#love to live through multiple referendums

[mariacallous]

No one can accuse Rishi Sunak of not being a fast learner. At his first three prime minister’s questions, Rish! was hopelessly outgunned. He looked and sounded like an out of his depth sixth-former. But at some point over the past few days, Sunak has got hold of a Goldman Sachs assertiveness training manual. “How to appear pushy and confident when you’re actually dying inside.” Which turned Wednesday’s exchanges into an exercise in cosplay.

Still, the Tory benches seemed happy enough with their leader’s inauthenticity. Any improvement and all that. The backbenchers gave Rish! the odd half-hearted cheer – about as far as any Conservative MP will go in support of Sunak these days, given the circumstances – while Dominic Raab was positively ecstatic as his boss sat down next to him. Though that could have been because he had just heard that an establishment figure had been appointed to investigate the multiple bullying complaints against him. What a stroke of luck!

Buoyed up by the knowledge that there was no chance of Keir Starmer exploiting the tensions between him and Jeremy Hunt after the chancellor briefed a Swiss-style deal with the EU to the Sunday papers – Labour is as sworn to secrecy as the Tories with regard to Brexit – Rish! went out swinging. Come on then if you think you’re hard enough, he squeaked. But please love me. It wasn’t particularly convincing. His need to be liked is overpowering. But better than getting trampled on.

The Labour leader had opened with a few thoughts about the World Cup – he wasn’t about to be outfootballed by a prime minister who didn’t really give a toss about the game – before changing tack and demanding to know why the UK had the lowest growth in the G7. This one could run and run. It may get boring week after week, but Sunak and the Tories have no plausible answer. At least not one they’re prepared to mouth out loud.

“Erm,” said Rish! If you went back to 2010, then you could say we were third in the list. Starmer ignored him and pointed to the OECD table that had the UK 38th out of 38 for the next two years. Sunak looked a bit panicky. He hadn’t yet got to the bit in the Goldman Sachs manual on dealing with damning statistics. Maybe he will have mastered that by next week.

Yeahbutnobutyeahbutno. Maybe the Labour leader had been looking at the table upside down. From where he was looking, the UK was in a world-beating first place. Or maybe not. So, how about the UK had actually been doing quite well at one point this year. Why couldn’t we all just close our eyes and concentrate on enjoying that one day in April when things hadn’t been so bad. Typical Labour to want to think about how people might pay their bills in the next 24 months. It was that kind of negativity that was bringing the UK down.

After that it was all insult-throwing from both men. Neither of whom sounded entirely comfortable in their appointed shouty roles. But Starmer’s jabs landed better. Sunak always looks as if he wishes he could disappear whenever his wife’s non-dom status is mentioned. Which is why it gets brought up every week.

All Rish! could manage was to call the Labour leader an “opportunist” – pots and kettles and all that – and to insist that he alone had a plan for growth. Which is where he rather fell apart. Because even the Confederation of British Industry thinks he’s busted. More than that, the NHS is in crisis, we’re in the middle of a cost of living crisis, and Sunak is too weak to get his own planning bill through the Commons. None of which is going to get better anytime soon. Maybe it’s time for the Goldman Sachs manual on a dignified retreat.

The rest of the session was dominated by Scotland. The SNP leader, Ian Blackford, accepted the supreme court ruling that the Scottish parliament couldn’t unilaterally call another independence referendum. That was a legal point, he said. But where was the democracy? Even now he could hear triumphalism in unionist voices.

Except there wasn’t really any triumphalism. There might have been under Boris Johnson or even Theresa May. But Sunak is another breed. He was just desperate for the Scots to get back onboard and feel the UK love. The Scots had tried to go it alone but it hadn’t quite worked out. So why didn’t they just give the marriage a second chance? He was sure we had a future together. Two hearts were better than one. Two hearts could get the job done.

None of which cut much ice with Blackford. He observed that the SNP had won eight elections, which surely gave them a mandate. Sunak couldn’t even command a mandate of Tory party members. Rish! blushed his way into a shame spiral. He’s very touchy about having never won an election. Please, please, can we just get on, he begged.

Cue a pile-on from the six SNP MPs who had managed to get their way on to the order paper. All of whom asked variations of the same questions as Blackford. How could it be a voluntary union if there was no way of leaving it? Sunak was again eager for them to share his enthusiasm for the union. It was what the Scots really wanted. Deep down. The pursuit of independence was false consciousness. All that was needed was to admit a referendum was a false dawn.

This was too much for May. She had had enough of trying to make the Scots feel good about having lost their case in the supreme court. She personally had spoken to every Scot and knew that most of them didn’t want to leave the union. So the SNP should just bugger off and start putting the people of Scotland first. It was a view.

The outrage continued for another 45 minutes as the speaker had granted an urgent question on the decision. Many MPs merely repeated what they had said earlier. The SNP’s Pete Wishart cut to the chase. Under what circumstances would a second referendum be granted? Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, could barely conceal his irritation. Basically, we would need to go back to 2014. Time travel. That was it. He couldn’t see any other way there could be a consensus. The computer says no. So why didn’t the SNP just stop pestering him? The charmless offensive.

[sleepdeprivedfemale]

Indyref 2 Electric Boogaloo let's gooo

#politics #Scotland #scottish elections #love to live through multiple referendums #Greens did well too yay #Labor being obliterated is par of the course #mine

[detectivetheory]

MAY THE WINGS OF REBELLION SHATTER THE CHAINS OF JUSTICE ! 

THE PALACE OF KIRIGIRI KYOUKO : THE COURTHOUSE OF PRIDE.

BGM   :   justice - genesis.   DEADLINE :  AUGUST 31  ( days until the victim is wrongfully condemned. )     FULL NAME OF OWNER   :  KIRIGIRI KYOUKO  /    霧切 響子    (  obtained from the files given by det. AKECHI GORO )    LOCATION IN REALITY :  ikebukuro police precinct.   KEYWORD   :    DAMNATION.    TREASURE   :   the in-vitro rose.

YOUR MISSION, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT !

a young man by the name of karuisawa ichiro has recently been taken into custody for the probable cause of working alongside the phantom thieves. he, being a peaceful and innocent man as well as a ‘phan’ of the phantom thieves of hearts, is more than willing to take the fall for his rebel heroes.

at 12:46pm on a sunny tuesday afternoon, the TV in the leblanc cafe turns to an image of a young woman. she stands before the ikebukuro police precinct, chest lifted and eyes proud. a young detective is identified by akechi goro, who has been seated in the cafe for over an hour. KIRIGIRI KYOUKO , a private detective from shibuya who has been spending quite a bit of time in jongen-gaya, has detained mr. karuisawa through what she believes to be intense and rigorous deduction.

akechi identifies the woman as ambitious, ruthless, and ready to strike -- he even goes so far as to compare her to niijima sae, whom he has worked with for multiple weeks on the phantom thieves of hearts case. upon being asked if he’s WORRIED that kyouko has seemingly caught an affiliate, he shows no emotion one way or another. 

a family member of karuisawa ichiro’s will put in a request on the phan-site, pleading with the phantom thieves to change the heart of the lawless detective and free their relative. akechi goro, who has been working with kyouko for multiple weeks as her referendum to the phantom thieves of hearts case, will effortlessly hand over the profile he has been compiling and offhandedly mention that  ‘ those who cross her path are practically sentenced to damnation ’.

IN THIS HOUSE, I AM THE JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER !

kirigiri kyouko’s palace is done in the style of a roman basilica, in which kyouko herself is the dominus . the walls and flooring are both marble, and the seemingly minute structure of the japanese police station has been transformed into a large and grandiose building. columns keep the building upright, and fragments of broken laurel-leaf crowns have been scattered throughout the building. the color palette, even of those entering the palace, has been muted -- seemingly monochrome and desaturated in nature. this is a physical manifestation of the CONTROL she wishes to have over her own cases, and how her desire to do the right thing and desire to put criminals behind bars triumphs over her willingness to abide by the precedent her fellow detectives have set for her.

THE ENTRANCE is a large, open entryway in which people are free to come and go. on the WALLS OF THE ENTRANCE are imagines ( roman death masks, connected by string in the form of a family tree ) detailing the entire kirigiri family. each of these masks are porcelain ( representing the fragility of humanity ) and the masks above kyouko’s, representing her mother and father, have had the features filed away. the mask of her grandfather, kirigiri fuhito, has a red ribbon crossing over the face of jin, her father, and connecting directly to kyouko’s.

THE GROUND LEVEL ( I AM THE JUDGE ! ) is what someone would expect a roman courthouse to look like ; there is an open floor plan, marble floors, and the same columns keep the first level upright. in the center - back corner of the room are a series of three throne-like chairs. the seat of the center chair has a golden laurel crown abandoned in the seat. in the center of the room is a large marble statue of JUSTITIA, ROMAN GODDESS OF JUSTICE.  upon entering, the phantom thieves of hearts will encounter a little girl of eleven years old wearing the white toga of the CONSUL, with bright purple hair hiding behind the statue. before they can interact with her, she runs away. 

the shadows in the first level are done up in either the white toga of the roman senator ( dictating that they are weaker / magically inclined shadows in their true forms ) or the scarlet-red battle armor of the roman legionary ( dictating that they are stronger / physically inclined shadows in their true forms ). personas that may be picked up in this palace, especially on the first few floors are of the JUSTICE ARCANA.

THE SUB-TERRA FIRST LEVEL ( I AM THE JURY ! ) is a labyrinth of long, marble hallways, each adorned with what appears to be the WRECKAGE OF A FAILED ROMAN TRIUMPH. embedded in the walls are portions of the bodies of those that kyouko has conquered over -- male detectives who tried to outrank her, criminals that she has put behind bars, friends who have tried to make her choose between her job and her social standing. at the center of this labyrinth is a toppled golden chariot, where the phantom thieves of hearts can hear the sobbing of a young girl.

as they approach the chariot, they lay their eyes on a fifteen-year-old metaverse version of samidare yui, who is holding the burnt, bleeding body of an eleven year old kirigiri kyouko. she appears to make no movement other than to wail and to sob over the tragedy that has happened, and as the phantom thieves try to reconcile with the girl, she and the burnt image of kyouko melt into the floor. the shadow essence seems to ooze past their feet until they are faced with the miniboss of the dungeon: kirigiri fuhito  ( PRAETOR OF THE COURTHOUSE ) -- see bossfights: praetor.

the shadows in the second level appear to move slower, more elegant -- as if they themselves are no longer part of the great and honorable triumph but instead part of a funeral procession. each of these shadows wears an imagine of someone in the kirigiri family, and the masks are repeatable.  

THE SUB-TERRA SECOND LEVEL ( I AM THE EXECUTIONER ! ) is what appears to be a funeral grounds. one of the members of the active party ( defaults to sakamoto ryuji, if he is present ) mentions that he’s frightened by the image of a woman in white walking around. another party member dismisses this train of thought, but the party agrees to be on their guard. the grounds themselves are dark, as if an endless night has been brought upon them, GIANT CRUCIFIXES sprout up from the ground, and if they are investigated, they will see that these are KYOUKO’S REGRETS, hung up to die in the worst form of execution. examples of these regrets are “not loving more”, “saying goodbye to my father”, “visiting my mother’s grave”.

the shadows in this area are the REGRETS that fall from the crucifixes as the phantom thieves of hearts walk by them. ( it is in the best interest of the party to avoid the crucifixes, but sometimes they sprout just before / just after the phantom thieves walk by them, making it inevitable to comes across them ). each of these shadows take a moment to adjust themselves in the land of the “living” again, which gives the phantom thieves time to run away if they are in no shape to fight.

( it has been said that ‘ death ’  walks these chambers, but that’s a baseless rumor, right ? )

at the end of this long series of crucifixes and catacombs is the entrance into the final chamber : the entrance of the SUB - TERRAN THIRD LEVEL / FINAL LEVEL is a burial grave for one kirigiri kyouko , and her imagine is presented multiple times around the arch of the doorway, in different expressions. the image of lady justice has her sword sheathed and the scales upturned.

THE SUB - TERRAN THIRD LEVEL  / FINAL LEVEL  is the beginnings of a burial mound, with a beautiful marble coffin settled in at the top. the aforementioned woman in white stands with her back to the phantom thieves atop her mound, and only after she’s called out does she appear to the group of rebels. this is the present day kirigiri - kyouko , age seventeen. she wears the white-and-purple garments of the DOMINUS now, exerting her will over this place and her desire for control in her own life. when confronted, kyouko speaks in a regal tone, similar to that of a goddess or queen -- and when defeated, a single silver tear rolls down her cheek. see bossfight: DOMINIA.

MY SWORN DUTY IS TO PROTECT MY LINEAGE ! 

bossfight: praetor. the praetor is the cognitive version of kirigiri fuhito, kyouko’s grandfather. fuhito was present in kyouko’s life after the dismissal of jin and the death of her mother, michiko. however, kyouko has only recently learned that jin’s actions did not necessarily deserve the consequence that he was given, and kyouko was manipulated by her grandfather into hating her father so that she could become the next successful kirigiri detective.

in this cognitive state, the PRAETOR is a shadow of the HANGED MAN ARCANA. he stands as a massive, hulking guardian who has been sworn to protect the dominus even at the cost of his own life so that she may be molded into his form. the praetor is an evil man who wishes to use the dominus as a figurehead ruler. he prioritizes his glory and the continuation of his lineage over everything else-- even his own life. 

on a strategic level, the praetor is immune to dark and light attacks. the best way to strike him down is to raise the physical critical strike rate in your party and down him that way.

