// Async load of cx.js
(function(d,s,e,t){e=d.createElement(s);e.type=’text/java’+s;e.async=’async’;
e.src=’http’+(‘https:’===location.protocol?’s://s’:’://’)+’cdn.cxense.com/cx.js’;
t=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];t.parentNode.insertBefore(e,t);})(document,’script’);
break;}}
–>
1. GM deja Venezuela luego de que le confiscaron una planta
La automotríz, General Motors cesó sus operaciones en Venezuela y despidió a 2,678 empleados luego de que el gobierno le confiscó una planta dentro del país.
El día de ayer la fabrica fue inesperadamente tomada por las autoridades venezolanas, que impidieron que siguiera operando con normalidad, aseguró Julia Bastos, portavoz de GM en Brasil, en un correo electrónico este jueves.
Otros activos de la compañía, como vehículos, fueron ilegalmente retirados de las instalaciones
GM deja Venezuela luego de que le confiscaron una planta. Ver nota.
2. El 2018, determinante para el futuro de México, dice Lagarde
El años que viene será el decisivo para México con dos eventos determinantes para su futuro, a los que estará atento del Fondo Monetario Internacional: la posible renegociación del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte y las elecciones, comentó la directora gerente del organismo, Christine Lagarde.
Lo que más le interesa en estos momentos al organismo sobre México es la discusión de si se renegociará el TLCAN, cómo se renegociará y cómo le afectará, porque realmente es un asunto crítico para el país.
Al participar en uno de los seminarios previos a las Reuniones de Primavera del FMI y el Banco Mundial, la funcionaria dijo que México se tiene que analizar un poco aparte de los demás países de América Latina, porque está en medio de las dos regiones.
El 2018, determinante para el futuro de México, dice Lagarde. Ver nota.
3. La máquina viral de BuzzFeed abre oficina de noticias en México
BuzzFeed anunció su nueva unidad de noticias en México bajo la dirección de Rafael Cabrera, uno de los periodistas que revelaron la existencia de la llamada Casa Blanca de la primera dama Angélica Rivera.
La unidad comenzó operaciones a un año de las elecciones presidenciales de 2018, que este medio digital de origen estadounidense espera cubrir con rigor y sin presiones comerciales. BuzzFeed es más conocido por sus noticias virales y sus contenidos de listas numeradas, pero también es el medio que tuvo una entrevista exclusiva con Barack Obama en 2015 y que entre sus reporteros cuenta con ganadores de premios Pulitzer.
La máquina viral de BuzzFeed abre oficina de noticias en México . Ver nota.
4. Recursos a los estados, con el mayor crecimiento
Las participaciones federales registraron recursos por 136,434.3 millones de pesos durante los dos primeros meses del 2017, lo que representó un crecimiento anual real de 19.4%, de acuerdo con datos de la Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público.
En los últimos siete años, esta es la variación más elevada considerando sólo el primer bimestre; además, este aumento rompió la tendencia de dos caídas consecutivas previas. Por monto, fue el mayor nivel observado.
De 13 fondos que componen las participaciones federales, los que mostraron mayores incrementos anuales reales fueron: Municipal (23.3%), 0.136% de la Recaudación Federal Participable (23.3%), General (23.2%), IEPS (23.2%) e Incentivos Económicos (20.4 por ciento).
Recursos a los estados, con el mayor crecimiento. Ver nota.
Mark Harris, the Republican nominee in a North Carolina congressional race that was tainted by ballot fraud, announced Tuesday that he will not run in the new election for the seat.
Harris said in a statement that he has decided not to seek the 9th District seat due to health problems.
“Given my health situation, the need to regain full strength, and the timing of this surgery the last week of March, I have decided not to file in the new election for Congressional District 9,” Harris said.
Harris has been recovering from a serious infection that had led to sepsis and two strokes.
He threw his support behind Union County Commissioner Stony Rushing, whose record Harris said has “proven him to stand firm on so many of the issues that concern us, including the issue of life, our national security, and religious freedom.”
North Carolina election officials last week ordered a new contest in the 9th District, ending a dramatic months-long investigation focused on irregularities with mail-in ballots.
The board voted unanimously to throw out the November results between Harris and Democrat Dan McCready.
Harris, an evangelical minister from Charlotte, had led by 905 votes in unofficial returns.
His decision not to run follows four days of hearings last week revealing voluminous evidence that a political operative had led an illegal scheme to tamper with absentee ballots on behalf of Harris’s congressional campaign last year.
Evidence also surfaced that Harris had structured his campaign so that he wasn’t paying the operative, Leslie McCrae Dowless, directly and to avoid public disclosure of those payments.
Through most of the hearing, Harris claimed no knowledge of Dowless’s methods and said there had been no red flags.
That changed last Thursday, after Harris falsely characterized a conversation with his son, Matthew, about whether emails in which he suggested that Dowless’s tactics were questionable and was warned by another son, John, not to hire him, would become public.
Facing potential perjury charges for that testimony — and days of potentially damaging cross-examination about his own role in the ballot scheme — Harris abruptly called for a new election and declared that ballot fraud had sufficiently tainted the outcome in November to warrant a new election.
McCready began a new campaign for the seat last Friday.
Another Republican, former North Carolina governor Pat McCrory, ruled out running for the seat on Monday.
After hinting on Twitter over the weekend that he might enter the race, McCrory said on his radio show that he would look at running again for governor or for a U.S. Senate seat in 2022 instead.
“My fire in the belly is teaching and being a radio host and keeping the option open of running for governor or senator,” he said on WBT Radio.
If Harris had decided to run again, he would have faced a bruising GOP primary.
Usually under North Carolina election law, a new election is ordered as a rematch of the contest that was tainted — in this case, the November election between Harris and McCready. But in December, sensing Harris’s political and legal vulnerability, the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature passed a law requiring a primary if a new election were called in the 9th District.
McCready has at least one advantage over Republican contenders: he is less likely to have to endure a tough primary, and will be able to spend the spring raising money and organizing for the fall election instead.
However, his chances in the general election are uncertain given the 9th District’s traditional Republican lean and the question of whether turnout in an off-cycle election will match the enthusiasm that gave a big advantage to McCready and Democratic candidates across the country last year.
The general election is likely to be scheduled for October.
In a statement Tuesday, North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Robin Hayes expressed support for Harris’s decision.
“The most important thing for him to address is his health,” Hayes said of Harris. “This has been a grueling process for all involved, and we unequivocally support his call for a new election. There are numerous quality candidates that are discussing a run and although the party will not be involved in a primary, we have no doubt that a competitive nominee will emerge.”
Commercial satellite imagery of a facility near Pyongyang suggests that North Korea is preparing to launch a missile or space rocket in the near future.
The images are of a site known as Sanumdong — a facility where North Korea has assembled some of its intercontinental ballistic missiles and satellite-launching rockets. The images, taken Feb. 22 by DigitalGlobe and shared exclusively with NPR, show cars and trucks parked near the facility. Rail cars sit in a nearby rail yard, where two cranes are also erected.
“When you put all that together, that’s really what it looks like when the North Koreans are in the process of building a rocket,” says Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Project at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, Calif., who has studied the images.
Loading…
News of the activity comes just days after other satellite imagery showed that North Korea has rapidly rebuilt a satellite launch facility on the country’s west coast. Known as the Sohae Satellite Launching Station, the site has been used for several attempted space launches over the years, most recently in 2016.
The Sohae facility, sometimes called Dongchang-ri and Tongchang-ri, was partially dismantled after President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un held their first summit in June 2018. Imagery taken Wednesday suggests it may be operational again.
Lewis cautions it’s impossible to know whether the North Koreans are preparing a military missile or a rocket that could carry a civilian satellite into space. It’s also impossible to know when any launch might happen.
Additional images of the Sanumdong site taken Friday by another company, San Francisco-based Planet, show that vehicle activity has died down and that one of the cranes has disappeared. That could mean that workers have paused work on an ICBM or rocket, perhaps while awaiting further parts.
Or it could mean a missile or rocket has already left the facility.
“According to Planet imagery, I can definitely say the train has left the station,” says Melissa Hanham, a North Korea expert with the One Earth Future Foundation. “But I can’t unfortunately use X-ray vision to see what’s on the train and tell whether it’s a civilian space launch vehicle or a military ICBM.”
One possible destination would be the Sohae Satellite Launching Station. Lewis says there’s no easy way to tell whether a train has carried missile or rocket parts to Sohae because the rail yard there has a roof over it to prevent satellite snooping.
Lewis says he believes it’s most likely that the North Koreans are preparing to launch a satellite into orbit. Prior to the 2018 thaw between Kim and Trump, North Korean officials had been saying they planned to launch two satellites, Lewis says. And he says Kim reportedly visited the Sanumdong site at the end of 2017 in order to prepare.
