as a political methodology has existed for a long time; in recent years, especially with the emergence of social media, it has become more prominent in modern politics. Figures like Farage and Trump use tactics to divide political landscapes, in turn rendering support for their party and discrediting their opponents.

Reform’s popularity is owed to its method of politics, polarised and divisive, accumulating a wide base of popular support merely from being different. This is not to say that Reform are the only UK populist party, the Green party could also be considered as such. However, Reform’s rhetoric is extremely harmful both to UK politics and to a large number of people who do not fit into their ‘perfect’ Britain.

10th May 2026
Personal Politics: the emotional response to political choice

In recent years especially with the rise of social media, Individual political opinions have become intertwined with one’s character. By aligning yourself with a political party, in today’s world, means to associate your core morals with that of the party itself. In many ways this removes the subjectivity of politics, and makes voting an extremely personal thing.

The true primary reason for the personification of political views is divisive and polarised politics. The more extreme or unorthodox the party, the more debate and division ensues. In UK politics, for example, the recent local council elections saw an abandonment of the traditional two parties, in favour of the more radical Reform UK and the Green Party. This is due to the current state of the system, and the dissatisfaction and discontent with current politics. In short the people feel underrepresented and thus over represent themselves.

The personalisation of politics is not exactly a new phenomenon and has been shown throughout history in movements such as the suffragettes. Where politics was an extremely personal matter, one that could provide them the opportunity that the current system did not. As beneficial as it can be, it equally can be destructive, especially among friends and family. The politics itself is divisive and embodying such sentiments often leads to conflict.

So why does it matter? Politics is an individual right, if you are a citizen and over the age of 18, you have the right to decide who governs our country. That is real power. Voting and holding the government accountable is the foundation of modern democracy, a choice that is always personal. Yet in the time of constant media updates and conversation , it’s no longer personal. It is a reflection of yourself. The new world politics will continue to be over emotional issues and personified, and the world changes with it, but perhaps it’s equally okay to take it subjectively, that maybe the party and the people are not one entity.

9th May 2026