NOW , I AM MASTER OF MYSELF !

bossfight: dominia. the dominus is the cognitive version of kirigiri kyouko herself. in her dormant state, kyouko appears as herself, with a braided crown of hair atop her head and a circle of golden laurel leaves adorning her head. her eyes are yellow with the cognitive distortion of the shadow. 

in her active form, she appears as LADY JUSTICE, with long violet hair and the toga of the senator wrapped around her. in one hand, she wields the scales of justice (of which she casts her magic) and in the other, she wields her sword (of which she uses her physical attacks). as a shadow of the JUSTICE ARCANA, she utilizes predominantly light-based attacks. as such, she ABSORBS light and is WEAK to darkness attacks ( playing on the tropes of hope & despair from her source canon ).

however, NONE of the phantom thieves get the final blow on the DOMINUS. when she is at 50hp or lower, the dominus runs herself through with her sword and utters the notable words of cato the younger : “ now, i am master of myself. ”

#✕ ▒█ ▌» ❛ let me be part of the narrative they'll tell about you someday. ( meta. ) #✕ ▒█ ▌» ❛ verse 005: embodiment of pride. ( persona 5 au. )

[alicedoessurveys]

What’s your opinion on Brexit? what a shambles. I voted leave (and no im not racist) and im just so done with hearing about it every single day. if we have a second referendum or if we end up not leaving then I will not vote for anything again because what is the point if democracy is failing. 

Does it gross you out when people don’t cover their mouth when they cough? yes. COVER THAT SHIT.  If you want children, what are some of your reasons for wanting them? I want to adopt. ive wanted to adopt since I was a young age and now im a foster carer its made me want to adopt even more. there are so many children that need loving stable homes 

Does a career in finance sound interesting to you? nope it sounds hellish

Have you ever been to South Korea? nope, I have no desire to go there tbh 

When you cook a dish that has beans in it, do you prefer to use canned or dry beans? canned; although tbh I never cooked anything that requires beans unless its beans on toast What were some fun experiments you did in science class as a kid? I don't remember. I hated science class. the only things I remember from science was the teacher I had for 3 years who hated me, and the teacher who was fascinated with me because I am missing a knuckle on my right hand.  What was the last strong emotion you felt? sadness After finishing a bowl of cereal, do you drink the leftover milk? I drink a couple of spoonfuls of the milk and then I give the rest to the cat/dog (whichever is sat with me at the time) What’s something that’s been bothering you lately? the fact that ill probably never have enough money to move into my own place. the fact that im having to get a new car and I don't want to. the fact that ill probably never find love. Do you use dry shampoo between washes? yes, absolutely. im a gross person who tries to leave it as long as possible to wash my hair because im lazy  What’s the scariest thing you’ve ever done? there are three occasions where ive had to do something terrifying and they are when I went to Blackpool to spend the day dancing at the winter gardens with a group of complete strangers, when I took my driving test and when I had to audition with a Shakespeare monologue  Do you ever wear pantyhose? are they tights? What’s the most severe allergic reaction you’ve ever had to something? im allergic to insect bites and a few summers ago I got absolutely covered in bites and had to be put on medication to deal with the reaction I was having What was the last show you binge-watched? Lucifer What’s a food that starts with the first letter of your last name? apple What’s your favorite sub-genre of rock? I don't know the sub-genres... whatever Queen falls into  What historical event would you have liked to witness? the Queen being coronated maybe? my brain has gone totally blank about any historical events Who was the last person to get frustrated with you, and why? myself, multiple times a day because I do stupid things 

Do you get at least 7 hours of sleep every night? yes What’s something that makes absolutely zero sense to you? people judging other people. I know its natural to have judgemental thoughts but you don't have to speak them out just to hurt other people.  What’s your phone background? my lock screen is a pretty illustration of the words ‘have courage & be kind’ and my home screen is a picture of my niece laughing at bubbles

Have you ever lived with someone you didn’t get along with? me and my dad have our moments Has the country you live in ever had a civil war? I don't think so What’s something that bothers you more and more as you get older? aching body parts and fatigue  What animals have you had as pets? dogs, cats, birds, rabbit, guinea pigs, hamsters 

Are you a pretty resilient person? Or do you get stressed easily? I get stressed out super easy Have you ever booked anything through a travel agency? yes What direction does the front of your house face? south facing How well do you understand economics? Have you ever taken an econ class? I do not understand it, im not 100% sure what it even is  What was the last fruit you ate? apple

#survey #long

[marys-blog]

Book Review: Something Worth Doing

Jane Kirpatrick’s historical fiction, Something Worth Doing: A Novel of an Early Suffragist, is the story of Abigail Scott Duniway, a woman with a fierce love of justice and liberty for all. For all, including women. The story covers the years 1853 when Abigail was a 19-year-old school teacher to 1912, when Oregon women finally were granted the right to vote.

When Abigail and Ben Duniway were married, she had to give up her teaching job in Oregon Territory and do what women did: perform the drudgery of housework and child-bearing. She resented that a woman’s life was dictated by men, that she was subject to the will of her husband A woman could keep no income she made for herself should her husband choose to take it, she could not own property, the lives of their children were dictated by their father. Fathers, husbands, even brothers controlled the women in their lives.

Ben Dumiway was a good man and he dearly loved his wife. Although he made the major decisions about their lives, he recognized Abigail’s dreams and desires. When financial mistakes and a serious injury forced Ben to stop working, Abigail became the primary breadwinner for her growing family. Finally, she realized that perhaps there was something she could do for the plight of women, and she devoted her life fighting for the rights of women, including the right to vote.

Abigail and Ben had six children–all born at home. In addition to helping on the farm, she ran a millinery and a private school, wrote novels, gave speeches, and eventually ran a newspaper supporting women's suffrage. Through it all, Ben was loving and patient with her absences. In one year, she delivered 296 speeches; in her lifetime, more than 1,500. Disappointments mounted as referendums for the women’s vote were defeated, but Abigail and her fellow workers pressed on, finally succeeding in 1912 when Oregon women finally were granted the right to vote.

The issues presented in Something Worth Doing will resonate with women of today. Many of us can relate to women not receiving equal pay for equal work, and for the prejudice women encounter when competing in a male-dominated world. Multiple award-winning author Jane Kirkpatrick has written a passionate story of a pioneer for women's rights. The life of Abigail Scott Duniway shows that courage and devotion to a cause is worth doing, that it can make a difference.

[livethatdream-blog1]

Another Adventure

After visiting France, I was happy to spend a quiet weekend in Madrid with Valerie. We were so pleased to be together and to enjoy ourselves in that beautiful city!

(Valerie and I went to one of her favorite bookshops: La Central)

We had a grand old time:

(Val and her wonderful boyfriend, a PhD student named Jesus)

(The Christmas lights at el Mercado de San Miguel)

The next weekend, John came to Barcelona. My wonderful friends Pam and Eric Fitz (Americans from Colorado Springs--we met through my car insurance agent Brad) were going to Estonia for Christmas, so they loaned us their gorgeous house in Masnou, up the coast from Barcelona, for our entire stay in the city.

(My first tortilla de patata was a smashing success)

The house Pam and Eric live in was built in the 1880s or 90s. It features hand-painted vaulted ceilings and multiple stories of artistic tiling as well as a back yard with lemon and orange trees. Also in the back yard is a tunnel behind a fountain that leads to the other house: it was an escape route during the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939--now Pam and Eric use it as a wine cellar.

The weather was beautiful. On our first day we went down to the beach and while we were looking for shells, John asked me to marry him! 

(Before)

(After)

As you can imagine, the rest of our trip was full of champagne and celebration. I’ve spent the last ten days preoccupied with taking photos of the ring:

Also, I had planned four Christmas surprises for John, and they all went off very well!

We went to a bar famous for its gin:

(My hand is at my side because he hadn’t given me my ring yet)

We went to my favorite upscale restaurant in Born, Tantarantana:

We checked out La Opera Samfaina‘s tapas tour:

And finally, we had a Christmas dinner with a family of Catalans followed by a cooking lesson from a Catalan grandma.

Abuelita loved John. (I do, too)

Catalonia had an election on the 21st of December for a new government, and many of the ministers elected were indepentistas, but not all. For now, Spain has more Christmas-season vacation days than almost any other country in Europe, so nothing is happening in the government, no protests have been organized or executed, and all is relatively peaceful and cheerful.

Also, the tourism industry, which was severely affected by the independence referendum in the fall, resulting in the worst low season my company has ever seen, bounced back for the holidays. The streets are full of cheerful and New Year’s travelers, just in time for our 60-degree winter weather.

My flight leaves tomorrow for Jerusalem, so I’ll take lots of pictures and keep you updated on that adventure!

In three weeks: home!

#livethatdream #engagedengagedengaged #barcelonalife

[kathleenhinkel]

PONDERING RENT CONTROL: A PHOTO ESSAY ON HOUSING AND GENTRIFICATION

"Should the State of Illinois lift the ban on rent control to address rising rents, unjust evictions, and gentrification in our community?"

Many people in Chicago will answer this question on their ballots when they vote in a couple weeks. The 1st, 26th, 45th and 50th wards are where the question is being asked; they are communities that have experienced rapidly rising rents with gentrification - communities such as Logan Square, Wicker Park, Humboldt Park and Rogers Park.

Illinois has had a ban on rent control since 1997 and this vote is a non-binding referendum but if voters overwhelmingly vote to lift the ban - then the results may be used to persuade lawmakers to lift the ban on rent control. About two-thirds of voters in areas of Uptown, Rogers Park, Avondale, Logan Square and Rogers Park have already voted ‘yes’ on this measure in November and a movement to lift the ban on rent control has momentum.

The depletion of affordable housing in these areas is changing the makeup of these neighborhoods and it is undoubtedly causing people of color to be displaced. “Almost 20,000 latinos have been displaced in the last five years,” says Norma Rios-Sierra of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association. As longtime residents of the area witness a rapidly changing demographic, many people see lifting the ban on rent control as an essential component to preserving the community. Rios-Sierra is a lifelong resident of the area and has watched as the community has changed. “I want people to have an option to live here,” she says of her work with LSNA and the Hermosa and Logan Square Here-to-Stay initiative that seeks to provide options for working families to remain in the area.

Meanwhile, there are various reasons that landlords argue that instituting rent control will actually deplete the housing stock and not fix the problem of supplying affordable housing to those who need it most. “There’s no correlation between those who will benefit from rent control and the need for affordable housing,” contends Mike Glasser who owns a building in Rogers Park. He argues that there’s already a huge incentive not to lose a good tenant and as assessed valuations decline under rent control, many landlords will deplete the stock of housing by converting their units to condos. “The absolute best answer is to add to the supply of housing,” Glasser says in regards to stabilizing increasing rental rates.

The conversation around affordable housing and gentrification is complicated and often seems oversimplified. This photo essay is an attempt to explore various perspectives on the topic.

Captions includes the stories of various people I have talked to about this topic. I will be looking to continue this story through the year and would love to hear from people that can provide perspective.

This story was recently published in the Chicago Reader - here are links to what was published and below are the perspectives I've collected thus far.

PDF PRINT VERSION

ONLINE VERSION 

SLIDESHOW

"We need to look at the well-being of our community - how can we heal the damage of gentrification?" asks Norma Rios-Sierra, 38, a Logan Square homeowner working with the Logan Square Neighborhood Association to develop low-income housing initiatives to preserve the community.

"I want people to have an option to live here," she says noting that "almost 20,000 Latinos have been displaced in the last 5 years." As a homeowner, she acknowledges that "single homeowners are the one's who maintain low rent" and she keeps rent low for her tenants.

As homeowner's her family is regularly approached to sell their property - she says they receive "one mailing per week that is some amazing sales pitch to sell their property."

As part of an effort to preserve the community and slow gentrification she supports Hermosa Here to Stay - an initiative that is designed to bring 100 units of affordable housing while developing a community land trust as a way to compete with developers who can quickly buy up land with cash.

Lesley Reynoso, 22, had been living with her family in the same 1st ward apartment for 18 years when the building was sold and they were evicted with one month's notice. They were not able to find affordable housing in Logan Square and moved to Irving Park where they are paying higher rent away from the community they know. Lesley helps her parents keep up with the rent while going to school at Columbia College. She finds it hard to keep up with her school work and maintain employment to help with high Chicago rents. 

"I shouldn't be choosing between working a minimum wage job and going to college she says." The move has added to her commute times. While the move has strained her family she feels lucky compared to the families with young kids who were evicted from their building - thinking that finding a place would've been harder with more kids who are younger and can't contribute to the rent. "I don't know how the people in my building are doing - I hope they're doing well."

The building where Lesley Reynoso and her family lived for 18 years before being displaced at 2936 W Palmer St. in Logan Square. M. Fishman and Company bought the building on October 5, 2017 and shortly after sent eviction notices telling residents they had to be out by November 30.  Multiple minority families were displaced on short notice in the middle of a school year.

Mike Glasser stands in front of one of his properties in Rogers Park where lifting the ban on rent control is being debated. Glasser is president of the Neighborhood Building Owners Alliance and the Rogers Park Builders Group and opposes lifting the ban on rent control.

"Anybody who's a landlord who opposes rent control is going to be assumed to be acting in their own interest." Glasser acknowledges but continues "There's no correlation between those who will benefit from rent control and the need for affordable housing."  He points out that people are less likely to move out of an apartment with rent control even as their income increases, meaning affordable units won't go to those who need them most. Other problems he points out with rent control are that it will disincentive landlords to keep up with maintaining their buildings and the assessed valuations of the buildings will decline. He warns that with too much regulation landlords may give up on the rental market all together and convert their units to condos, thus depleting the rental stock. "The absolute best answer is add to the supply of housing," Glasser says, advocating that greater supply will keep housing costs lower.