“We know that a space launch was a thing that the North Koreans were talking about doing,” he says.
Lewis also says such a launch should not necessarily be regarded as an aggressive move. Rockets used to launch satellites are usually unsuitable for use as long-range missiles, he notes. “They would really make quite a poor ICBM,” he says. “I think U.S. foreign policy has been far too obsessed with North Korean space launches.”
But speaking at a briefing on Thursday, a senior State Department official said that the U.S. would regard any launch, including a space launch, as a violation of the goodwill between Trump and Kim. “Let me just say, in our judgment, launch of a space launch vehicle from [Sohae] in our view would be inconsistent with the commitments that the North Koreans have made,” the official told reporters.
“It seems like the two parties are moving farther apart rather than closer,” Hanham says. “I hope that there isn’t an overreaction by the United States to a space launch.”
WASHINGTON—Negotiators for the U.S. and China have scheduled a new round of high-level trade talks in Beijing and Washington, aiming to close a deal by late April to end the yearlong dispute between the world’s two largest economies.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin plan to fly to Beijing next week to meet with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, Trump administration officials said. The following week, a Chinese delegation led by Mr. Liu is expected to continue talks in Washington,…
Wortman, a denturist, did not possess a firearms license and obtained his weapons illegally. The commission heard that there were “two, and potentially three,” instances when police received information about his access to firearms. Little, if anything, was done, according to testimony.
While the Democratic presidential race might be front of mind this Tuesday, March 3, there are also plenty of primaries for congressional seats happening on Super Tuesday — ones that could have an impact in November as Republicans attempt to wrest the House speaker’s gavel back from Nancy Pelosi.
Voters in 14 states and one territory will head to the polls (or caucuses, if you live in American Samoa) on Tuesday. And though not all of them will hold primaries for down-ballot races, some — like California and Texas — are home to a handful of especially contentious races for seats in the US House of Representatives. Those include a “jungle primary” in California’s 25th District to replace former Rep. Katie Hill — who resigned last year after allegations of having a relationship with a staffer and being attacked with revenge porn — to a progressive challenge in Texas’s 28th to one of the most conservative Democrats currently in the House.
These seven races — three in California and four in Texas — could all have major implications one way or another when a new Congress is sworn in come January 2021. Some reflect intra-party struggles over ideology while others could be decisive in the fight to control the House.
Vox will be covering the results of these seven key House races live on Tuesday night, in partnership with Decision Desk.
California
Polls close in California at 8 pm Pacific, 11 pm Eastern, but thanks to various quirks in the state’s voting procedures, it could be many days before a race gets called. Vox is focusing on California’s 16th, 25th and 50th congressional districts; find live results for the rest of California’s contests here.
California’s 16th District primary: Longtime incumbent Jim Costa faces a challenge from the left
Eight-term incumbent and Blue Dog Democrat Jim Costa is facing a formidable challenge from the left this cycle.
Costa represents California’s 16th District, which includes Fresno and part of the state’s heavily agricultural Central Valley. He’s known for being one of the more conservative members of the House, particularly on environmental issues. In the past, he’s been called out by liberals for the donations he’s taken from corporate agricultural interests and oil companies as well as a state bill he authored, which severely limited rent control in California.
Fresno City Councilmember Esmeralda Soria, former foreign service member Kim Williams, and Republican Kevin Cookingham are all running for Costa’s seat. Both Soria and Williams have highlighted themselves as more progressive alternatives to Costa. And Soria, who’s also the member of a statewide task force on addressing homelessness, has picked up support from local organizers and activists including SEIU California.
Because of the top-two primary system in California, the top-two finishers will advance to the general election taking place in November, regardless of party affiliation.
California’s 25th: A primary and a special election for Katie Hill’s old seat
California’s 25th, the southern swing district that Katie Hill flipped last cycle, is open once again, after she decided to resign in the wake of allegations of an improper relationship with a staffer and a smear campaign involving revenge porn.
A staggering 13 candidates are running in a primary for the seat, which is currently rated as “Likely Democratic” by Cook Political Report.
Again, because of the top-two primary system in California, the top-two finishers will advance to the general election taking place in November, regardless of party affiliation.
In addition to the primary, however, the district is also holding a special election for someone to replace Hill and serve out her existing term through this year.
Ten candidates will participate in both races — and one will have to secure a majority of the vote to win the special election. Otherwise, the top two candidates will head to a run-off set to take place on May 12.
The individuals vying for the seat in the primary and special election run the gamut of familiar names across both parties. The Democrats include Young Turks cofounder Cenk Uygur and state assemblymember Christy Smith, while the Republicans include former district Rep. Steve Knight (whom Hill unseated in 2018), former fighter pilot Mike Garcia, and former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.
California’s 50th District primary: Members of both parties — including former Rep. Darrell Issa — are duking it out for Duncan Hunter’s district
California’s 50th District, a southern district that includes part of San Diego County, is now vacant after former Rep. Duncan Hunter, who pleaded guilty to violations of campaign finance laws, resigned.
A longtime Republican district, it’s poised to stay that way, though candidates from both sides of the aisle will be competing in the primary.
Ten candidates will face off on Super Tuesday in an attempt to qualify for the general election ballot. Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar is trying once more to flip the seat, and he’s joined this time by businesswoman Marisa Calderon. Notable Republicans competing for the seat include former Rep. Darrell Issa and former San Diego City Councilmember Carl Demaio.
Texas
Polls close in Texas at 7 pm Central, 8 pm Eastern (at least mostly — part of Texas is on Mountain time). Vox is focusing on Texas’s 12th, 22nd, 28th, and 32nd congressional districts; find live results for the rest of Texas’s contests here.
Texas’s 12th District primary: A GOP incumbent under fire from the right
Update: Decision Desk is projecting incumbent Rep. Kay Granger as the winner of the Republican primary.
Rep. Kay Granger, who represents Fort Worth and is the most senior Republican woman in the House, is facing a primary challenge from a former local city council member, Chris Putnam, who is flush with campaign cash and has accused her of not being loyal to Trump. She is the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, a coveted position usually reserved for members with a long career in Congress.
Texas’s 22nd District primary: A Bush scion is vying for the Republican nomination in a swing-district race for an open seat
There is also a 15-way Republican primary for retiring Rep. Pete Olson’s seat representing Sugar Land — one that Democrats hope to win in the general election. Notably, Pierce Bush, the grandson of former President George H.W. Bush, is one of the contenders.
Texas’s 28th District primary: The Justice Democrats look to unseat another Blue Dog Democrat
Meanwhile, immigration attorney Jessica Cisneros is trying to unseat Rep. Henry Cuellar, a conservative Blue Dog Democrat who has backed Trump’s policies 69 percent of the time, endorsed former Republican President George W. Bush, advocated for gun rights, and opposed federal funding for abortions.
Cisneros once interned for Cuellar in Congress, but now she’s running against him with the support of the Justice Democrats — the same group that helped propel Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to victory in her 2018 primary campaign against incumbent Democrat Joe Crowley, who had held his seat for two decades.
Cisneros’s candidacy has attracted national attention and endorsements from Sanders and Warren as well as Ocasio-Cortez. Cisneros has embraced progressive policies, including Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal, despite her rival’s claims that his district is fundamentally moderate.
Texas’s 32nd District primary: Republicans jostle for a chance to challenge an at-risk freshman Democrat
Republicans are hoping to take back a seat in Dallas now occupied by Rep. Colin Allred, a former NFL player and a Democrat who flipped the district blue after narrowly beating the incumbent, Pete Sessions, in 2018. He’s among 42 members of Congress who are in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s program to protect incumbents facing tough reelection campaigns, and while many of them have avoided talking about the Democratic primary, Allred has been actively campaigning on behalf of Biden.
The top two Republican contenders in that race are Genevieve Collins, who is running on a pro-business platform and snagged the Dallas Morning News’ endorsement, and Floyd McLendon Jr., a former Navy SEAL who is running on a border-security platform.
The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in a potentially landmark Second Amendment case, the first time in roughly a decade that the justices will consider gun rights.
At issue is a New York City handgun regulation that put tight limits on licensed gun owners’ ability to transport firearms outside the home. The case presents the justices an opportunity to go further than ever before in defining the scope of the individual right to bear arms.
The plaintiffs are three licensed handgun owners who sued New York City for, among other things, infringing on their constitutional right to bear arms. They are backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) as well as an NRA-associated firearms advocacy group, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, which is also a plaintiff.
In the spring of 2013, the three New York City men sued the city over its handgun licensing scheme. Under the ordinance, residents could apply for a “premises” license, which allowed for the possession of a handgun in the home. Outside a gun owner’s specified address, however, the law granted few rights.
Gun owners could carry their firearms to about a half-dozen authorized shooting ranges in New York City. Even transporting a gun to a second home outside the city was forbidden. Guns also had to be unloaded and locked in a container during transport.