Cherie Travis stands outside of one of her properties near Logan Square. Travis is against lifting the ban on rent control thinking it will lead to more regulation that could push small landlords, who currently have the ability to personally work with tenants and keep rents reasonable, out of the business entirely. 

"It is already a treacherous place for small landlords in Chicago. The city of Chicago makes it impossible for small landlords to exist. Eventually you'll have a situation where Chicago will be purely corporate housing and that'll be good for no one."  In addition to owning rental properties, Travis is an attorney who represents small landlords in court. She says that current regulation already leaves small landlords in a vulnerable position when dealing with tenants.

She adds that another potential problem with rent control is "it creates a massive disincentive for landlords to keep up the property. It's not good for the quality of housing in Chicago if landlords are disincentivized to keep up their property." 

“The overregulation is what I’m protesting,” she says. “Ultimately Chicago is going to lose small landlords.” Better management of Chicago Housing Authority funds would be something she would advocate for to give assistance to people who need it and have that assistance be limited for a certain amount of time.

Hajiya Adamu, 61, works as a caretaker and lives in the 50th ward where rent control referendum is on the ballot. As rents have increased, Adamu has appreciated having a landlord that is reasonable and has allowed her to find roommates as needed to keep up with the increasingly expensive rental market. She says the extra roommates likely will mean that rent will increase because of the extra cost of the water bill. 

One group of people affected by lack of low-income housing are women escaping domestic violence.

Caitlin Brady, 30 is a domestic violence survivor who is familiar with the danger that a lack of affordable housing presents. Her abuser was also her landlord so she had no rental history to get out.

"I think women are forced to stay in situations longer than they would. I wanted to leave but I had nowhere to go. Food and shelter should be a basic human right. I shouldn't have the choice of getting beat up or being homeless. My heart breaks for women with kids."

"I advocate for decommodifying housing. It has to be accessible to the bottom income earners. We ignore the fact that these problems are structural. Mobility is the answer. The ability to get up and leave and stay somewhere you feel safe. There should be more social workers."

"We want to preserve this as a space for Puerto Rican families." 26th Ward Alderman Roberto Maldonado says about preserving the Puerto Rican heritage of his ward while speaking near one of the ward's murals that celebrates Puerto Rican culture.

Maldonado supports lifting the ban on rent control noting that if the ban is lifted "I will be an active participant  in drafting the final language of the ordinance. In order to motivate landlords to go along this path we need to provide incentive to upkeep property. A board should be established that would be comprised of people that know the neighborhood."

Preventing displacement and preserving the neighborhood's long-established Puerto Rican identity is a priority for Maldonado. In addition to supporting lifting the ban on rent control, Maldonado is working to secure more affordable housing in the area as market values continue to rise. 

"The threat of gentrification is real," says Maldonado. Parts of the 606 trail border his ward and he notes "I was never a fan of the 606 and I live 5 houses from there. I went to the community meeting and everyone there did not look like me at all. It was clear that this plan was not for my community."

Whether the ban is lifted or not, Alderman Maldonado says plans for affordable housing are in the works for the 26th ward. "I have a plan to build 1100 affordable housing units in the next five years - by doing that we're going to provide decent housing for working families." The intersection of California and Division across from Humboldt Park is a lot where some 60 of these units will be built.

Theresa Siaw is running against current 26th ward alderman Roberto Maldonado and does not advocate to lift the ban on rent control.  "I'd advocate for education more than rent control." Siaw says emphasizing that with better education people will better manage their financial assets to the point where they can own homes and stay in the community. "We need more minorities to own their own property."

Juanita Barraza, 63, heads out to canvass and advocate to lift the ban on rent control near where she lives in the 26th ward. Barraza is advocating for rent control because she has seen many of her neighbors and friends forced out of the community do to escalating housing costs. "Everybody's moved because they can't afford the rents," say Barraza.  Barraza is a homeowner who rents a unit in her home and wants to keep the rent low for tenants.  

Casey Sweeney, 27, left, and India Peek-Jensen, 26, of Grassroots Illinois Action go door to door in Humboldt Park to advocate for lifting the ban on rent control. The organization led the initiative to get lifting the ban on rent control on the ballot.

A chunk of the 606 trail divides the 1st and 26th wards, which will be voting on referendum to life the current ban on rent control. Some note the 606 as an a welcome alternative commuting route and makeover for the Bloomingdale railroad line while critics note that the 606 has contributed to the disappearance of affordable housing in the area, accelerating gentrification contributing to the displacement of minority families who have traditionally called these wards home.

#housing #lifttheban #rentcontrol #gentrification #photoessay #documentary photography photojournalism #chicago #election #affordablehousing #photojournalism

[gskygroup]

Design Strategies and Motivation

During this course, we learned how to brand a place within our community, documenting what is around it that can bring the community together along with conducting a demographics study, SWOT, an elevator pitch for the specified area.  For my community, I decided to brand the entire community which over the past fifteen years has been plagued with negative media of a community to beware of. This could not be further from the truth, despite its issues it is a community of friendly people who work hard and love the area. It is community primarily made up of active duty military, veterans, government workers and contractors with the largest employer being the military. My community has survived multiple base closing and experiences the same issues as may military communities surrounding a base. 

The problem I sought to solve was identifying where the community stands with the economic issues plaguing the community. The goal is to get more people involved in the process of speaking up for there community.  After speaking to multiple persons from different category sets, I was able to gather data to present a clear picture of the types of people within the community and their concerns.  

Client Name: Community of Edgewood/ Harford County District A Representative

Location: Edgewood, Maryland 21040

Client Description

The community of Edgewood is a village of approximately 26,000 people who are mostly active duty military, veterans and government workers. The community is a coastal village town which sits at the top of the Chesapeake Bay, just north of Baltimore. The largest industry is the military at Edgewood in the Aberdeen/ Edgewood Proving Ground where many of the resident work either as government employees of government contractors. For the past twelve to fifteen years, Edgewood has faced an economic downturn of business closures and housing foreclosures unlike any other of its surrounding towns.

Problem Statement

As a community which sits along two major highways, Harford County can dramatically impact the area with a further allocation of land for development. A plan to renegotiation rental rates with business landlords using taxes breaks incentives for struggling small businesses could help offset high overpriced rent many businesses are paying. With the loss of tax dollars from businesses and residents leaving Edgewood, the county must think long and hard about assisting the community in the development of a new industry, and land development.

Socioeconomic Information                                                                       Edgewood is a small community in Northeast Maryland on the Upper Chesapeake Bay with a population of 26,303 with a population density of 1,479 (sq mi). It is a community which is very diverse with an overall median age of 34.5 an average single person median income of $56,414 and family income of $71,988. The rate of homeownership is 69% with 42% who are married with 2.81 individuals in the household. Over the past 12 years, there has been a decline in home ownership due to the housing market collapse and foreclosures in 2007.  The trend in financial uncertainty has resulted in the unemployment of 6.8% and an educational poverty rate of 27.16% of individuals with a high school diploma or some college. The veteran community make-up of Edgewood is 12.3% with 5.7% under poverty and 20% listed as service-connect disabled veterans. As for active duty members in the community, their 38% in which 20% are civilians employed at the base.    

Synthesized Interview Findings

With more than 75% of the community of Edgewood either employed by the government or working as contractors. The individuals surveyed are either furloughed or working without pay due to the government shutdown. Due to the sensitivity of many of these individuals’ jobs, they would not agree to be recorded or having their pictures taken but would participate in my study.

For Part One of the study, I visited several locations of the military base to interview service members who are stationed in the community of Edgewood for up to 5 years in their contracts. I wanted to get the perspective of a transit community of people who can give fresh insight about the community of Edgewood.  Next, I will be visiting with my neighbors who are primarily veterans who have been living in the area for over 20 years. Finally, there will be a visit to the local Walmart where many of young, mostly non-military people shop since a majority of the military has its shopping facilities on base.  

Personas

Based on the research conducted of four personas which represent the four categories of Edgewood residents being;

Category #1 Persona: Andre Williams – Government Contractor and Home Owner

Category #2 Persona: Margarita Cardona – Retired Military/ Veteran and Home Owner

Category #3 Persona: David Matthews Sr. – Lifetime Resident of Edgewood Community who is a Home Owner

Category #4 Persona: Veronica Ware – Lifetime Resident of Edgewood who Rented

Questions for Interviews of Personas

What is your full name?

Where were you born?

What is your age?

Are you married and do you have kids?

In what community do you live and how long have you lived there?

What is your educational level?

What is your income, and do you work in Edgewood?

What is your line of work and title?

What is your industry?

Are you a veteran and what branch?

Do you like the community of Edgewood?

What is your political party affiliation?

Are you in any organizations?

What are your hobbies?

What is your faith?

A statement to describe your values?

What do you do in your free time?

Tell me about your family?

Is there anything that upsets you about living in Edgewood?

What do you like about living in Edgewood?

What does Edgewood lack most?

Devos 4 W’s

Each perspective is based on their first-hand experience of the community and their most pressing concerns. By understanding the pressure points of these segments will provide a snapshot of the larger community. Using the four W’s presented by Devos, the problem can be synthesized to find focus and clarity to begin the steps of strategizing an effective plan moving forward.

Who: Community of Edgewood has the problem of;

What: Lack of Industry, Reinvestment, Housing Foreclosures

Where: Reinvestment in Edgewood Meadows business district, and multiple areas Edgewood could address many of the issues.

Why: The solution should be to highlight the years of neglect by the county, who has year after year made the decision that was not in the best interest of the community. The real-world impacts of the residents living in the community have been devastating as funds have been diverted from Edgewood and the smaller town to the more affluent areas in the county. Edgewood has not been represented as it should have been by its local leaders in the past. A disconnected community has been the result of having little to no voice.

“By asking four simple questions, everyone can put their own thoughts up and together synthesize the content to find focus and clarity” (Devos n.d.)

Through the development of a SWOT analysis it is important to consider the Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats to your business or theory. Focusing in on the data collected and evaluating the secondary data through interview and surveys, this information could be presented to the county planning committee or management team to establish a different perspective to move forward. In this briefing my SWOT covered the Community of Edgewood and the problems, solutions and outlook gathered while surveying and interviewing people in the community who have issues with the state of the community. “When the management team looks at the company’s weaknesses, it is not to assign blame for past shortfalls in performance. It is to identify the most critical areas that need to be improved in order for the business to more effectively compete”.  (Hill 2018)

Through a community referendum, the people could vote for where the county invest its money in the community. This could be followed by a general meeting with local county officials, landlords, and small businesses to establish an economic stimulus to help businesses promote the needs for tax breaks and microloans. The goal would be to help businesses keep their door open through incentives such as tax breaks for hiring a veteran, helping veteran business with contract opportunities with local government and partnerships with local community colleges and university.  

Lastly, the county is going to have to revisit its policies on growth through the county. Staying rural and isolated from the larger investments being made by the State in the surrounding counties could do great service to Edgewood and some of the smaller towns along Highway 95 and Highway 40. The community needs to pressure Harford County to petition the State for economic assistance to help attract new industry in the area. The county officials and the military should also be pressured to establish a plan to annex land for new industry and growth for the economically impacted area through the county.

In the past State and County elections, a small number of the residents in the community was able to engage the community to elect a local representative of the community to the district seat after eight years of failed promises by the last representative. With more people getting involved from within the community positive change at all levels can happen.  

Reference

Bland, D. (2018). What Is an Empathy Map? Retrieved from https://www.solutionsiq.com/resource/blog-post/what-is-an-empathy-map/

Brown, J. (June 27, 2018) Empathy Mapping: A Guide to Getting Inside a User’s Head. Retrieved from: https://www.uxbooth.com/articles/empathy-mapping-a-guide-togetting-inside-a-users-head/

Devos, J. (N.d.) Design Problem Statements – What They Are and How to Frame Them. Retrieved from: https://www.toptal.com/designers/product-design/design-problem-statement

Harford County Government: 2017 Small Area Planning. [Proposal]. Retrieved from http://www.harfordcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10144/Edgewood-Small-Area-Study?bidId=

Hill, B (2018) Small Business Chron: Why Perform A SWOT. Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/perform-swot-analysis-5050.html

World Population Review: Edgewood, Maryland, January 20, 2019, Retrieved from http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/edgewood-md-population/

Suburban Stats: Edgewood, Maryland, January 20, 2019, Retrieved from  https://suburbanstats.org/population/maryland/how-many-people-live-in-edgewood

Data USA: Edgewood, Maryland, January 20, 2019, Retrieved from https://datausa.io/profile/geo/edgewood-md/

[politicoscope]

Hafez al-Assad Biography and Profile

New Post has been published on https://www.politicoscope.com/hafez-al-assad-biography-and-profile/

Hafez al-Assad Biography and Profile

Born in the village of Qardaha in Syria on October 6, 1930, Hafez al-Assad became Syrian president of the country in 1971, after taking part in multiple coups. Though widely criticized for brutal tactics (most notably the 1982 Hama massacre), he is also praised for bringing stability to Syria, and for improving relations between Syria and Western powers by supporting America in the Persian Gulf War. He served as president of Syria until his death on June 10, 2000.

Of the five members of the Ba’ath Party’s Military Committee who seized power in Syria in 1963, Hafez Al-Assad went the furthest. Of the other four, one took the blame for Syria’s loss of the Golan Heights during the Six Day War and was pushed out of politics; one committed suicide; a third was assassinated; the other died in prison after 25 years.

Assad was born into a modest family in Qurhada in Syria’s north-western mountains, a village which was said to be 10 kilometres from the nearest road. He went to school in Latakia at a time when less than a quarter of Syrian children received an education. According to Patrick Seale’s unofficial biography, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East, he inherited his father’s love of books, poetry and Arabic language.

Much has been made of the Assad family’s Alawi background and what it means to have members of a minority Shia Muslim sect rule over a predominantly Sunni Muslim country. Assad senior did not surround himself entirely by other Alawites, though; amongst those associates whom he kept close was a Palestinian Christian speechwriter and a Palestinian soldier who was his bodyguard. His foreign minister, chief aide and first three prime ministers were Sunni Muslims. Ultimately, the military was where a number of Assad’s loyal contacts and alliances lay. After joining the military academy in Homs, Assad joined the flying school at Aleppo, graduating into the air force in his early twenties.

In the period between France’s exit of the country in 1946 and Hafez Al-Assad becoming president a number of coups rocked Syria. Hence, Assad’s arrival on the scene (what he labelled the “corrective movement”) and his ability to hold power for the next thirty years is regarded by most observers as characteristic of one of his strengths – stability. He also set about portraying himself as a man of the people by visiting remote provinces of the country and talking to the people who lived there. According to Seale, he would bring back “sackfuls” of complaints for his staff to deal with.

Perhaps one of the most defining moments, or losses, in Hafez Al-Assad’s life was the Six Day War with Israel in which Syria lost the Golan Heights. He believed that this defeat could be overturned and Syria’s position vis-a-vis Israel became the vanguard of his presidency. His image as an Arab leader willing to confront Israel was confirmed on 6 October 1973 when his forces attacked the occupying Israeli forces in the Golan Heights; at the same time, taking such a stand isolated him. His co-belligerents Egypt and Jordan went on to sign separate peace treaties with Israel.

To face Israel Assad needed friends and so he moved Syria closer to the Soviet Union. As Patrick Seale recognises, though, “he grasped early on that the Soviet Union’s friendship for the Arabs would never match the United States’ generous, sentimental and open-handed commitment to Israel.” Israel’s presence was particularly unsettling for a region that had been under the control of both the Europeans and the Ottoman Empire within living memory.

Assad was known to be an ardent supporter of the Palestinian cause, but his involvement in the Lebanese civil war tarnished this reputation immensely. The “red-line” agreement saw the White House issue support for Syria to take a constructive role in the civil war; the chief architect of the agreement, then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, felt that if Assad could be tempted to crush the Palestinians in order to prevent an Israeli attack on Lebanon it would discredit the Syrian leader and curb Soviet power.

It worked. Assad sent in troops, sieges were broken and Palestinians were massacred. Whilst Assad’s relationship with the Palestinians and the Soviet Union took a severe blow, Israel’s relations with Lebanese Christians were strengthened.

Following Assad’s intervention in Lebanon in 1976 there was a series of explosions and assassinations in Syria, many of which were attributed to the Muslim Brotherhood. On 16 June 1979, Alawite officer cadets were assembled in the dining hall of the Aleppo Artillery School when gunmen opened fire on them, killing up to 83. Assassins targeted members of the government and prominent Alawites.

Internally, Assad’s biggest threat came from the Brotherhood. In retaliation for an assassination attempt on Assad in 1980 his brother Rifaat led the Defence Brigades in committing the Tadmor Prison massacre; 1,000 prisoners were killed. The notorious prison was known for holding many members and supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. The crackdown on the group reached its apogee in 1982 in Hama. Regime soldiers rolled into the city and spent three weeks massacring the residents before the air force was sent in to finish off the job. Tens of thousands were killed, mosques were flattened and whole neighbourhoods were destroyed.

The ability to crush opposition to his rule was a prominent theme throughout Assad’s presidency. He had succeeded in eliminating other members of the Military Committee, tried to wipe out the Brotherhood and would later banish his brother Rifaat when he suspected that he was moving closer to his own position as president. Yet, despite his opposition to Israel and the west also being a presidential norm for Hafez Al-Assad, Syrian troops were sent to fight in the 1990 Gulf War on the American side. It is claimed that he went on to conduct peace talks with Israel, which stalled thanks to Tel Aviv’s refusal to give back the Golan Heights.

During his 30 years in power Assad cut basic food prices in Syria and built schools, hospitals, roads, damns and railways. The economy grew with foreign aid reaching £600 million from a starting point of £50 million. At the same time, he established an authoritarian state, curtailed freedom of speech and secured his tenure with 99 per cent “yes” referendums. He was Chief Judge, gave himself the power to dissolve parliament and permitted civilians to be tried in military courts and tortured in secret prisons.

Hafez Al-Assad died on 10 June 2000. His eldest son Basil was a lieutenant colonel in the military and was being groomed to take over as president when he was killed in a car crash on 21 January 1994. Basil’s brother, Bashar, was recalled from London where he was training as an ophthalmologist and pushed through the military in preparation to take over as head of the Assad dynasty; Bashar remains at the helm in Damascus to this day.

Hafez al-Assad Biography and Profile (Biography / Middle East Monitor / Politicoscope)

#Ba'ath Party #Ba'ath Party Congress #Bashar al-Assad #Biography and Profile #Hafez al-Assad #Hafez al-Assad Biography and Profile #Syria

[laura-elizabeth91]

Theresa May is the stealth prime minister. A year ago, few tipped her for the top. She was too old, too dry, too uncharismatic and far too reluctant to schmooze. Her victory was so unpredicted and unpredictable, her life story should be incorporated into the national curriculum as an example of the value of luck, self-belief and hard work. Throw in a political crisis, the absurd over-reach of rivals and a spooky calm under pressure, and you are close to working out how May won the prize.

It is six months since this long-serving, middle-of-the-road, cricket-loving Conservative—once characterised by William Hague as a “middle-order batsman”—launched her leadership campaign one morning and, before it was time to think about lunch, had become prime minister-in-waiting. Six months that have been increasingly punctuated by a low chorus suggesting, in the phrase so often applied to women, that she’s not quite up to it. Yet, even after that excruciating hand-holding snap with the wild and distrusted new American president, no one seriously thinks she is at risk.

That is not only because—in truth—Donald Trump grabbed her hand, and she extracted herself as fast as she decently could. Nor is it because she enjoys a giddying lead in the polls over Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour. Nor is it even because there is no obvious alternative PM surreptitiously marshalling support on the backbenches. It is, most fundamentally, because the course through the shoals and reefs of Brexit is still unknown. It is easy enough to criticise her. But the only coherent alternative to her newly revealed strategy of putting immigration controls ahead of prosperity and walking out of the single market (and probably the customs union, too) is the Liberal Democrat approach of denying the referendum conclusively settled the matter.

The distinctive aspect of May’s conservatism, perhaps even of something that will one day be called Mayism, is the way she has placed the value of identity and community ahead of the needs of the economy. In the name of social cohesion, she will control immigration even at the expense of relations with our largest trading partner: the European Union. In the face of every grim economic forecast, she has remained unflinchingly true to tighter border controls, although her other ideas about, say, reining in corporate greed, have crumbled away. She has captured the meaning of Brexit so that it means what she wants it to mean. Unelected by country or party, this “Remain” voter has made delivering for the 52 per cent of “Leave” voters her purpose, her mandate.

The daughter-of-the-vicarage concern for well being—in a sense that embraces more than purely material concerns—has been refracted through her past six years at the Home Office. It owes something, too, to growing up in rural Oxfordshire, Lark Rise to Candleford country; and something more, perhaps, to being a pupil in a grammar school when it turned into a comprehensive. Sometimes, May can look like the prime minister that the Daily Mail might have designed for its readers: the high-street heroine of the Brexit-supporting majority. The paper projects her as a 21st-century version of its greatest heroine, Margaret Thatcher, but any similarity begins and ends with the modest childhood, the ambition and the hard work. In many ways, with her intuitive concern for community, she feels more like a pre-Thatcherite figure, with her very traditional emphasis on community over commerce, albeit retooled these days to include a contemporary social liberalism. Her instincts are still more closely aligned to ordinary Tory members’ views than to any abstract or theoretical construct.

May’s political persona, to the extent that it is familiar, is defined by extreme caution, and reliance on a very small circle of allies. But there is another, more flamboyant, side of the public profile too: her style. In striking contrast to her manner of doing politics, she dresses to make an impact: primary colours, big necklaces, bright lipstick, as forceful in their message as her public demeanour is discreet. Her taste is not unerring, but it is entirely her own. This strikes me as an informative characteristic. Fashion is groupthink; style is something you do for yourself. With May, that is as true of her politics as it is of her wardrobe. It is just that it has been easier to overlook the integrity of her core beliefs and comment on her love of leather trousers, bold colours and, most famously, leopard-print kitten-heeled shoes.

The love affair with style began as a teenager, and a pair of lime-green platform shoes bought with money from her Saturday job. She describes them as her worst sartorial blunder; just like her dress and her politics now, the idea of the gawky teenager tottering on crazy platforms sits oddly with contemporaries’ recollections of the young Theresa as solemn, well-mannered and precocious: a textbook description of an only child.

Theresa Brasier was born just as the Suez catastrophe began, in October 1956. Her parents were Hubert and Zaidee: Hubert was a south London grammar-school boy, a High Church Anglican who studied at a theological college in Leeds with strong traditions of Christian socialism and public service among the poor. Many of his college contemporaries remained celibate; Hubert was 36 before he married, 10 years older than his bride, Zaidee Barnes, who still lived at home in Reading.

That this upbringing, which Prince says is “hardcore Anglo-Catholic,” still influences May is clear. It is there not only in her church-going; it also informs her sense of politics as a personal mission. One former political colleague describes her “huge moral force.” The influence of father on daughter, something that echoes Thatcher’s paternal relationship, extended beyond religion, and their shared passion for cricket. When May was growing up, her father was always on call—she and her mother came second to his parishioners’ needs. In some ways it sounds like the demands that weigh on a politician’s household. By the time she was a teenager, the vicar’s daughter was a signed-up Tory.

She was serious, and keen to get on—even skipping a year in school. There is said to be a family recording in which she stated her ambition to be the first woman prime minister. May went up to Oxford to read geography at St Hugh’s College. She met Philip, her first serious boyfriend, before she was 20; they were introduced by Benazir Bhutto at a student Conservative Association disco. They were married by her father in his parish church near Oxford, in the autumn of 1980. She was not quite 24.

By this time, Zaidee was already stricken with multiple sclerosis and in a wheelchair. Barely a year after the wedding, Hubert was killed in a car accident. A few months later, her mother died. May, shy and not naturally a networker, was forced to rely on Philip, and on her own resources. Her self-belief and her sense of resolution can only have been strengthened by the impact of losing both parents so quickly. And her stoicism was on display when, in a rare instance of acknowledging her childlessness was not her choice, she said “you accept the hand that life deals you.”

Perhaps the experience strengthened, too, the focus on the job in hand that is such a striking feature of the events of 11th July last year. May was about to launch her official campaign when she received a call from Andrea Leadsom conceding the leadership race. Leadsom wanted to announce the news herself, so asked May to keep it a secret until she did. May honoured that wish to the letter and told none of the small team of intimates who were with her—who included not only her right-hand woman, Fiona Hill, but also her husband—what had just happened. Instead, she stuck to her schedule, delivering her speech as planned. It set out for the first time the full extent of her distance from David Cameron’s project, and introduced the divisive but brilliant Liberal-turned-Unionist politician Joseph Chamberlain as her model statesman.

Only after the speech, when the news was leaking out, did she tell her team: after a week of abysmal misjudgements from Leadsom, culminating in the assertion that motherhood gave her a stake in the future of the country that the childless May could never have, she was leaving May alone on the field.

At the age of 59 (10 years older than Cameron), after a fortnight of bizarre events that left more corpses in its wake than a Shakespeare tragedy, May was prime minister-elect. A decade after many thought she had peaked, she triumphed in a contest that was slated to be between two glamorous men: George Osborne and Boris Johnson. Instead, each in turn fell into the cracks in the ground opened up by Brexit. She emerged from the Home Office, dazzling Conservative MPs like Eliza Doolittle off to the ball, propelled by the long-forgotten but now newly compelling attributes of common sense and grace under fire.

That is the first thing to emerge from Rosa Prince’s new biography: it was not May who suddenly changed, it was the whole political battlefield. And in that moment of shock and grief last summer, the traditional virtues that she had always embodied with the stubborn assurance of her cricketing hero Geoffrey Boycott, assumed an unexpected appeal. Yet it has sometimes felt, in her first six months as prime minister, that the woman in the colour-block dress who is now at home in Downing Street is somehow not the same May who had been Home Secretary since 2010. How could the angry, Brussels-bashing speech that she delivered at the Tory Party conference in October have been made by a referendum “Remainer”? How could this advocate of a sharing society, limits to executive pay and workers on boards have sat in Cabinet for the previous six years nodding through punitive laws against trade unions and swingeing cuts in benefits? How could this embodiment of old-fashioned English values appear enthusiastic about getting close to the vulgar New York playboy who has taken up at the White House?