The lawsuit arose after the city denied the men’s request to travel with their handguns outside the city to participate in target practice and marksmanship contests. The district court sided with New York City, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The Supreme Court in January granted the gun owners’ petition for an appeal.
The decision to take up the first major gun rights case in years alarmed some Democrats who fear the court, with two Trump nominees, is poised for a rightward shift.
In an unusual move, five Democratic senators filed a sharply worded amicus brief in support of New York City. In it, they suggested that a win for the NRA and gun rights advocates would raise questions about the court’s legitimacy.
Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, said the Senate Democrats’ unusual warning to the court’s conservative bloc has fueled suspicions that “the law is being bent to politics,” and he questioned how the court would react.
“That is a perception that [Chief Justice John] Roberts, [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh and, perhaps more surprisingly, [Justice Clarence] Thomas may be eager to dispel,” he said. “Keep an eye on them.”
The case also poses a complicated legal question for the justices.
Freedman and other court watchers say it’s a very real possibility the justices choose to sidestep the Second Amendment question altogether. That’s because New York City and the state of New York changed their gun laws between the lawsuit’s initial filing in 2013 and this week’s Supreme Court oral arguments.
“The New York regulation, which was unique to begin with, has already been repealed and replaced with a state law, which seems to render the case entirely moot,” said Joseph Blocher, a law professor and Second Amendment expert at Duke University. “Ruling the regulation unconstitutional literally changes nothing in the larger landscape of gun laws.”
But if the justices do decide to address the Second Amendment issue head on, Blocher said, the impact could be felt across the country.
“The real question — and the reason that the case is so important — is whether the justices will announce a new test for evaluating the constitutionality of gun laws going forward,” said Blocher, who co-directs the Center for Firearms Law at Duke.
In a landmark 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court said the Second Amendment enshrines an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The court decided two years later that right applies at both the federal and state levels.
But the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision in the Heller case left key questions unanswered about the scope of the Second Amendment and how courts should determine when those rights were infringed.
Lower courts have filled the gap over the past decade. In more than 1,000 cases decided since Heller, lower courts have generally embraced a two-step test to figure out if a gun control measure passed by a state or city is unconstitutional, according to research by Blocher and co-author Eric Ruben, a law professor at Southern Methodist University.
The test first asks whether the law under review is covered by the Second Amendment and then if the law’s burdens are justifiable in regard to the public interests being served. Courts have effectively used this legal test to strike down overly strict laws but have upheld most mainstream gun regulations.
The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to adopt that standard, modify the test or even generate an entirely new one.
“If the court decides to replace that consensus with some other test, then everything could change,” Blocher said.
The NRA hopes the justices do exactly that. The national gun rights advocacy group told the court in an amicus brief that the judicial test developed in the lower courts is mistaken.
“This approach is contrary to the text and purpose of the Second Amendment — which was enshrined in our Constitution because the People already weighed the competing interests at stake, and solemnly concluded that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,'” the group wrote.
For gun control advocacy groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the prospect of a new legal standard is cause for concern.
“If [the NRA-backed plaintiffs] are successful, Americans could lose their longstanding rights to enact the public safety laws they want and need to protect their communities,” said Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Campaign.
The Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort arrives in New York, Monday, March 30, 2020. | AP Photo
The USNS Comfort arrived in New York on Monday, bringing a massive Navy hospital ship to help relieve city hospitals overwhelmed by coronavirus patients.
The 1,000-bed floating hospital docked Monday at Pier 90 on Manhattan’s West Side, and is set to begin treating patients Tuesday.
Advertisement
“Our nation has heard our plea for help here in New York City,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said as he greeted the ship at Pier 90. “There could not be a better example of all of America pulling for New York City than the arrival of the USNS Comfort.”
The ship, emblazoned with red crosses on its white hull, will not treat coronavirus patients, but will take on other patients including trauma cases, freeing up beds at local hospitals focused on combating the pandemic. It will have 750 beds ready to treat patients immediately.
The Comfort is staffed by 1,200 medical personnel and equipped with operating rooms, a medical laboratory, a pharmacy, digital radiology, a CAT scan, two oxygen-producing plants and a helicopter deck.
“We needed this boost. We needed this hope,” de Blasio said, calling it a “beacon of hope” to see the ship entering city waters and “coming here to save the lives of New Yorkers in our hour of need.”
At regular hospitals in the city, as many beds as possible will be converted into intensive care units.
The Comfort was last deployed to New York after the Sept. 11 attacks.
“Today, like then, we bring a message to all New Yorkers: Now your Navy has returned, and we are with you, committed in this fight,” said Rear Adm. John Mustin, vice commander of United States Fleet Forces.
The ship departed Saturday from Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia. It was undergoing maintenance when President Donald Trump pledged to deploy it to New York, which was expected to take two weeks but was sped up to eight days.
The Comfort has traveled around the world on U.S. humanitarian missions.
“This ship represents all that is good about the American people,” Mustin said.“Now this great ship will support and serve our fellow Americans in this time of need.”
She said it ever so subtly, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made clear this past week she is ready to compromise on border funding.
She will not do it, though — she cannot do it — unless she is given a way to save face.
“There’s not going to be any wall money in the legislation,” she said. “However, if they have some suggestions about certain localities, technology, some infrastructure … that’s part of the negotiation.”
Pelosi did not directly propose a “fence” instead of a “wall,” but she implied nearly as much. “There’s 600 miles of something,” she said. “Three hundred miles of them are Normandy fences. If the president wants to call that a wall, he can call it a wall. … So, again, if there’s a place where enhanced fencing, Normandy fencing, would work? Let them have that discussion.”
Pelosi went from there to discuss the cost-benefit analysis of border barriers, implying that a fence would be cheaper and more efficient than a wall.
She may be right, and on some parts of the border, very right. Meanwhile, President Trump is right that a country has a right to control its borders, which in many cases will involve a wall or physical barrier.
Democrats are under a lot of political pressure to prevent Trump from coming out of this debate with anything resembling a win. They were, after all, elected to oppose him. And many Democrats (not all, but including Pelosi) have gone so far as to make the idiotic argument that a border wall is immoral. That’s rather a stretch, considering the hundreds of miles that already exist, which Democrats voted for not long ago, but that’s where we are today.
The last thing the nation needs is another major government shutdown. In order to prevent it, both Pelosi and Trump need to negotiate within the realm of reason. They need to work for a deal instead of repeating what they did in round one — working to avoid a deal so as to break their respective counterpart.
Trump needs to negotiate for something that lets Pelosi walk away able to say she succeeded — “ no new wall” — while still allowing the construction of barriers at the border, whatever we want to call them. A particular need, based on the Border Patrol’s account, is to fill in between the existing segments of wall — er, fence — that are already scattered throughout South Texas along the Rio Grande.
If either side insists on total victory — on pulverizing and humiliating the other side — then we’re heading for another shutdown, and this time, the party that brings it on should expect to blamed.
Kyiv, Ukraine — A small explosive device carried by a makeshift drone blew up Sunday at the headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet on the Crimean Peninsula, wounding six people and prompting the cancellation of ceremonies there honoring Russia’s navy, authorities said.
Meanwhile, one of Ukraine’s richest men, a grain merchant, was killed in what Ukrainian authorities said was a carefully targeted Russian missile strike on his home.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the drone explosion in a courtyard at the naval headquarters in the city of Sevastopol. But the seemingly improvised, small-scale nature of the attack raised the possibility that it was the work of Ukrainian insurgents trying to drive out Russian forces.
A Russian lawmaker from Crimea, Olga Kovitidi, told Russian state news agency RIA-Novosti that the drone was launched from Sevastopol itself. She said the incident was being treated as a terrorist act, the news agency said.
Crimean authorities raised the terrorism threat level for the region to “yellow,” the second-highest tier.
Sevastopol, which was seized along with the rest of Crimea from Ukraine by Russia in 2014, is about 170 kilometers (100 miles) south of the Ukrainian mainland. Russian forces control much of the mainland along the Black Sea.
The Black Sea Fleet’s press service said the drone appeared to be homemade. It described the explosive device as “low-power.” Sevastopol Mayor Mikhail Razvozhaev said six people were wounded. Observances of Russia’s Navy Day holiday were canceled in the city.
Russian Navy members patrol in front of the headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol in Crimea on July 31, 2022.
STRINGER/AFP via Getty Images
Ukraine’s navy and an adviser to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the reported drone attack underlined the weakness of Russian air defenses.
“Did the occupiers admit the helplessness of their air defense system? Or their helplessness in front of the Crimean partisans?” Oleksiy Arestovich said on Telegram.
If such an attack is possible by Ukraine, he said, “the destruction of the Crimean bridge in such situations no longer sounds unrealistic” — a reference to the span that Russia built to connect its mainland to Crimea after the annexation.