Stealth fighter: Theresa May failed to become an MP in 1992

In 2016, Theresa May became Prime Minister ©Mirrorpix/Wenn LTD/Alamy Stock Photo

Not all of the answers to those questions are given in Prince’s biography. But there are unchanging themes. There is a consistency to her desire to be in control. She is hostile to anything that challenges that control—in particular, but not only, the European Court of Human Rights. You can see this run in a direct line from the story she once told at a party conference about being unable to deport an illegal migrant because he had a cat—a story based on what we now would call alternative facts—through to her long and ultimately successful campaigns to deport Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada to face terrorism charges abroad.

Latterly, her hostility to threats to British sovereignty has been transferred to the Court of Justice of the EU. Once again, in disregard of the economics, she insists that laws applied in Britain should be made in Britain by British judges, and will not deviate from that position even if it kills all hope of a formal trade deal, which could compel the UK to submit to EU law. As she said explicitly in her Lancaster House speech in January, “the public expect to be able to hold their governments to account very directly, and as a result supranational institutions as strong as those created by the EU sit very uneasily in relation to our political history and way of life.” For “the public,” it seems safe to substitute “Theresa May.”

The power to make law is an inalienable matter; so too is control of borders. Security comes before liberty, and she can never—as deputy prime minister Nick Clegg discovered in the coalition years—grasp that ever-greater powers taken in the name of security, for example, powers to gather and store communications, might undermine the freedoms they are introduced to safeguard. But there is a flip side: she respects the rule of law. Her record at the Home Office is marked by visceral anger on behalf of people who have been betrayed by the state or its agencies—the Hillsborough victims, Stephen Lawrence’s family after it emerged they had been spied on after their son’s murder, victims of domestic abuse let down by police—these are groups who have cause to appreciate May’s uncompromising defence of them.

This is a far cry from the savvy, focus-group metropolitanism of the Cameroons that May came to find so meretricious. It is partly a matter of character; but it is also, as Prince points out, because there is a gulf between politicians who ascend to power through contacts and serial jobs in ministerial offices (David Cameron’s first job in politics was allegedly secured by a call from Buckingham Palace), and the rest—the MPs who come in by the tradesman’s entrance, weathered by years in local government and the experience of fighting unwinnable seats.

As a young married couple in the 1980s the Mays, both working in well-paid City jobs, settled in the gentrifying fringes of Wimbledon, south London. Political pairs—think of the Blairs, Tony and Cherie—often choose one to fight for a seat and the other to earn the household keep. Early on it was clear to friends that the choice had been made, and that it would be Theresa who went into politics—even though Philip, unlike his wife, had taken one traditional step on the ladder by being elected president of the Oxford Union.

Thus it was Theresa May who in 1986 became a councillor, and ultimately deputy leader of the south London borough of Merton. After her own experience at a grammar school, a comprehensive, and fleetingly a private school, she was a natural candidate to chair its education committee as it re-organised its school system. Her caution saved the council perhaps £75m, after she resisted a plan to mortgage its housing stock just before the crash at the end of the 1980s. She fought two hopeless seats—North West Durham in 1992 and a by-election in Barking in 1994 that Margaret Hodge won—before being picked for Maidenhead, which proved safe even in the Tory Waterloo of 1997.

Sometime between becoming an MP and the party’s third defeat in 2005, May woke up to feminism. Once again, practical experience—this time envying the solidarity and support networks of the 101 women MPs Labour had elected in their 1997 landslide against the experience of being one of just 13 on the Tory benches—influenced her. Then, as chair of the Conservatives in 2002, she told a stunned party conference that they were seen as the “nasty party.” She could see the distance the Tories still had to travel to recover in popular esteem, but she learned the hard lesson that knocking the product wins no friends among its producers. (It was at this time that, having voted against the repeal of clause 28, she also changed her mind about gay rights).

“Sometime between becoming an MP in 1997 and the third Tory defeat in 2005, May woke up to feminism and gay rights”

In 2005, she seriously considered standing for the party leadership as it embarked on yet another contest without a woman candidate. But she established she had close to zero support and, almost at the eleventh hour, declared for the moderniser Cameron. Five years earlier, May had come up with the idea to build an organisation to support women candidates. Now she sold Cameron on it and, with Anne Jenkin, founded Women2Win. Days after Cameron took over, Central Office provided an A-list of candidates to constituency selection committees; May’s organisation had ensured that half of that list were women. At a stroke, scores of ambitious men were deprived of what they considered their legitimate future as Tory MPs for safe seats. No one could accuse May of currying favour with the activists.

But the transformation of the party that resulted has been extraordinary. A fifth of Tory MPs are now female; 30 per cent of May’s first cabinet are women, many of whom began their Commons careers with support from Women2Win. In other words, May played a vital role in bringing the party into the 21st century.

All the same, there seemed little future for May in Cameron’s Tory Party. A low-key suburban woman in her fifties had no place in the metropolitan glossiness of the Notting Hill set. In 2010, she had been quietly shadowing welfare, and it was only after she benefited from her former protégé Chris Grayling’s eve of election campaign blunder on gay rights, she unexpectedly found herself Home Secretary in the coalition. Few thought it was more than an interim appointment. Certainly, no one would have anticipated that she would emerge stronger from Whitehall’s legendary graveyard of ambition, a department that had just gobbled up and spat out four Labour Home Secretaries in as many years.

Prince expertly charts her course into the record books as the longest-serving Home Secretary in a century. Battles with the European Court of Human Rights fed hostility to Europe, although not all its institutions. She came to value common security initiatives like the European Arrest Warrant, and now intends to protect them from Brexit. The unsuccessful fight to protect her departmental budget against 20 per cent cuts today leaves her deaf to the desperate appeals for more NHS funding.

More puzzling was her unflinching loyalty to Cameron’s net migration target (wrongly attributed by Prince to Damian Green: it came from Cameron himself) that fed the fateful sense that Brussels had disempowered Westminster, and Westminster was disempowering the voters. Prince describes an extraordinary row with an incandescent George Osborne protesting at the way that businessmen from China—on whose investment his economic plans depended—were treated by border officials. May’s distaste for the Cameroons now took on a personal edge.

Another May emerges from this stage in her career. Unclubbable and seemingly shy, she builds a team to whom she stays extraordinarily loyal, and they to her. It is not only many of the current cabinet who formerly worked for her at the Home Office. The most intimate members of her Downing Street team, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, are both legendary tigers in her cause, prepared to sacrifice anything for her: Hill had to resign in 2014, collateral damage in the conflict between Michael Gove and May over alleged extremism in Birmingham schools. These are people who share her instincts and her brand of Conservatism. They are the people who now get the blame for the widely reported dysfunction between No 10 and Whitehall.

But she has become adept at courting newspapers, most particularly the Daily Mail. It was the Mail to whom she revealed in 2013 that, rather than dieting for a leadership bid as the gossip speculated, she had been diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. It was the Mail who hailed her courage as she described the business of eating properly and coping with insulin injections in the middle of a hectic day. The cool relationship with the Cameroons grew chillier in inverse proportion to such PR successes.

Then there is the appetite for vengeance, first revealed in the long-running row with the Police Federation. The dressing down she gave the organisation’s conference in 2014, when she accused them of showing contempt for the public, was repayment for a humiliation they inflicted on her in a protest at budget cuts at their conference in 2011. Fast forward to 2016, and a reign of terror that followed her arrival in No 10, during which Cameron’s reputation, Michael Gove’s career and Osborne’s prospects were brutally put to the sword. If Angela Merkel really did stand her up at the Malta summit in January, she had better watch her back.

It is important to resist the sense that what has happened was always going to happen. With hindsight, it is easy to see what a good match May’s instincts are for the mood of the Brexiteers—how she, the moderniser who remade the Tory Party, is the same person who is standing proudly beneath the Union flag on the front of the Daily Mail. Along with the champion of the cause of women in politics, there always co-existed an authoritarian defender of British sovereignty and identity.

May has been prime minister for an extraordinary six months. No biography can yet be anything more than a sketch of the story so far. Prince’s book is readable, but hardly a settled verdict. There is too much on the horizon to anticipate either success or failure, or to create a definitive picture of the strengths and weaknesses of this woman on whom so much now rides. In this fractured new world of Brexit and Trump, only a fool would predict what will happen next. But Theresa May’s career so far suggests it would be a bad mistake to underestimate her.

[glenmenlow]

Branding 4.0 For The 4th Industrial Revolution

In August 2019, 181 of the most powerful CEOs in the world, representing corporate giants such as JP Morgan Chase, Amazon, and Apple, made an extraordinary commitment. This commitment is so revolutionary that fully executed it will impact every facet of corporate America, from finance to governance, legal to investments, and performance to ownership. It will impact regulation, reputation, and relationships. And it will impact you.

The Commitment

These 181 CEOs committed to lead their companies for the benefit of all stakeholders.

The statement is so simple; it is easy to overlook its profound impact.

What It Means

In his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom, economist Milton Friedman declared:

“There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

By the 1970s, when Freidman’s article in The New York Times, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits,” was published, Wall Street was listening. Profit was not only the single most important purpose of business, it also became the only purpose that most CEOs pursued, the only measure of performance, and the justification for nearly any action they took.

This single-pointed focus gave the United States the longest period of economic prosperity on record and the largest economy in the world.

But it also gave us:

Corporate pollution, where just 100 corporations create 71 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Corporate raiders and activist investors who push companies to “slash jobs as a way to enrich themselves.”

Income inequality where the bottom 90 percent of earners have only seen a 5 percent wage increase in the last 18 years.

With this statement, these CEOs are acknowledging the impact their organizations have on all stakeholders – customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders – and linking the value they provide to these stakeholders to the success of their companies, our communities, and our country.

These 181 CEOs, and their influential organization, the Business Roundtable, are declaring they will no longer pursue profits over all else. Instead, while pursuing long-term value for shareholders, they will also:

Deliver value to customers

Invest in employees

Deal fairly and ethically with suppliers

Support the communities in which we work

With this commitment, corporations are signaling important shifts.

From… To… Taking the customer for everything they have “leading the way in meeting or exceeding customer expectations.” Paying employees as little as possible while constantly pushing for more output, production, and performance “compensating them fairly and providing important benefits. It also includes supporting them through training and education that help develop new skills for a rapidly changing world. We foster diversity and inclusion, dignity and respect.” Relentlessly leaning on suppliers to provide more for less “serving as good partners to the other companies, large and small, that help us meet our missions.” Using communities and environments as resources to be exploited, depleted, and consumed “respect the people in our communities and protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses.”

  With these shifts, these CEOs have committed not only to the success of their corporations, but also to the success of our communities and the United States. While it is not necessarily new thinking — from Johnson & Johson’s 1943 credo to Patagonia’s longstanding mission to Unilever’s Paul Polman to P&G’s Jim Stengel — it is certainly the first time such leaders have gone on record to stand behind these beliefs. History will tell us whether it was a moment of authenticity, or a flash in the pan whose brief illumination faded all too quickly in the cut and thrust of a fast-moving, demanding global economy.

Why Now?

This commitment does not spring from a newfound sense of generosity. These powerful corporate leaders understand these stakeholders are critical to maintaining their organization’s reputation, harnessing innovation, cultivating loyal customers, attracting, retaining, and engaging critical workers, and growing brand value.

In the September 2019 issue of Fortune, the article ”America’s CEOs Seek a New Purpose for the Corporation,” by Alan Murray, suggests this all started with a speech Bill Gates gave in Davos in 2008:

…in his last year of full-time service at Microsoft, calling for a new “creative capitalism.” As Gates told the World Economic Forum, “the genius of capitalism” lies in its ability to “[harness] self-interest in helpful and sustainable ways.” But its benefits inevitably skew to those who can pay. “To provide rapid improvement for the poor,” he said, “we need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way … Such a system would have a twin mission: making profits and also improving lives for those who don’t fully benefit from market forces.”

But the Business Roundtable statement was over ten years later. So, clearly, other factors are driving this change.

Income Inequality

There is constant talk about the strong economy and low unemployment, but ask the person next to you at the coffee shop, and it is likely they are working multiple jobs and still struggling to meet their monthly expenses. The promise of “pursuing your passion” in the gig-economy is met with the reality and stress of inconsistent earnings and out-of-reach housing costs. Over the past 40 years, despite a strong and growing economy, pay growth has been nominal in the United States with purchasing power after adjusting for inflation nearly flat.

When this reality is viewed against the rise in income and wealth of the top one percent of America’s households, a movement is born: #IncomeInequality. Since 1979, the before-tax incomes of the top one percent of America’s households have increased nearly seven times faster than the bottom 20 percent incomes, according to CBO analysis.

And there is no end in sight for this trend. A recent analysis from the UK Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that wages will still be below 2008 levels in 2021. People work hard, and companies make big profits, but workers don’t share in the wealth they help to create.

Wavering Support For Capitalism

While corporate leaders continued to ignore problems such as income inequality, voters in US elections and the UK’s Brexit referendum signaled that they are not willing to accept the status quo. Campaign themes focused on a supposed economic threat posed by outsiders and a need to “regain control,” whether of borders or economic forces. They also attacked so-called “elites.” Clearly, these themes resonated with voters.

If we look at the impact that shareholder value theory has had on corporate investment, we can see that the threat, rather than being some external force, is likely our current model of capitalism. Instead of investing in their workers, vendors, and communities as a way to ensure future growth and innovation, corporations have been putting money in the pockets of shareholders.

And millennials have had enough. Their parents promised if they would “work hard” and get a good education, they would be rewarded. Enter another movement: #okboomer. Their parents’ promises didn’t work out, and millennials are not accepting blame. The 2018 Deloitte millennial survey found that 63 percent of millennial workers believe the primary purpose of businesses should be “improving society” over “generating profits,” signaling strong support for a new form of capitalism.