Elsewhere in Ukraine, the mayor of the major port city of Mykolaiv, Vitaliy Kim, said shelling killed one of Ukraine’s wealthiest men, Oleksiy Vadatursky, and his wife, Raisa. Vadatursky headed a grain production and export business.
Another presidential adviser, Mykhailo Podolyak, said Vadatursky was specifically targeted.
It “was not an accident, but a well-thought-out and organized premeditated murder. Vadatursky was one of the largest farmers in the country, a key person in the region and a major employer. That the exact hit of a rocket was not just in a house, but in a specific wing, the bedroom, leaves no doubt about aiming and adjusting the strike,” he said.
Vadatursky’s agribusiness, Nibulon, includes a fleet of ships for sending grain abroad.
In the Sumy region in Ukraine’s north, near the Russian border, shelling killed one person, the regional administration said. And three people died in attacks over the past day in the Donetsk region, which is partly under the control of Russian-backed separatist forces, said regional Gov. Pavlo Kyrylenko.
Podolyak said on Twitter that images of the prison where at least 53 Ukrainian prisoners of war were killed in an explosion on Friday indicated that the blast came from within the building in Olenivka, which is under Russian control.
Russian officials have claimed the building was attacked by Ukraine with the aim of silencing POWs who might be giving information about Ukrainian military operations. Ukraine has blamed Russia for the explosion.
Satellite photos taken before and after show that a small, squarish building in the middle of the prison complex was demolished, its roof in splinters.
Podolyak said those images and the lack of damage to adjacent structures showed that the building was not attacked from the air or by artillery. He contended the evidence was consistent with a thermobaric bomb, a powerful device sometimes called a vacuum bomb, being set off inside.
The International Red Cross asked to immediately visit the prison to make sure the scores of wounded POWs had proper treatment, but said Sunday that its request had yet to be granted. It said that denying the Red Cross access would violate the Geneva Convention on the rights of POWs.
Gobierno de EEUU tiene un “abanico de opciones” para que México pague el muro fronterizo
El secretario de prensa de la Casa Blanca, Sean Spicer dijo que la propuesta de aplicar un impuesto del 20% a las importaciones de México es tan solo una de varias opciones que se discuten para pagar el muro en la frontera sur.
Spicer indicó que el presidente Donald Trump aún no toma una decisión final sobre la manera en que Estados Unidos recuperaría los gastos del muro fronterizo que propuso.
Horas antes Spicer había dicho que Trump quería aplicar un arancel del 20% a todas las importaciones provenientes de México y pronóstico que ese gravamen generaría unos 10.000 millones de dólares al año.
En declaraciones a los reporteros a bordo del avión presidencial, el vocero de la Casa Blanca dijo que el presidente había discutido el plan con líderes del Congreso y que quería incluir la medida en un paquete de reforma fiscal integral.
Pero el jefe de gabinete de Trump, Reince Priebus, señaló posteriormente que el gobierno tiene “un abanico de opciones” para pagar el muro.
El secretario de prensa de la Casa Blanca, Sean Spicer, habla con periodistas en el avión presidencial estadounidense en el viaje de regreso desde Filadelfia. Enero 26 de 2017. (Foto: NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)
Pagar el muro es inaceptable por dignidad, dijo canciller mexicano
Luis Videgaray, el secretario de Relaciones Exteriores de México dijo que la sugerencia de que su gobierno pague por el muro fronterizo planeado por el presidente Donald Trump es “totalmente inaceptable por dignidad”, lo que provocó la cancelación de la primera reunión de los líderes de ambos países.
“Hay temas que son (inaceptables) por dignidad, que no tienen que ver con las exportaciones o la economía, sino con el corazón y el orgullo de los mexicanos. Así como ofrecemos respeto, los mexicanos debemos respetarnos a nosotros mismos, nuestra historia y símbolos nacionales” afirmó el canciller en una conferencia de prensa en la Embajada de México en Washington.
Videgaray reiteró que México no pagará el muro “bajo ninguna circunstancia” y que hay “cosas que no pueden ni serán negociables”.
Del mismo modo dijo que EEUU puede defender sus fronteras como quiera pero pretender que México pague por el muro es “pasar de una acción soberana a algo que es profundamente inaceptable”.
Miami deja de ser una “ciudad santuario”
Miami deja de ser una “ciudad santuario”, como se llaman a las ciudades refugio para los inmigrantes indocumentados.
El alcalde Carlos Giménez ordenó detener a los inmigrantes indocumentados, haciendo caso a lo que ordenó el presidente Donald Trump, que previno a los alcaldes que podría retirar los fondos federales a las ciudades que no acaten su decreto sobre inmigración firmado el miércoles.
“Es una decisión correcta”, celebró el presidente Trump en Twitter, haciendo referencia a la decisión de Giménez.
Venezuela rechaza declaraciones del vicepresidente colombiano
Venezuela rechaza “categóricamente las denigrantes y ofensivas declaraciones del Vicepresidente de la República de Colombia- Germán Vargas Lleras- contra el pueblo venezolano”, según informó cancillería hoy en un comunicado.
Dichas declaraciones fueron emitidas en Tibú, Departamento del Norte de Santander y -según el gobierno de Venezuela- expresan abiertamente odio, discriminación e intolerancia contra los venezolanos.
Asimismo el comunicado expresa que Venezuela “lamenta profundamente el tono hiriente y degradante” del vicepresidente y “exige al gobierno de Colombia las excusas debidas a los venezolanos ofendidos por las expresiones xenófobas y discriminatorias emitidas por su vicepresidente”.
La declaración a la que se refiere el escrito, la hizo el funcionario en el marco de un programa de viviendas sociales que advirtió que no eran para venezolanos. “Estas casas son para población desplazada que vive en Tibú, no vaya a dejar meter los venecos, por nada del mundo… esto no es para los venecos” puntualizó el vicepresidente.
Rusia envía un avión supertanque a Chile para ayudarle a combatir el fuego
El gobierno ruso anunció que enviará un avión supertanque a Chile para ayudar a combatir el peor incendio forestal al que se ha enfrentado el país.
Se trata del avión IIyushin II-76 que- según medios locales- es capaz de llevar 42.000 litros de agua o retardantes de fuego y de aterrizar en terrenos no pavimentados.
“Aceptamos generoso apoyo (del) gobierno ruso del avión IIlyushin Il-76 para combatir incendios”, escribió la presidenta de Chile Michelle Bachelet en su cuenta de Twitter.
Desde hace más de una semana, las llamas se propagan rápidamente y ya consumieron 289.974,71 hectáreas de terreno*, sobre todo en la región central de Chile, avivadas por fuertes vientos, altas temperaturas y una prolongada sequía.
* Según último informe de la Corporación Nacional Forestal (Conaf)
Aceptamos generoso apoyo gobierno ruso del avión Ilyushin Il-76 para combatir incendios. Además, ya hemos solicitado ayuda de helicópteros.
El excandidato presidencial por la alianza CREO-SUMA, Guillermo Lasso, en rueda de prensa realizada este miércoles en un hotel al norte de Guayaquil, dijo que no reconocerá el triunfo del candidato oficialista Lenín Moreno. “Jamás reconoceremos la victoria de un candidato declarado, por el Consejo Nacional Electoral, como presidente electo, ese será un mandatario sin auténtico mandato, será un sucesor de un dictador”, señaló.
En su intervención, Lasso insistió en que el proceso electoral, desde el inicio, estuvo “cargado de ilegalidades” y dijo que el país ha vivido un “apagón electoral institucional”, un “apagón institucional y democrático” que comenzó mucho antes de las elecciones del 2 abril pasado, “empezó la primera vez que un periodista fue censurado por el aparato judicial y burocático del correísmo, la primera vez que un maestro fue humillado por el poder, empezó cada vez que se usaron las instituciones del Estado para perseguir a opositores del régimen como ahora lo quieren ahcer conmigo. Aprovecho la ocasión para decirles que no les tengo miedo”, dijo.
“Yo no puedo ser cómplice de un fraude, no puedo ser cómplice de una burla a los votantes, no puedo ser cómplice de un proceso cargado de ilegalidades, del abuso y de la arbitrariedad constante”, dijo Lasso, tras agradecer a quienes lo apoyaron en la campaña electoral.
También sostuvo que será opositor a un futuro gobierno. “La luz de la democracia no se ha apagado y no se va a apagar mientras seguimos luchando contra el autoritarismo, la ilegítima democracia. Vamos a seguir en la lucha. (…) No puedo mirar a otro lado y aceptar posturas ambivalentes frente al abuso”, dijo.
Lasso también se refirió a la citación de la Fiscalía para que acuda por la denuncia presentada por la asambleísta oficialista Rosana Alvarado en de contra la empresa encuestadora Cedatos. “No les tengo miedo, a pesar de que las leyes judiciales del Ecuador están bajo el control del correísmo, acudiremos ante ellas cuantas veces nos llamen (..) quien nada debe, nada teme”.
Agradeció a su equipo de campaña y varios líderes de CREO que estuvieron presentes en el evento como César Monge, Fernando Coronel y Aparicio Caicedo. (I)
Image caption
US military vehicles have been seen leaving their bases in north-eastern Syria
All US troops withdrawing from northern Syria are expected to be relocated to western Iraq, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper confirmed.
Mr Esper told reporters that, under current plans, about 1,000 soldiers would be redeployed to help stop the resurgence of Islamic State (IS).
President Donald Trump has previously pledged to bring US troops home.
The US withdrawal from northern Syria paved the way for a Turkish military offensive against Kurdish fighters.
Both sides have accused the other of breaching a US-brokered ceasefire.
Ankara views one of the prominent militias in the Kurdish forces as terrorists, and wants to create a “safe zone” buffer inside Syria. Turkey agreed on Thursday to pause its offensive until Tuesday night, giving Kurdish fighters time to withdraw from the frontier.
On Sunday, Turkey said one of its soldiers was killed and another wounded in a Kurdish attack near the Syrian town of Tal Abyad.
In a separate development, a convoy of ambulances and pickups carrying Kurdish fighters was seen leaving the besieged town of Ras al-Ain on Sunday. Reports said pro-Turkish forces were now in control there.
Correspondents said it appeared to be the start of a wider withdrawal under the ceasefire agreement.
Some reports said civilians were also leaving because they feared atrocities by Syrian militias allied to Turkey.
Kurdish forces had previously accused Turkey of not allowing people to be evacuated from the border town.
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption
Hundreds of thousands of people have fled their homes since the Turkish offensive
Meanwhile, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a bipartisan group of US lawmakers have arrived in Jordan for talks with King Abdullah.
Ms Pelosi, along with senior US politicians, has strongly criticised President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria.
“With the deepening crisis in Syria after Turkey’s incursion, our delegation has engaged in vital discussions about the impact to regional stability, increased flow of refugees, and the dangerous opening that has been provided to Isis (IS), Iran and Russia,” she said in a statement.
What about US troops?
On a flight to the region, Mr Esper said US forces would be used to “help defend Iraq” and counter an attempt by IS to re-establish itself there.
“The US withdrawal continues apace from north-eastern Syria… we’re talking weeks, not days,” he said.
“The current game plan is for those forces to re-position into western Iraq.”
A senior US defence official cautioned that plans could change “but that is the game plan right now”.
In a tweet, later deleted, President Trump quoted Mr Esper – whom he referred to as Mark Esperanto – as saying that the ceasefire was “holding up very nicely”.
Image copyright David Walker
What about the ceasefire?
On Sunday, the Turkish defence ministry said a soldier was killed and another wounded by anti-tank and small arms fire near Tal Abyad.
It said Turkish forces returned fire in self-defence.
Earlier, Turkey’s defence ministry accused Kurdish forces of carrying out 14 “provocative” attacks in the last 36 hours, mostly in Ras al-Ain, but insisted Turkish forces were fully abiding by the agreement.
However, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) accused Turkey of violating the ceasefire and failing to create a safe corridor for the evacuation of civilians and wounded people from Ras al-Ain.
Media captionThe BBC’s Martin Patience explains what’s behind the conflict
On Sunday, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) monitoring group said ambulances transporting wounded civilians and fighters had been allowed to leave.
A reporter from AFP news agency at the scene said a hospital was engulfed in flames shortly after at least 50 vehicles, including ambulances, had left it.
Dozens of Kurdish fighters left on pick-up trucks which passed by checkpoints manned by pro-Turkish Syrian rebel fighters, the reporter said.
The SDF later confirmed that it had pulled out all its fighters. Syrian state media reported that pro-Turkish forces had entered the town.
Media captionPresident Trump on Turkish and Kurdish forces: “Sometimes you have to let them fight a little bit”
The pause in hostilities followed talks in the Turkish capital Ankara between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and US Vice-President Mike Pence on Thursday.
But Mr Erdogan has kept up a war of words on the Kurdish fighters. Speaking at a televised event in the central Turkish province of Kayseri on Saturday, he that if they did not withdraw by Tuesday evening “we will start where we left off and continue to crush the terrorists’ heads”.
Between 160,000 and 300,000 people have reportedly fled their homes since the offensive started 10 days ago.
SOHR said on Friday that the civilian death toll from the Turkish operation had risen to 86.
What prompted the offensive?
Turkish forces first launched their assault on 9 October, following an announcement that US troops would withdraw from the region.
The Turkish plan is to clear Kurdish fighters from a buffer zone extending more than 30km (20 miles) into Syria.
Turkey also plans to resettle up to two million Syrian refugees, currently on its territory, in the buffer zone but critics warned the move could trigger the ethnic cleansing of the local Kurdish population.
The goal was to push back a Kurdish militia group – the People’s Protection Units (YPG) – that Turkey views as a terrorist organisation.
Since the offensive was launched, President Trump has been accused by some, including senior Republicans, of abandoning a US ally. The SDF – a group dominated by the YPG – fought alongside the US against the Islamic State (IS) group in Syria.
Más de cien migrantes procedentes de diversos países centroamericanos que viajaban en la parte trasera de un camión de carga fueron rescatados por las autoridades mexicanas en el estado oriental de Veracruz, que es una ruta tradicional de los flujos irregulares de personas hacia Estados Unidos.
Los migrantes —55 hombres, 19 mujeres y 41 niños— viajaban en la parte trasera en condiciones “deplorables”, por lo cual recibieron atención médica, dijo el domingo una fuente del gobierno de Veracruz.
Según el parte policial, todas las personas recibieron atención médica, rindieron declaración y fueron trasladadas al puerto de Veracruz.
“Los migrantes fueron atendidos inmediatamente por paramédicos de la dependencia, al presentar severos signos de deshidratación (…) el Ejército Mexicano y la Marina-Armada (…) se trasladaron a Playa Muñecos para brindarles atención”, dijo la misma fuente.
De acuerdo con una ficha informativa de la policía estatal veracruzana, los hechos tuvieron lugar el sábado, cuando sus elementos se trasladaron a la localidad de Playa Muñecos, en el municipio de Alto Lucero, para apoyar al Instituto Nacional de Migración (INM) con el traslado de al menos 115 personas, entre hombres, mujeres y niños.
Durante el operativo, también fueron detenidas las dos personas que transportaban a los migrantes.
Traficantes de personas suelen utilizar este tipo de unidades para cruzar ilegalmente a migrantes a Estado Unidos, cobrando miles de dólares por cada traslado.
Veracruz es un estado que por años ha sido paso para la migración ilegal a Estados Unidos, pero además se ha convertido en uno de los más violentos del país, con miles de muertos y desaparecidos.
Al tope del ranking mundial en las pruebas PISA, el modelo educativo de Finlandia es una marca país. Un desarrollo del sistema alemán y sueco que el Ministerio de Educación local busca adaptar, tras firmar acuerdos bilaterales. Teemu Turune, Embajador de Finlandia en Argentina, recibió a NOTICIAS para contar cómo funciona el plan de estudios que revolucionó la manera de educar.
Noticias: Cada vez que se habla de Finlandia, automáticamente se lo referencia con su sistema educativo. ¿Es parte del marketing país?
Teemu Turunen: Nuestro sistema educativo es bien conocido, y es un orgullo. Pero no se arma de un día para el otro, no es marketing. Este año Finlandia cumple 100 años como país independiente. Y durante los 100 años el tema educativo ha sido uno de los pilares de nuestro desarrollo.
Noticias: ¿Cómo se gestó?
Turunen: Finlandia era un país muy pobre, agrario. Por eso pensamos en educar a nuestros hijos para que puedan salir adelante y mejorar la vida de los suyos.
Noticias: Uno no imagina a Finlandia como un país pobre…
Turunen: Nosotros no tenemos muchos recursos naturales, por eso la educación es la clave, una política de estado. Esto significa que la educación es publica y gratuita, y no solo la escuela, sino también el transporte a la escuela, la comida, los libros, todo eso es gratuito. Es el medio por el cual mejor podemos garantizar la igualdad de oportunidades.
Noticias: ¿Y los maestros están bien pagos?
Turunen: Están en el medio de la escala salarial. El sueldo rondaría los 3500 euros mensuales en promedio. Pero no solo es el tema del salario, sino el tema del respeto. Mirando los pueblos pequeños, las personas importantes son el intendente, el médico y el maestro. Y es bastante lógico si uno quiere lo mejor para sus hijos.
Noticias: Pero el sistema de estudio es distinto también…
Turunen: Sí, nosotros creemos que para los niños puedan aprender mejor, es importante cultivar la creatividad, la innovación, no estar en la escuela solo para que el maestro le diga “en 1917 paso tal cosa…”. Lo importante es aprender a pensar y ¿Cómo uno aprende a pensar? Uno aprende a pensar más desde lo lúdico que por repetición.