And, it’s not just millennials. Over the last few years, Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter began pushing what he called “shared value” capitalism, and Whole Foods cofounder John Mackey propounded “conscious capitalism.” Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff wrote a book on “compassionate capitalism”; Lynn Forester de Rothschild, CEO of family investment company E.L. Rothschild, started organizing for “inclusive capitalism”; and the free-enterprise-championing Conference Board research group sounded a call for “sustaining capitalism.”

When you consider that only 55% of Americans are shareholders but 100% of Americans are consumers, it is easy to understand why so many Americans feel left out of the benefits of capitalism under shareholder value theory.

The Power Of The Individual

With the rise of social media, individual voices can turn into powerful movements within days or minutes. CEOs can no longer hide behind a logo in the comfort of their anonymity. Inconsistencies in the brand experience, failures of the brand promise, and corporate misdeeds are often first aired on social media.

Many corporations are proactively launching marketing campaigns aimed at showing their commitment to their stakeholders and the issues and causes that matter to them, and with good reason. In a global survey, 91 percent of consumers reported they were likely to switch to a brand that supports a good cause, given similar price and quality. However, any hint of brand misalignment with the cause can create backlash. Twitter will love it. Your brand will not.

The power of individual voices on social media means corporate executives are keenly aware of the importance of authenticity, transparency, and accountability.

Technology-Driven Uncertainty

It is estimated that up to 47 percent of US jobs face potential automation over the next 20 years, driven primarily by advances in Artificial Intelligence, cognitive computing, and automation of repetitive, rule-based tasks. Future of Work experts have said, “every job will change” because of AI and cognitive computing. The impact of these technologies on employment and jobs has created uncertainty. Workers are concerned about not only their continued employment, but also the unforeseen impacts, such as inherent bias and privacy creep. They worry about how to keep up with training and who will pay for it.

Climate Change

Whatever your views on climate change, the fact is climate events are more extreme, more frequent, and having a significant impact on corporations’ bottom lines. Because of this, companies are increasingly disclosing the specific financial impacts they could face as the planet warms, such as extreme weather that could disrupt supply chains or stricter climate regulations that could hurt the value of traditional energy investments.

An analysis by CDP of submission from 215 of the world’s 500 largest corporations found that these organizations potentially face roughly $1 trillion in costs related to climate change in the decades ahead unless they take proactive steps to prepare. By the company’s estimates, a majority of those financial risks could start to materialize in the next five years.

Ecosystems

In our digital economy, ecosystems play an increasingly important role in shaping consumer and brand behavior and determining desired outcomes. “An ecosystem is a community of interacting firms and individuals who co-evolve and tend to align themselves with the desired action set by one or more central companies” (McIntyre and Srinivasan 2017).

Of course, corporations have always valued long-term relationships with customers, suppliers, and partners; however, the network effects and switching costs associated with digital economy products make ecosystems significantly more important than they used to be. A frequently cited example is Nokia and its Symbian operating system losing the mobile phone war to Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android in large part because Nokia was not able to persuade a sufficient number of developers to build applications on its platform. Former Nokia CEO Stephen Elop stated in an email to employees:

“The battle of devices has now become a war of ecosystems, where ecosystems include not only the hardware and software of the device, but developers, applications, ecommerce, advertising, search, social applications, location-based services, unified communications and many other things. Our competitors aren’t taking our market share with devices; they are taking our market share with an entire ecosystem. This means we’re going to have to decide how we either build, catalyse or join an ecosystem.”

Over the last 18 months, all of these factors have come together to bring into sharp focus the need for immediate action, and the 181 CEOs of the Business Roundtable stepped-up: the singular corporate focus on profits has been expanded to include providing value for all stakeholders.

What Is Next?

Many, perhaps informed by research by the British Academy’s Future of the Corporation program, cite a renewed focus on brand purpose – or the purpose of the corporation – as the way forward. And, of course, purpose is critically important. As Larry Fink, founder of BlackRock, describes, “Purpose guides culture, provides a framework for consistent decision-making, and, ultimately, helps sustain long-term financial returns for the shareholders.”

However, purpose is a decidedly internal organizational notion. Culture, decision-making, and shareholder returns all belong to the corporation and its shareholders. While purpose is important, it is only part of the way forward.

One of the most unfortunate outcomes of this relentless focus on profits is the dehumanization of workers, suppliers, customers, and communities. We’ve been treating workers and suppliers as “assets” or “capital,” driving them to greater efficiency while seeking to reduce investments. And communities have been treated as resources to be exploited or obstacles to be overcome. It is a game of diminishing returns, especially with technology advances such as AI and machine learning. Workers and suppliers especially are weary of repetitive tasks, working for “the man,” and fear winning the race to the bottom. Communities are concerned about losing their unique culture and the impact of climate change on their local environments.

The notion of stakeholder value or benefit is not purely financial. For customers, it might be more about a sense of belonging. For example, in its early days, Airbnb organized host meet-ups, helping to develop a sense of community and drive growth. For employees, it may be less about getting a 10 percent pay increase and more about feeling a sense of esteem through meaningful work. And suppliers and ecosystem partners may value self-fulfillment through creative partnerships that result in innovation.

As brands accept responsibility for providing value, all expressions of value must be explored. From a customer’s experience with an employee to an employee’s sense of belonging and ability to find meaning in their work, value is particularly personal.

The Upshot For Brand, Marketing, And Communication Leaders

Little of this thinking may be novel or new to those who have been involved in the purpose-led brand and transformation world; look no further than EY’s 2013 move to “Building a better working world” as a barometer of how this thinking has left the fringe and entered the mainstream.

However, where once “Purpose” was seen as one of many potential brand positioning opportunities, you’d be hard-pressed today to find many organizations that haven’t planted their flag in this fertile soil in one way or another.

What is needed is an entirely new way of thinking about branding, one that is rooted in providing value to all stakeholders, in a way that is meaningful to each and recognizes the importance of human needs: belonging, esteem, and self-fulfillment.

We propose that this convergence of social, economic, political, and environmental factors demands a new way to look at brand architecture and integrated marketing communications that activates a brand inside the organization, with its key stakeholders, and its broader ecosystem.

Kevin Keohane has developed the Branding 4.0 Model, which has the benefit of bringing simplicity to this complexity while allowing many of these variables to be accommodated and addressed. It’s as simple as a three-circle Venn diagram — yet has already been successfully used by at least one organization to rethink and redefine how it takes its mission into the world for its people, its audiences, and its communities.

The diagram creates seven areas of focus – with the brand at the core, marketplace, culture, and ecosystem as distinct focus areas, but the critical areas where these areas overlap are taken into consideration. Adding a “filter ring” which we are short-handing to “inclusive capitalism” and you have a powerful way to distill the need for core focus and consistency for your brand, alongside a decision-making filter to ensure you are taking into account myriad factors that traditional brand architecture and segmentation approaches (including hypertargeting) don’t address.

By Catherine Hedden, with Kevin Keohane and Derrick Daye.

Action Steps

We have created a strategic workshop for the senior leadership teams of brands in all business categories and every stage of development along with a handbook and a business simulation game as part of a portfolio of practical tools to activate this 4th wave of Branding. Please email us for more.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

from WordPress https://glenmenlow.wordpress.com/2020/02/12/branding-4-0-for-the-4th-industrial-revolution/ via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

[joejstrickl]

Branding 4.0 For The 4th Industrial Revolution

In August 2019, 181 of the most powerful CEOs in the world, representing corporate giants such as JP Morgan Chase, Amazon, and Apple, made an extraordinary commitment. This commitment is so revolutionary that fully executed it will impact every facet of corporate America, from finance to governance, legal to investments, and performance to ownership. It will impact regulation, reputation, and relationships. And it will impact you.

The Commitment

These 181 CEOs committed to lead their companies for the benefit of all stakeholders.

The statement is so simple; it is easy to overlook its profound impact.

What It Means

In his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom, economist Milton Friedman declared:

“There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

By the 1970s, when Freidman’s article in The New York Times, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits,” was published, Wall Street was listening. Profit was not only the single most important purpose of business, it also became the only purpose that most CEOs pursued, the only measure of performance, and the justification for nearly any action they took.

This single-pointed focus gave the United States the longest period of economic prosperity on record and the largest economy in the world.

But it also gave us:

Corporate pollution, where just 100 corporations create 71 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Corporate raiders and activist investors who push companies to “slash jobs as a way to enrich themselves.”

Income inequality where the bottom 90 percent of earners have only seen a 5 percent wage increase in the last 18 years.

With this statement, these CEOs are acknowledging the impact their organizations have on all stakeholders – customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders – and linking the value they provide to these stakeholders to the success of their companies, our communities, and our country.

These 181 CEOs, and their influential organization, the Business Roundtable, are declaring they will no longer pursue profits over all else. Instead, while pursuing long-term value for shareholders, they will also:

Deliver value to customers

Invest in employees

Deal fairly and ethically with suppliers

Support the communities in which we work

With this commitment, corporations are signaling important shifts.

From… To… Taking the customer for everything they have “leading the way in meeting or exceeding customer expectations.” Paying employees as little as possible while constantly pushing for more output, production, and performance “compensating them fairly and providing important benefits. It also includes supporting them through training and education that help develop new skills for a rapidly changing world. We foster diversity and inclusion, dignity and respect.” Relentlessly leaning on suppliers to provide more for less “serving as good partners to the other companies, large and small, that help us meet our missions.” Using communities and environments as resources to be exploited, depleted, and consumed “respect the people in our communities and protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses.”

  With these shifts, these CEOs have committed not only to the success of their corporations, but also to the success of our communities and the United States. While it is not necessarily new thinking — from Johnson & Johson’s 1943 credo to Patagonia’s longstanding mission to Unilever’s Paul Polman to P&G’s Jim Stengel — it is certainly the first time such leaders have gone on record to stand behind these beliefs. History will tell us whether it was a moment of authenticity, or a flash in the pan whose brief illumination faded all too quickly in the cut and thrust of a fast-moving, demanding global economy.

Why Now?

This commitment does not spring from a newfound sense of generosity. These powerful corporate leaders understand these stakeholders are critical to maintaining their organization’s reputation, harnessing innovation, cultivating loyal customers, attracting, retaining, and engaging critical workers, and growing brand value.

In the September 2019 issue of Fortune, the article ”America’s CEOs Seek a New Purpose for the Corporation,” by Alan Murray, suggests this all started with a speech Bill Gates gave in Davos in 2008:

…in his last year of full-time service at Microsoft, calling for a new “creative capitalism.” As Gates told the World Economic Forum, “the genius of capitalism” lies in its ability to “[harness] self-interest in helpful and sustainable ways.” But its benefits inevitably skew to those who can pay. “To provide rapid improvement for the poor,” he said, “we need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way … Such a system would have a twin mission: making profits and also improving lives for those who don’t fully benefit from market forces.”

But the Business Roundtable statement was over ten years later. So, clearly, other factors are driving this change.

Income Inequality

There is constant talk about the strong economy and low unemployment, but ask the person next to you at the coffee shop, and it is likely they are working multiple jobs and still struggling to meet their monthly expenses. The promise of “pursuing your passion” in the gig-economy is met with the reality and stress of inconsistent earnings and out-of-reach housing costs. Over the past 40 years, despite a strong and growing economy, pay growth has been nominal in the United States with purchasing power after adjusting for inflation nearly flat.

When this reality is viewed against the rise in income and wealth of the top one percent of America’s households, a movement is born: #IncomeInequality. Since 1979, the before-tax incomes of the top one percent of America’s households have increased nearly seven times faster than the bottom 20 percent incomes, according to CBO analysis.

And there is no end in sight for this trend. A recent analysis from the UK Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that wages will still be below 2008 levels in 2021. People work hard, and companies make big profits, but workers don’t share in the wealth they help to create.

Wavering Support For Capitalism

While corporate leaders continued to ignore problems such as income inequality, voters in US elections and the UK’s Brexit referendum signaled that they are not willing to accept the status quo. Campaign themes focused on a supposed economic threat posed by outsiders and a need to “regain control,” whether of borders or economic forces. They also attacked so-called “elites.” Clearly, these themes resonated with voters.

If we look at the impact that shareholder value theory has had on corporate investment, we can see that the threat, rather than being some external force, is likely our current model of capitalism. Instead of investing in their workers, vendors, and communities as a way to ensure future growth and innovation, corporations have been putting money in the pockets of shareholders.

And millennials have had enough. Their parents promised if they would “work hard” and get a good education, they would be rewarded. Enter another movement: #okboomer. Their parents’ promises didn’t work out, and millennials are not accepting blame. The 2018 Deloitte millennial survey found that 63 percent of millennial workers believe the primary purpose of businesses should be “improving society” over “generating profits,” signaling strong support for a new form of capitalism.

And, it’s not just millennials. Over the last few years, Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter began pushing what he called “shared value” capitalism, and Whole Foods cofounder John Mackey propounded “conscious capitalism.” Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff wrote a book on “compassionate capitalism”; Lynn Forester de Rothschild, CEO of family investment company E.L. Rothschild, started organizing for “inclusive capitalism”; and the free-enterprise-championing Conference Board research group sounded a call for “sustaining capitalism.”

When you consider that only 55% of Americans are shareholders but 100% of Americans are consumers, it is easy to understand why so many Americans feel left out of the benefits of capitalism under shareholder value theory.

The Power Of The Individual

With the rise of social media, individual voices can turn into powerful movements within days or minutes. CEOs can no longer hide behind a logo in the comfort of their anonymity. Inconsistencies in the brand experience, failures of the brand promise, and corporate misdeeds are often first aired on social media.