Noticias: ¿El sistema es exportable?
Turunen: Nuestro sistema lo adaptamos de los alemanes y de los suecos, teniendo en cuenta las particularidades de nuestra sociedad y de nuestra cultura. Pero hay muchos temas que se pueden aprender de lo que otros han hecho bien o lo que han hecho mal, y trabajamos mucho con el Ministerio de Educación de Argentina.
Noticias: Otra de las claves del sistema fines son las horas de estudio.
Turunen: Nosotros intentamos que aprendan todo lo que se pueda en clases, y con ayuda especial a aquellos que lo requieran. Yo te puedo hablar de mi hija. El día suyo normal son 3 o 4 horas. De 8 a 12, o de 9 a 13. Desde el punto de vista científico, se demostró que más horas no generan aprendizaje. Y en muchos municipios hay patios de juego para los más chicos, supervisados por personal idóneo, donde los padre pueden dejar a sus hijos hasta las 16 horas.
Noticias: ¿Qué porcentaje del PBI se invierte en educación?
Turunen: Alrededor del 6,5 % del PBI. Estamos un poquito por encima del promedio de inversión de los países que conforman la OCDE (Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico).
Noticias: ¿En qué consiste el programa antibullying KiVa?
Turunen: Lo que distingue el método KIVa es no solo contemplar a víctima y victimario, sino también a los que están alrededor observando la situación. Si hay condena del grupo en lugar de silencio o complicidad, cambia todo. El programa que fue creado en la Universidad de Turku, ha sido muy exitoso en Finlandia, y casi todas las escuelas lo están aplicando.
NEW YORK – One person was killed when a helicopter crashed on the roof of a 54-story building in midtown Manhattan Monday, sparking a fire and drawing a massive emergency response.
It happened shortly before 2 p.m. under rainy conditions at the AXA Equitable building at 787 Seventh Ave. The crash spurred an evacuation as crews raced to the top floor to douse the flames.
Authorities say the pilot killed in the crash was the sole occupant of the helicopter, which was privately owned.
The pilot has been identified as Tim McCormack, of Dutchess County.
No one in the building or on the ground was injured.
The helicopter was owned by an upstate New York man who apparently used it to commute to the city.
The crash happened in a part of the city that is under a flight restriction due to its proximity to Trump Tower. Mayor Bill de Blasio says the helicopter would have needed the approval of LaGuardia Tower before heading there, but it’s unclear if that happened.
The mayor says there’s no indication that there is any terrorism linked to the crash, and says there is no ongoing danger to New Yorkers.
City officials say the crash sparked a fuel leak, which has since been mitigated. They say the building is safe.
“Thank God no other people were injured in this absolutely shocking, stunning incident,” said Mayor de Blasio, who lauded emergency crews for their quick response.
The helicopter had taken off from the 134th Street heliport and crashed approximately 11 minutes later.
Video posted to social media appeared to show the helicopter flying erratically ahead of the crash, suddenly plunging in the air before climbing higher.
The FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board will investigate the crash.
Jeremy Corbyn was never expected to be the leader of the UK Labour Party, until he was. He was never expected to last in the role, until he did. He was never expected to seriously challenge Theresa May and the Conservative Party in the 2017 election, until he did.
And he is never expected to be prime minister of the United Kingdom.
Corbyn is a left-wing member of Parliament who calls himself a socialist; who’s had decades in politics to accumulate a lengthy record; who’s been haunted by charges of anti-Semitism in his party; who was called everything from a “big girl’s blouse” to “Joseph Stalin” by his main political rival just this year; who’s been noncommittal about Brexit; and who’s currently the most unpopular opposition leader since people have been tracking these things.
So he’s not someone who could ever really be prime minister, right?
And yet maybe, it could still happen.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn answer questions during the ITV Leaders Debate at Media Centre in Salford, England, on November 19, 2019.Jonathan Hordle/ITV via Getty Images
The United Kingdom is holding general elections on December 12, in what Corbyn himself has called a “once-in-a generation” vote. Corbyn will lead the Labour Party against Boris Johnson, the current prime minister and head of the Conservative Party.
Labour’s somewhat muddled stance on Brexit in an election that is absolutely all about Brexit may also be a liability. Labour has said it will renegotiate a new Brexit deal with closer EU ties but will also back another referendum, giving voters the option to remain within the European Union.
Meanwhile, Johnson and the Conservatives are staking their political fortunes on the promise of delivering Brexit by January 31. Other opposition parties, most notably the Liberal Democrats, have carved out a strong position on staying in the EU.
Labour’s platform is trying to please both Brexit supporters and opponents. Amid such polarization, that stance might please no one at all.
Yet Corbyn remains enormously popular with Labour’s activist base, and his ascension to Labour leader has energized the party as he’s moved it leftward, crowding out more centrist figures. He may be the best hope for those who want to figure out a way to stop the UK from leaving the EU — or those who, at the very least, aren’t interested in Johnson’s brand of Brexit.
If British politics in the age of Brexit have proven anything, predictions (or even polling) are not always reliable. A Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn looks unlikely right now. But nothing is for sure until British voters go to the polls on December 12.
To understand why Corbyn is such a divisive figure, and why his party has struggled to define itself during Brexit, here’s what you need to know about the Labour leader who may never enter 10 Downing Street, but who will shape his party — and Britain’s political future — no matter what.
A brief introduction to Jeremy Corbyn
Corbyn describes himself as a socialist. His politics are a throwback to an older version of Britain’s Labour Party, which embraced government control of parts of the economy and big social welfare programs.
Corbyn was first elected to Parliament in 1983, representing Islington North, a reliable Labour seat in London he’s now held for more than 35 years.
Corbyn came to Parliament in a year that was otherwise horrible for the Labour Party. Its 1983 election manifesto (sort of like a party platform in the US) was one the most left-wing in the party’s history to date. One Labour MP at the time famously called it the “longest suicide note in history” after Conservatives, led by Margaret Thatcher, destroyed Labour that year in one of the largest electoral victories in the postwar era.
Jeremy Corbin in 1984, one year after he was elected to Parliament to represent Islington North.Graham Morris/Daily Express/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
That helped begin Labour’s rightward shift to a more moderate, centrist party that is socially liberal but somewhat more fiscally conservative and free-market oriented. That transformation culminated in the election of Tony Blair as Labour leader in 1994. Under Blair, Labour took power in 1997, an era that’s sometimes referred to as “New Labour.”
But Corbyn didn’t shift to the center with the rest of his party. He stayed on the margins, maintaining his ties with other veterans of old Labour and those outside of the party in leftist UK politics.
“He basically spent most of his time opposing the policies of his own party,” Steven Fielding, a professor of political history at the University of Nottingham, told me. Especially when Tony Blair was prime minister, “he was in opposition to everything that was going on,” despite his party being in control of government.
Corbyn, then, was very much an outsider who remained on the backbenches (meaning he never held a ministerial position) for years.
Corbyn’s foreign policy in particular has gotten him into quite a bit of trouble, and it continues to today. He worked closely with Stop the War coalition, which was formed after 9/11 to oppose the intervention in Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, the Stop the War coalition opposed the Iraq War, as did Corbyn. Blair, of course, supported it, a position that would come back to haunt Blair and the Labour Party.
Corbyn has a lot of political baggage, and for 30 or so years, he was kind of an obscure figure in Labour politics — until 2015, that is.
How Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader — and why he’s stayed there
Corbyn became Labour leader in 2015 in an extraordinary upset. He started as a 200-to-1 outsider when the contest began but ended up winning 60 percent of the vote from the Labour Party.
His victory was startling at the time, but in retrospect it makes some sense. The era of New Labour had lasted for more than a decade, but Labour lost its majority in 2010, and Conservatives beat them again in 2015.
The dissatisfaction with Labour during this period had a lot to do with its policies under Blair, namely support for the Iraq War. Many British voters also blamed Labour for the 2008 recession, since the party was in charge at the time of the financial market crash.
Jeremy Corbyn, member of Parliament for Islington North and candidate in the Labour Party leadership election, speaks to supporters outside Great St Mary’s church in Cambridge, England, on September 6, 2015.Rob Stothard/Getty Images
Voters, particularly younger ones, didn’t love the policies of the Conservatives. The party pursued austerity — in other words, basically lots of spending cuts to social and public services. Other issues, like climate change, also motivated the next generation of voters.
Taken together, voters began to blame the establishment politicians of the past for these failures. Within the Labour Party, some also saw the more moderate Blairites as not all that different from the Conservative politicians.
Corbyn emerged against this backdrop as a politician in his 60s who was untainted by those establishment politics. “What you got was the oldest candidate looking like the freshest and the newest,” David Kogan, author of Protest and Power: The Battle for the Labour Party, told me. It’s not unlike the political rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders in the US.