Many corporations are proactively launching marketing campaigns aimed at showing their commitment to their stakeholders and the issues and causes that matter to them, and with good reason. In a global survey, 91 percent of consumers reported they were likely to switch to a brand that supports a good cause, given similar price and quality. However, any hint of brand misalignment with the cause can create backlash. Twitter will love it. Your brand will not.

The power of individual voices on social media means corporate executives are keenly aware of the importance of authenticity, transparency, and accountability.

Technology-Driven Uncertainty

It is estimated that up to 47 percent of US jobs face potential automation over the next 20 years, driven primarily by advances in Artificial Intelligence, cognitive computing, and automation of repetitive, rule-based tasks. Future of Work experts have said, “every job will change” because of AI and cognitive computing. The impact of these technologies on employment and jobs has created uncertainty. Workers are concerned about not only their continued employment, but also the unforeseen impacts, such as inherent bias and privacy creep. They worry about how to keep up with training and who will pay for it.

Climate Change

Whatever your views on climate change, the fact is climate events are more extreme, more frequent, and having a significant impact on corporations’ bottom lines. Because of this, companies are increasingly disclosing the specific financial impacts they could face as the planet warms, such as extreme weather that could disrupt supply chains or stricter climate regulations that could hurt the value of traditional energy investments.

An analysis by CDP of submission from 215 of the world’s 500 largest corporations found that these organizations potentially face roughly $1 trillion in costs related to climate change in the decades ahead unless they take proactive steps to prepare. By the company’s estimates, a majority of those financial risks could start to materialize in the next five years.

Ecosystems

In our digital economy, ecosystems play an increasingly important role in shaping consumer and brand behavior and determining desired outcomes. “An ecosystem is a community of interacting firms and individuals who co-evolve and tend to align themselves with the desired action set by one or more central companies” (McIntyre and Srinivasan 2017).

Of course, corporations have always valued long-term relationships with customers, suppliers, and partners; however, the network effects and switching costs associated with digital economy products make ecosystems significantly more important than they used to be. A frequently cited example is Nokia and its Symbian operating system losing the mobile phone war to Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android in large part because Nokia was not able to persuade a sufficient number of developers to build applications on its platform. Former Nokia CEO Stephen Elop stated in an email to employees:

“The battle of devices has now become a war of ecosystems, where ecosystems include not only the hardware and software of the device, but developers, applications, ecommerce, advertising, search, social applications, location-based services, unified communications and many other things. Our competitors aren’t taking our market share with devices; they are taking our market share with an entire ecosystem. This means we’re going to have to decide how we either build, catalyse or join an ecosystem.”

Over the last 18 months, all of these factors have come together to bring into sharp focus the need for immediate action, and the 181 CEOs of the Business Roundtable stepped-up: the singular corporate focus on profits has been expanded to include providing value for all stakeholders.

What Is Next?

Many, perhaps informed by research by the British Academy’s Future of the Corporation program, cite a renewed focus on brand purpose – or the purpose of the corporation – as the way forward. And, of course, purpose is critically important. As Larry Fink, founder of BlackRock, describes, “Purpose guides culture, provides a framework for consistent decision-making, and, ultimately, helps sustain long-term financial returns for the shareholders.”

However, purpose is a decidedly internal organizational notion. Culture, decision-making, and shareholder returns all belong to the corporation and its shareholders. While purpose is important, it is only part of the way forward.

One of the most unfortunate outcomes of this relentless focus on profits is the dehumanization of workers, suppliers, customers, and communities. We’ve been treating workers and suppliers as “assets” or “capital,” driving them to greater efficiency while seeking to reduce investments. And communities have been treated as resources to be exploited or obstacles to be overcome. It is a game of diminishing returns, especially with technology advances such as AI and machine learning. Workers and suppliers especially are weary of repetitive tasks, working for “the man,” and fear winning the race to the bottom. Communities are concerned about losing their unique culture and the impact of climate change on their local environments.

The notion of stakeholder value or benefit is not purely financial. For customers, it might be more about a sense of belonging. For example, in its early days, Airbnb organized host meet-ups, helping to develop a sense of community and drive growth. For employees, it may be less about getting a 10 percent pay increase and more about feeling a sense of esteem through meaningful work. And suppliers and ecosystem partners may value self-fulfillment through creative partnerships that result in innovation.

As brands accept responsibility for providing value, all expressions of value must be explored. From a customer’s experience with an employee to an employee’s sense of belonging and ability to find meaning in their work, value is particularly personal.

The Upshot For Brand, Marketing, And Communication Leaders

Little of this thinking may be novel or new to those who have been involved in the purpose-led brand and transformation world; look no further than EY’s 2013 move to “Building a better working world” as a barometer of how this thinking has left the fringe and entered the mainstream.

However, where once “Purpose” was seen as one of many potential brand positioning opportunities, you’d be hard-pressed today to find many organizations that haven’t planted their flag in this fertile soil in one way or another.

What is needed is an entirely new way of thinking about branding, one that is rooted in providing value to all stakeholders, in a way that is meaningful to each and recognizes the importance of human needs: belonging, esteem, and self-fulfillment.

We propose that this convergence of social, economic, political, and environmental factors demands a new way to look at brand architecture and integrated marketing communications that activates a brand inside the organization, with its key stakeholders, and its broader ecosystem.

Kevin Keohane has developed the Branding 4.0 Model, which has the benefit of bringing simplicity to this complexity while allowing many of these variables to be accommodated and addressed. It’s as simple as a three-circle Venn diagram — yet has already been successfully used by at least one organization to rethink and redefine how it takes its mission into the world for its people, its audiences, and its communities.

The diagram creates seven areas of focus – with the brand at the core, marketplace, culture, and ecosystem as distinct focus areas, but the critical areas where these areas overlap are taken into consideration. Adding a “filter ring” which we are short-handing to “inclusive capitalism” and you have a powerful way to distill the need for core focus and consistency for your brand, alongside a decision-making filter to ensure you are taking into account myriad factors that traditional brand architecture and segmentation approaches (including hypertargeting) don’t address.

By Catherine Hedden, with Kevin Keohane and Derrick Daye.

Action Steps

We have created a strategic workshop for the senior leadership teams of brands in all business categories and every stage of development along with a handbook and a business simulation game as part of a portfolio of practical tools to activate this 4th wave of Branding. Please email us for more.

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

[newestbalance]

Turkey’s Democratic Opposition Tests Cracks in Erdogan’s Iron Grip on Voters

ISTANBUL — When President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called early elections two months ago, he seemed assured of victory. But as Sunday’s vote approaches, the man who has transformed Turkey over 15 years in power appears increasingly vulnerable.

The question will be, just how vulnerable is he?

The vote will be watched far beyond Turkey’s borders for what it will decide about the direction this country of 80 million — whether it continues down the path of populist authoritarianism with Mr. Erdogan, or takes a turn for democratic change.

A skillful politician with a fervent support base, Mr. Erdogan still leads in the polls. But dissatisfaction over a sudden downturn in the economy is spreading. So is alarm over Mr. Erdogan’s increasing authoritarianism, which, if he wins, will be given even freer rein under a newly strengthened presidency.

“A strong Turkey needs a strong leader,” Mr. Erdogan bellowed to the crowd of several hundred thousand in his final Istanbul campaign rally last Sunday. “May God let us continue on this path by becoming more powerful.”

Whether Mr. Erdogan can secure the outright victory he wants by gaining 50 percent of the vote — avoiding a runoff — may depend on how deeply the wariness and unhappiness with his rule have unsettled his core supporters.

In particular, the collapse of agriculture, a plunge in the value of the lira and a sudden rise in food prices may deliver Mr. Erdogan a shock at the polls, opposition party workers say. Much of the president’s base of support has been among conservative rural people.

“I am hesitant this time,” said Bulut, who sells fresh juice from a cart near Istanbul’s ferry docks. He gave only his first name for fear of repercussions. He said he had voted for the governing party over the past 16 years but complained angrily about the deteriorating economy.

“No jobs,” he said. “I am here for 22 years, it became worse gradually. Our money has no value anymore.”

If 7 to 8 percent of formerly loyal voters abandon the president’s Justice and Development Party, or A.K.P., the governing party will lose, said Ozer Sencar, who runs the independent Metropoll polling agency.

There are already signs of defections, Mr. Sencar said, noting that some of them had voted against Mr. Erdogan in last year’s referendum to expand the powers of the presidency, which passed only narrowly.

“This is the group that will determine the fate of the election,” he said.

Most of the group are conservative Islamists among the Kurds who are disappointed that Mr. Erdogan failed to keep his promise to make peace with Kurdish separatists, Mr. Sencar said.

Four opposition parties — the Republican People’s Party, the Good Party, the Felicity Party and the tiny Peoples’ Democratic Party — have formed an alliance to maximize their assault against Mr. Erdogan.

But the state of emergency Mr. Erdogan snapped in place almost two years ago after a failed coup has allowed the government to tilt the playing field greatly in its favor.

Mr. Erdogan has used the extra powers to jail political opponents, including nine Kurdish members of Parliament and dozens of Kurdish party officials, as well as 70,000 students and activists and tens of thousands of members of the military and public employees. Demonstrations are banned, and access to national television is tightly controlled.

The Kurdish candidate, Selahattin Demirtas, has campaigned from prison, where he is being held while he awaits trial on terrorism charges. He relies on a team of lawyers to relay his messages on social media. And last week he was permitted to record a single campaign speech inside prison that was aired on the state-run Turkish Radio and Television, or T.R.T.

A former interior minister, Meral Aksener, is barred from using large rally sites and has barely been seen on television — most of which is controlled by the government or its allies.

Muharrem Ince, the closest challenger to Mr. Erdogan, fares slightly better, appearing on some television channels but still barred from T.R.T.

Over the past six weeks, Mr. Erdogan has enjoyed 181 hours of national television airtime, while Mr. Ince was allowed 15 hours, Ms. Aksener three hours and the rest one hour or less, according to the Supreme Board of Radio and Television.

It is Mr. Ince who has been Mr. Erdogan’s main target, smeared by “fake news” campaigns by government supporters. But he has parried the attacks with humor and a hopeful message and has started drawing crowds to match those of Mr. Erdogan.

Yet there is no doubt that Mr. Erdogan’s persona has dominated the campaign. His campaign posters are the largest and most numerous. His rallies are broadcast live on virtually every television channel. And his voice is heard everywhere.

He also controls all the levers of power, rules by decree under a state of emergency and can count on a tame judiciary and presidential guard.

Government employees are ordered to attend Mr. Erdogan’s rallies — and give him their vote if they value their jobs — opposition campaigners say — and journalists in media outlets, which are mostly owned by allies of the president, are given guidelines on what to write.

But signs of disaffection are visible. Supporters declare their love for Mr. Erdogan, yet many start leaving his rallies halfway through his long-winded speeches.

The former Islamist allies who have turned against the president are the most outspoken.

Temel Karamollaoglu, leader of the small Felicity Party, criticizes Mr. Erdogan for betraying his religion by letting corruption and injustice invade his government. He is set to draw away 2 to 3 percent of Mr. Erdogan’s conservative religious following.

“You cannot have one man with all the power,” Mr. Karamollaoglu told supporters in the town of Sakarya. “You cannot expect any justice from judges receiving orders from the top.”

The party has produced some of the most surprising campaign ads, passed around on social media. One shows workers in a tailor’s shop packing away plaid jackets similar to those that Mr. Erdogan wears. The sign on the door says: “Boss gone crazy. Closeout sale.”

The Republican People’s Party, which has a long tradition of secularism, has added several Islamists to its party list to build an Islamist alternative to Mr. Erdogan’s A.K.P.

One of the co-founders of the A.K.P. with Mr. Erdogan, a former deputy prime minister, Abdullatif Sener, is running for Parliament on the Republican People’s Party list in the conservative city of Konya.

He stunned villagers during meetings in a farming district with strident criticism of Mr. Erdogan, the likes of which is never heard in the mainstream media.

“If you cannot buy food and clothes for yourself, it means the economy is not growing,” he told them, disputing government claims of 7 percent growth.

He accused Mr. Erdogan of neglecting Turkey’s agriculture to make money on deals importing foodstuffs.

“You want to farm your land but this government made us completely dependent on imports,” he said. “All they think of is ransacking the country.”

A shopkeeper in the village of Cayhan told Mr. Sener that villagers were too scared to tell the truth but that almost all were going to switch their support away from Mr. Erdogan.

“Something is going to happen,” said Bulent Ecevit Tatlidil, a member of the executive bureau of the Republican People’s Party who is from the farming district.

Outrage over a sudden paucity of onions has even hit the main television news. Ms. Aksener accused Mr. Erdogan of treason for his neglect of agriculture.

“One million are jobless,” she told a rally in Istanbul. “The fields are empty, livestock is finished. To wipe out Turkish agriculture is treason.”

Yet the opposition is also bracing for every manner of obstruction, including fraud and violence.

Mr. Sener’s campaign office in Konya was attacked last week by members of the local youth wing of the A.K.P., who slashed a poster of Mr. Sener and smashed campaign cars.

The election observer mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has noted in a preliminary report that the president enjoys favorable conditions, while other parties face obstructions to campaigning and a pervasive atmosphere of fear in the Kurdish areas of the southeast.

The opposition parties are fielding 100,000 volunteers to observe voting in every polling station but face multiple challenges as regulations have been changed to allow unstamped ballots to be counted, and some polling stations have been closed and voting moved to other locations.