Corbyn went from impossible odds to looking like the favorite. This was terrifying for most politicians in the party, who saw Corbyn’s ascension as a huge electoral disadvantage, given his leftist politics. At the time, Blair said that with Corbyn as leader, “The party won’t just face defeat but annihilation.”
But Labour’s membership also surged after Corbyn’s victory. The party had less than 200,000 members (people who pay dues) before the 2015 election; in 2018, that number surged to more than 500,000 members, making Labour the largest political party in the UK.
As Kogan explained, Labour’s ranks swelled because Corbyn’s victory brought back those traditional Labour members who had fallen away during the Blair years. It also attracted a new base of young voters, many of whom came of age post-2008 recession and supported Corbyn’s left-wing economic policies, though they were also motivated by those other issues, like climate change.
Corbyn energized the activist base of the Labour Party. But divisions between this coalition of “Corbynistas” and other veterans of the party, specifically lawmakers, did not disappear. In 2016, Corbyn faced a leadership challenge shortly after the June Brexit referendum. Labour lawmakers voted against him in a confidence vote, citing, among other things, his failure to do enough to promote Remain, Labour’s official position in the 2016 referendum.
But Corbyn soundly defeated his challenger in that contest, achieving the party’s backing with a slightly greater margin than in 2015. It showed just how strong Corbyn’s support was among the party base, and how quickly he — and his supporters — had started to reshape the party.
The next test for Corbyn came in the 2017 election. Then-Prime Minister Theresa May called a vote in an attempt to shore up her Brexit mandate. She started out with a 20-point lead and looked likely to deliver another Conservative majority.
Instead, that advantage evaporated. Conservatives lost seats and their majority. Labour increased its number of seats in Parliament by 31. May managed to form a government and retain control by entering into an arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party, a conservative party in Northern Ireland. But as Brexit unfolded, that control proved to be pretty precarious.
Meanwhile, Corbyn once again defied expectations with Labour’s relative success. That helped undercut some of the doubters.
But not all of them. Those divisions within Labour persist. Though the base of the party has mostly gone all-in for Corbyn, many lawmakers are still in that more moderate mold. Controversies, particularly criticism of Corbyn for his handling of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, have publicly torn the party apart.
And, of course, there’s the Brexit debate.
Jeremy Corbyn’s big, huge, unavoidable Brexit problem
Corbyn has always been ambivalent about the European Union, which has made him something of an odd fit to be leader during the Brexit debate. Though he voted Remain in 2016, he hasn’t exactly been a full-throated defender of the EU. And he was outright antagonistic at the start of his political career.
Corbyn’s left-wing critique of the EU is a minority view within the party, Eric Shaw, an honorary research fellow in politics at the University of Stirling, told me. But it’s a view some of Corbyn’s associates, who share his ideological bent, support. “The European Union embeds free market principles, embeds corporate power, and membership impedes the capacity of the British government to achieve socialism,” Shaw said, summing up the left-wing critique of the EU.
Protesters hold up placards and Union Jack flags at a pro-Brexit demonstration promoted by the UK Independence Party in central London on December 9, 2018.Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images
They’re sometimes called “Lexiteers,” essentially left-wing Brexiteers.
Corbyn voted to leave the European Economic Community, the precursor to the EU, in 1975. As a member of Parliament, he voted against the Maastricht Treaty, which helped form the current version of the EU.
“The whole basis of the Maastricht Treaty is the establishment of a European central bank which is staffed by bankers, independent of national Governments and national economic policies, and whose sole policy is the maintenance of price stability,” Corbyn said at the time, arguing against the treaty in Parliament. “That will undermine any social objective that any Labour Government in the United Kingdom — or any other government — would wish to carry out.”
Fast-forward to the Brexit referendum in 2016: Labour and Corbyn officially supported Remain (so did then-Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron as well as his successor, Theresa May.)
But Corbyn’s Brexit problem hasn’t gone away. It’s only gotten worse — for both him and the Labour Party.
Labour’s “fence-sitting” on Brexit is hurting its chances in the 2019 election
In March 2017, the UK Parliament overwhelmingly voted to trigger Article 50, the provision in the EU’s Lisbon Treaty that gives countries the power to withdraw from the bloc. That set off a countdown to a March 2019 Brexit, which, of course, has not happened yet.
At the time, Corbyn and Labour supported triggering Article 50, though some members of his party joined the more than 100 MPs that rebelled against initiating the divorce. This vote happened before the EU and UK ever sat down for serious negotiations, so few knew what kind of Brexit deal then-Prime Minister Theresa May would bring back from Brussels. But the argument at the time was pretty simple: The UK voted to leave, 52 percent to 48 percent, so their representatives had to back the will of the people.
Supporters of Britain’s main opposition Labour Party hold placards as they wait for leader Jeremy Corbyn to arrive at a campaign visit in Colwyn Bay, North Wales, on June 7, 2017.Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images
As mentioned above, the UK held general elections in June 2017, a few months later. May wanted to bolster her majority for Brexit negotiations. Labour backed Brexit, but campaigned for a softer version, meaning closer ties with the EU. In that election, May lost her Conservative majority and Labour did much better than expected.
But “better than expected” meant that Labour remained in the opposition, which also meant it didn’t have the power to solve Brexit. Still, Labour frequently joined with the pro-Remain opposition — such as the Scottish National Party and some pro-Remain rebels within the Conservative Party — and helped spoil the Brexit plans of both May and Johnson, forcing all those extensions and blocking a no-deal Brexit.
Corbyn and the Labour Party, then, stood against whatever the Conservative government brought back. At the same time, Labour vacillated on coming up with its own clear position that wasn’t simply anti-May or anti-Johnson or anti-no-deal.
Labour has some reason for this ambiguity on Brexit. Much of his party favor remaining in the European Union, and that includes a huge portion of its base in cities and even those young, grassroots activists who helped get Corbyn elected. But there are Labour seats in constituencies that voted Leave, many in traditional working-class strongholds such as in the north of England.
Though such voters make up a much smaller percentage, they’re still seen as an important part of Labour’s traditional base. (Does this sound familiar, maybe?) And that’s why Labour defended its somewhat amorphous position on Brexit. Unlike Conservatives, who are more explicitly in favor of leaving the EU (though there are pro-Remain people among them), Labour had a much more complicated coalition to represent.
But in trying to please everyone, Labour risks disappointing everyone. If you want to Leave, you have the Conservative Party and the Brexit Party, both of which promise to deliver that. Johnson and the Conservatives have a clear message: Brexit by January 31. The same is true on the other side of the political spectrum. The much smaller Liberal Democrats, as well as the Greens and the Scottish National Party, also have clear messages: no Brexit.
Labour is trying to find a compromise between the two extremes. And in the polarized Brexit era, that might be the worst of all strategies.
In a recent tweet, here’s how Corbyn described Labour’s position: “Secure a credible deal in three months. Put it to the people for the final say, with the option to remain, in six months.”
“That’s our Brexit policy,” he concluded.
Secure a credible deal in three months.
Put it to the people for the final say, with the option to remain, in six months.
The problem with that Brexit policy: it runs into the same problem Labour has had all along: It’s not quite a commitment to Brexit, but it’s also not quite a commitment to stay in the EU.
“It’s a position that is Labour sitting on the fence,” Eunice Goes, a professor of politics at Richmond University in London, told me. “They’re not declaring in favor of Brexit or of remaining” in the EU.
If you’re a voter who’s eager to stay in the European Union, Labour’s policy doesn’t guarantee that. And if you’re a voter who really wants to Leave, Labour’s policy doesn’t guarantee that either.
Corbyn is selling this as, “We’ll give you a final say on Brexit in six months.” But contrast that with the coherent messages of Labour’s competitors, from Johnson and the Conservative (“Get Brexit Done”) to the Liberal Democrats (“Stop Brexit”). Labour’s stance is much more complicated and unclear, and it will also prolong the divorce process even more — taking weeks or months for negotiations, weeks or months for a referendum, and then who knows what comes after that. It’s just a lot.
There are also some logistical problems here. Renegotiating a new deal and getting those extensions also depends on the EU. After May, and after Johnson, will the EU renegotiate with a third prime minister?
Then there’s the issue of holding a second referendum with the option to Remain. If Labour holds such a referendum, will the party — including Corbyn — campaign against the brand-new deal he just renegotiated, and urge people to vote for Remain? Why would the EU go through the exercise of renegotiating a deal if the UK government is going to actively campaign against it?
And then there’s dealing with the fallout of whatever the outcome: a Brexit plan, or voting to Remain, which is likely going to enrage a huge chunk of people in a polarized country.
It’s still not really clear where Corbyn himself stands on the issue of leaving or remaining. Sure, he supports a second referendum — but what outcome does he want? Corbyn has repeatedly dodged this question. During his first debate with Johnson in November, he wouldn’t give a straight answer other than to say a second referendum was the best option.
In a BBC Question Time session with party leaders, Corbyn, when pressed, finally said he would take a “neutral stance” on any referendum — meaning he wouldn’t campaign for Leave or Remain. In other words, he’ll sit on the fence regarding Brexit, right up to the end. What that might mean for his party, especially the pro-Remain lawmakers who really want to remain, is unclear.
Many experts I spoke to think Labour is taking this muddled approach for the wrong reasons. There are Labour districts that voted Leave in 2016, but Labour is still largely a Remain-leaning party. Even in 2017, research showed that most people who voted Labour — even in those Leave-voting districts — voted Remain.
Paul Webb, a professor of politics at the University of Sussex, said that based on analysis of the 2017 election, even in those Leave-voting areas, “The overwhelming majority of people who voted for Labour in those seats were Remainers, and they weren’t Leavers. So they might have been majority Leave seats, but Labour voters in those seats were Remainers.
“In a sense, by worrying too much about these places,” Webb added, “Labour is kind of pandering to its opponents and people who weren’t inclined to vote for the party anyway.”
In other words, Labour’s attempts to retain Leave voters may not be a winning electoral strategy. And even if it was, a soft Brexit/second referendum might not be the option that appeals to them, especially if Brexit is driving the vote. (And in this election, it’s all about Brexit.) And Conservatives are still framing a vote for Labour as a vote to Remain, anyway.
This is where Corbyn’s public skepticism of Europe comes in. Corbyn’s biggest critics say it’s his distaste for the EU that’s ultimately preventing him from taking Labour off the fence and embracing a more explicitly Reman position.
In other words, it really doesn’t matter what Corbyn says or does — he still comes off as a secret Leave supporter. And Labour’s half-baked Brexit stance hasn’t dispelled that impression.
“He actually wants a position going into this election that will allow him to Leave, because that’s what he really wants to do,” Fielding, the University of Nottingham professor, said, though he acknowledged others might disagree with him.
But, he added, that’s why Corbyn is “to-ing and fro-ing and why he’s been so unwilling — on this one issue — to defy Labour members.”
Brexit isn’t Corbyn’s only problem
Brexit may be a huge problem for Labour. But if you hate Brexit, you’re probably not going to cast a vote for a Conservative MP. There’s a risk, though, that Remain-leaning parties like the Liberal Democrats and Greens could split the votes with Labour, allowing a more pro-Brexit candidate to slip through.
The bunch of Remain parties — including the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and the Welsh party, Plaid Cymru — have pledged to only run the strongest candidate among their parties in certain districts in an effort to avoid any vote-splitting. Some polling has shown that so-called “tactical voting” could boost Labour’s electoral chances, but the party hasn’t signed on. Voters may take it on themselves to vote tactically, or to bet that voting Labour is still the best option to defeat Brexit. But it’s hard to say right now how that will shake out.
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn addresses a European Parliament election campaign rally in Bootle, Merseyside, on May 18, 2019.Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
And Corbyn is still a problem even beyond Brexit. His political past is still a weakness; voters outside of the core of the Labour Party still see him as a radical figure who espouses extreme positions. His critics are also trying to paint him this way — but many of the policies Labour is promoting in its 2019 manifesto, such as more money for the National Health Service, more affordable housing, and evens some of those the nationalization plans, are pretty popular with the general public.
The anti-Semitism crisis within Labour is likely to be another problem for Corbyn. As mentioned above, Corbyn has been more critical of Israel’s government than most members of his party.
But since his ascension to party leader in 2015, he’s also been accused of showing “poor judgment” on the issue of anti-Semitism.
Some Jewish Labour MPs came under attack from the far right, specifically Jewish women MPs who faced incredible vitriol. But there was also evidence that some Labour Party members were also spewing hateful rhetoric at lawmakers. This turned into a crisis this past spring, when nine Labour MPs left the party. The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission launched a formal investigation into the party over those anti-Semitism allegations, a pretty dramatic step.
Corbyn is accused of not having properly condemned the attacks and of allowing this to fester within the party’s ranks. This has damaged “his moral stance as a good man,” Kogan told me. “The accusation of allowing anti-Semitism to take place and not be dealt with, and that’s affected him in his claims to be a different sort of politician.”
The problem isn’t going away, either. The Jewish Chronicle used its front page in early November to call on voters to reject Corbyn. “If this man is chosen as our next prime minister, the message will be stark: that our dismay that he could ever be elevated to a prominent role in British politics, and our fears of where that will lead, are irrelevant,” the newspaper wrote.
The UK’s chief rabbi has also questioned Corbyn’s fitness to be prime minister, weeks into the campaign.
And another former Labour MP, Ian Austin, who left the party over allegations of anti-Semitism earlier this year, said he refused to vote for Corbyn because of his “extremism.” He encouraged voters to select Johnson instead.
Speaking of the current prime minister, contrasting the two further highlights Corbyn’s unpopularity. Johnson is undoubtedly an energetic campaigner, but he’s also a divisive figure who has a lot of baggage. The fact that Corbyn can’t capitalize on Johnson’s weaknesses shows just how broadly he’s disliked.
“I have no doubt that if (as we say here) he was to be run over by a London bus and replaced by the most capable of Labour’s leaders, Keir Starmer, Labour’s ratings would dramatically rise,” Shaw told me, adding that the Conservatives “are prayingfor Corbyn’s good health.”
A July survey found that the public trusts Johnson — a guy who once got fired for lying — more than Corbyn. Just 21 percent of people have a positive opinion of Corbyn; 61 percent have a negative opinion, according to YouGov. In an August YouGov poll, 48 to 35 percent of voters said Corbyn becoming prime minister would be a worse outcome than a no-deal Brexit.
If you’re thinking, “Sure, but Corbyn didn’t do so bad in 2017!” you’re not wrong — but he’s pretty much been trending downward ever since. His approval has steadily decreased, in some instances hitting truly dismal numbers. His approval rating has ticked up slightly in recent weeks to an average of just 22 percent, according to Howard Clarke, a polling expert at the University of Texas at Dallas. But 22 percent going into a general election is horrendously bad.
As Clarke told me via email, recent polls showed Johnson’s approval rating at around 49 percent — not great, but a heck of a lot better than 22 percent.
Harold Clarke, Ashbel Smith professor of political science at the University of Texas at Dallas School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences
“That’s what makes this election such a complicated choice for a lot of people,” Amanda Sloat, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, told me. “You have voters that are opposed to Brexit, but are very concerned about what a Corbyn government would mean for the country’s social and economic policies.”
Is Labour doomed?
“It’s not looking like a good shot,” Kogan told me about Labour’s chances in the next election.
Johnson and the Conservatives have a strong lead in the polls. Corbyn remains unpopular. Labour’s Brexit policy is still wishy washy. But with less than a month go before Britain votes, it’s probably too soon to call it. Johnson’s lead could evaporate — and Corbyn could do better than expected once again.
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn addresses Labour activists during a campaign rally in Whitby, England, on December 1, 2019.Ian Forsyth/Getty Images
Even so, it’s unlikely Labour will win a majority in the 650-seat House of Commons. There have been swings in the polls for Conservatives, with some showing a dramatic lead and others showing a smaller margin of victory, but they’re still ahead in most. Most experts I talked to think Conservatives will win —maybe not with an overwhelming majority, but likely just enough to get Johnson’s Brexit deal through.
Even if that doesn’t happen, an outright Labour majority is still looking difficult to achieve. Instead, the more likely scenario is a hung Parliament, where no one party wins the majority. In this case, it’s possible Labour will do well enough to form some sort of alliance with the Scottish National Party (likely for the price of another Scottish independence referendum), or to at least get the votes of some other pro-Remain parties. Basically, enough anti-Brexit voters will potentially hold their noses for Corbyn to at least try to foil Brexit.
However, experts I talked to agreed that if Labour is defeated outright, Corbyn will almost certainly lose his position as leader. Labour should clean up in these elections. Conservatives have been in charge for 10 years and even they’re promising more spending on things like the National Health Service, in an acknowledgment that the general public is fed up with the Conservatives’ past austerity policies.
Boris Johnson himself is a strange figure in British politics — he’s not all that well-liked nor deeply trusted within the Conservative Party, unable to completely shake the reputation that he’s just out for himself.
If Labour can’t capitalize on this, particularly in this “once-in-a-generation” election, it will be a strong indictment of its leader. But Corbyn’s influence won’t necessarily fade even when he’s gone. He may fail in this election, but the leftward shift he set in motion within Labour could very well outlast him.
This is a widget area - If you go to "Appearance" in your WP-Admin you can change the content of this box in "Widgets", or you can remove this box completely under "Theme Options"