In the southeast, violence has already broken out; an election dispute led to the deaths of three people in the town of Suruc. Some analysts speculated that the clash was about how to fix the vote for Mr. Erdogan.

The Kurdish vote, which represents about 10 percent, is particularly important for both sides.

If Mr. Demirtas’s People’s Democratic Party, or H.D.P., can pass a 10 percent threshold, it could rob Mr. Erdogan of a majority in Parliament.

If the party wins less than 10 percent of the vote, its votes will be distributed to the other parties, which would most likely help Mr. Erdogan secure a majority.

In a sign of how crucial the Kurdish vote is, Mr. Erdogan urged party members to make sure the H.D.P. vote remained below 10 percent.

In a video posted inadvertently over social media last week, he told a closed gathering of regional party members to watch H.D.P. voters.

Then he asked his supporters to “mark their opponents,” suggesting that by doing so they would be doing “a special job that I believe may bring us a very different result.”

The post Turkey’s Democratic Opposition Tests Cracks in Erdogan’s Iron Grip on Voters appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2MSWdCq via Everyday News

#News #Online News #World News #Today news #health News #Social News #Forex News #World The News

[dragnews]

Turkey’s Democratic Opposition Tests Cracks in Erdogan’s Iron Grip on Voters

ISTANBUL — When President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called early elections two months ago, he seemed assured of victory. But as Sunday’s vote approaches, the man who has transformed Turkey over 15 years in power appears increasingly vulnerable.

The question will be, just how vulnerable is he?

The vote will be watched far beyond Turkey’s borders for what it will decide about the direction this country of 80 million — whether it continues down the path of populist authoritarianism with Mr. Erdogan, or takes a turn for democratic change.

A skillful politician with a fervent support base, Mr. Erdogan still leads in the polls. But dissatisfaction over a sudden downturn in the economy is spreading. So is alarm over Mr. Erdogan’s increasing authoritarianism, which, if he wins, will be given even freer rein under a newly strengthened presidency.

“A strong Turkey needs a strong leader,” Mr. Erdogan bellowed to the crowd of several hundred thousand in his final Istanbul campaign rally last Sunday. “May God let us continue on this path by becoming more powerful.”

Whether Mr. Erdogan can secure the outright victory he wants by gaining 50 percent of the vote — avoiding a runoff — may depend on how deeply the wariness and unhappiness with his rule have unsettled his core supporters.

In particular, the collapse of agriculture, a plunge in the value of the lira and a sudden rise in food prices may deliver Mr. Erdogan a shock at the polls, opposition party workers say. Much of the president’s base of support has been among conservative rural people.

“I am hesitant this time,” said Bulut, who sells fresh juice from a cart near Istanbul’s ferry docks. He gave only his first name for fear of repercussions. He said he had voted for the governing party over the past 16 years but complained angrily about the deteriorating economy.

“No jobs,” he said. “I am here for 22 years, it became worse gradually. Our money has no value anymore.”

If 7 to 8 percent of formerly loyal voters abandon the president’s Justice and Development Party, or A.K.P., the governing party will lose, said Ozer Sencar, who runs the independent Metropoll polling agency.

There are already signs of defections, Mr. Sencar said, noting that some of them had voted against Mr. Erdogan in last year’s referendum to expand the powers of the presidency, which passed only narrowly.

“This is the group that will determine the fate of the election,” he said.

Most of the group are conservative Islamists among the Kurds who are disappointed that Mr. Erdogan failed to keep his promise to make peace with Kurdish separatists, Mr. Sencar said.

Four opposition parties — the Republican People’s Party, the Good Party, the Felicity Party and the tiny Peoples’ Democratic Party — have formed an alliance to maximize their assault against Mr. Erdogan.

But the state of emergency Mr. Erdogan snapped in place almost two years ago after a failed coup has allowed the government to tilt the playing field greatly in its favor.

Mr. Erdogan has used the extra powers to jail political opponents, including nine Kurdish members of Parliament and dozens of Kurdish party officials, as well as 70,000 students and activists and tens of thousands of members of the military and public employees. Demonstrations are banned, and access to national television is tightly controlled.

The Kurdish candidate, Selahattin Demirtas, has campaigned from prison, where he is being held while he awaits trial on terrorism charges. He relies on a team of lawyers to relay his messages on social media. And last week he was permitted to record a single campaign speech inside prison that was aired on the state-run Turkish Radio and Television, or T.R.T.

A former interior minister, Meral Aksener, is barred from using large rally sites and has barely been seen on television — most of which is controlled by the government or its allies.

Muharrem Ince, the closest challenger to Mr. Erdogan, fares slightly better, appearing on some television channels but still barred from T.R.T.

Over the past six weeks, Mr. Erdogan has enjoyed 181 hours of national television airtime, while Mr. Ince was allowed 15 hours, Ms. Aksener three hours and the rest one hour or less, according to the Supreme Board of Radio and Television.

It is Mr. Ince who has been Mr. Erdogan’s main target, smeared by “fake news” campaigns by government supporters. But he has parried the attacks with humor and a hopeful message and has started drawing crowds to match those of Mr. Erdogan.

Yet there is no doubt that Mr. Erdogan’s persona has dominated the campaign. His campaign posters are the largest and most numerous. His rallies are broadcast live on virtually every television channel. And his voice is heard everywhere.

He also controls all the levers of power, rules by decree under a state of emergency and can count on a tame judiciary and presidential guard.

Government employees are ordered to attend Mr. Erdogan’s rallies — and give him their vote if they value their jobs — opposition campaigners say — and journalists in media outlets, which are mostly owned by allies of the president, are given guidelines on what to write.

But signs of disaffection are visible. Supporters declare their love for Mr. Erdogan, yet many start leaving his rallies halfway through his long-winded speeches.

The former Islamist allies who have turned against the president are the most outspoken.

Temel Karamollaoglu, leader of the small Felicity Party, criticizes Mr. Erdogan for betraying his religion by letting corruption and injustice invade his government. He is set to draw away 2 to 3 percent of Mr. Erdogan’s conservative religious following.

“You cannot have one man with all the power,” Mr. Karamollaoglu told supporters in the town of Sakarya. “You cannot expect any justice from judges receiving orders from the top.”

The party has produced some of the most surprising campaign ads, passed around on social media. One shows workers in a tailor’s shop packing away plaid jackets similar to those that Mr. Erdogan wears. The sign on the door says: “Boss gone crazy. Closeout sale.”

The Republican People’s Party, which has a long tradition of secularism, has added several Islamists to its party list to build an Islamist alternative to Mr. Erdogan’s A.K.P.

One of the co-founders of the A.K.P. with Mr. Erdogan, a former deputy prime minister, Abdullatif Sener, is running for Parliament on the Republican People’s Party list in the conservative city of Konya.

He stunned villagers during meetings in a farming district with strident criticism of Mr. Erdogan, the likes of which is never heard in the mainstream media.

“If you cannot buy food and clothes for yourself, it means the economy is not growing,” he told them, disputing government claims of 7 percent growth.

He accused Mr. Erdogan of neglecting Turkey’s agriculture to make money on deals importing foodstuffs.

“You want to farm your land but this government made us completely dependent on imports,” he said. “All they think of is ransacking the country.”

A shopkeeper in the village of Cayhan told Mr. Sener that villagers were too scared to tell the truth but that almost all were going to switch their support away from Mr. Erdogan.

“Something is going to happen,” said Bulent Ecevit Tatlidil, a member of the executive bureau of the Republican People’s Party who is from the farming district.

Outrage over a sudden paucity of onions has even hit the main television news. Ms. Aksener accused Mr. Erdogan of treason for his neglect of agriculture.

“One million are jobless,” she told a rally in Istanbul. “The fields are empty, livestock is finished. To wipe out Turkish agriculture is treason.”

Yet the opposition is also bracing for every manner of obstruction, including fraud and violence.

Mr. Sener’s campaign office in Konya was attacked last week by members of the local youth wing of the A.K.P., who slashed a poster of Mr. Sener and smashed campaign cars.

The election observer mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has noted in a preliminary report that the president enjoys favorable conditions, while other parties face obstructions to campaigning and a pervasive atmosphere of fear in the Kurdish areas of the southeast.

The opposition parties are fielding 100,000 volunteers to observe voting in every polling station but face multiple challenges as regulations have been changed to allow unstamped ballots to be counted, and some polling stations have been closed and voting moved to other locations.

In the southeast, violence has already broken out; an election dispute led to the deaths of three people in the town of Suruc. Some analysts speculated that the clash was about how to fix the vote for Mr. Erdogan.

The Kurdish vote, which represents about 10 percent, is particularly important for both sides.

If Mr. Demirtas’s People’s Democratic Party, or H.D.P., can pass a 10 percent threshold, it could rob Mr. Erdogan of a majority in Parliament.

If the party wins less than 10 percent of the vote, its votes will be distributed to the other parties, which would most likely help Mr. Erdogan secure a majority.

In a sign of how crucial the Kurdish vote is, Mr. Erdogan urged party members to make sure the H.D.P. vote remained below 10 percent.

In a video posted inadvertently over social media last week, he told a closed gathering of regional party members to watch H.D.P. voters.

Then he asked his supporters to “mark their opponents,” suggesting that by doing so they would be doing “a special job that I believe may bring us a very different result.”

The post Turkey’s Democratic Opposition Tests Cracks in Erdogan’s Iron Grip on Voters appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2MSWdCq via Today News

#Daily News #Daily World News #Daily Business News #Daily Sports News #World The News

[party-hard-or-die]

Turkey’s Democratic Opposition Tests Cracks in Erdogan’s Iron Grip on Voters

ISTANBUL — When President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called early elections two months ago, he seemed assured of victory. But as Sunday’s vote approaches, the man who has transformed Turkey over 15 years in power appears increasingly vulnerable.

The question will be, just how vulnerable is he?

The vote will be watched far beyond Turkey’s borders for what it will decide about the direction this country of 80 million — whether it continues down the path of populist authoritarianism with Mr. Erdogan, or takes a turn for democratic change.

A skillful politician with a fervent support base, Mr. Erdogan still leads in the polls. But dissatisfaction over a sudden downturn in the economy is spreading. So is alarm over Mr. Erdogan’s increasing authoritarianism, which, if he wins, will be given even freer rein under a newly strengthened presidency.

“A strong Turkey needs a strong leader,” Mr. Erdogan bellowed to the crowd of several hundred thousand in his final Istanbul campaign rally last Sunday. “May God let us continue on this path by becoming more powerful.”

Whether Mr. Erdogan can secure the outright victory he wants by gaining 50 percent of the vote — avoiding a runoff — may depend on how deeply the wariness and unhappiness with his rule have unsettled his core supporters.

In particular, the collapse of agriculture, a plunge in the value of the lira and a sudden rise in food prices may deliver Mr. Erdogan a shock at the polls, opposition party workers say. Much of the president’s base of support has been among conservative rural people.

“I am hesitant this time,” said Bulut, who sells fresh juice from a cart near Istanbul’s ferry docks. He gave only his first name for fear of repercussions. He said he had voted for the governing party over the past 16 years but complained angrily about the deteriorating economy.

“No jobs,” he said. “I am here for 22 years, it became worse gradually. Our money has no value anymore.”

If 7 to 8 percent of formerly loyal voters abandon the president’s Justice and Development Party, or A.K.P., the governing party will lose, said Ozer Sencar, who runs the independent Metropoll polling agency.

There are already signs of defections, Mr. Sencar said, noting that some of them had voted against Mr. Erdogan in last year’s referendum to expand the powers of the presidency, which passed only narrowly.

“This is the group that will determine the fate of the election,” he said.

Most of the group are conservative Islamists among the Kurds who are disappointed that Mr. Erdogan failed to keep his promise to make peace with Kurdish separatists, Mr. Sencar said.

Four opposition parties — the Republican People’s Party, the Good Party, the Felicity Party and the tiny Peoples’ Democratic Party — have formed an alliance to maximize their assault against Mr. Erdogan.

But the state of emergency Mr. Erdogan snapped in place almost two years ago after a failed coup has allowed the government to tilt the playing field greatly in its favor.

Mr. Erdogan has used the extra powers to jail political opponents, including nine Kurdish members of Parliament and dozens of Kurdish party officials, as well as 70,000 students and activists and tens of thousands of members of the military and public employees. Demonstrations are banned, and access to national television is tightly controlled.

The Kurdish candidate, Selahattin Demirtas, has campaigned from prison, where he is being held while he awaits trial on terrorism charges. He relies on a team of lawyers to relay his messages on social media. And last week he was permitted to record a single campaign speech inside prison that was aired on the state-run Turkish Radio and Television, or T.R.T.

A former interior minister, Meral Aksener, is barred from using large rally sites and has barely been seen on television — most of which is controlled by the government or its allies.

Muharrem Ince, the closest challenger to Mr. Erdogan, fares slightly better, appearing on some television channels but still barred from T.R.T.

Over the past six weeks, Mr. Erdogan has enjoyed 181 hours of national television airtime, while Mr. Ince was allowed 15 hours, Ms. Aksener three hours and the rest one hour or less, according to the Supreme Board of Radio and Television.

It is Mr. Ince who has been Mr. Erdogan’s main target, smeared by “fake news” campaigns by government supporters. But he has parried the attacks with humor and a hopeful message and has started drawing crowds to match those of Mr. Erdogan.

Yet there is no doubt that Mr. Erdogan’s persona has dominated the campaign. His campaign posters are the largest and most numerous. His rallies are broadcast live on virtually every television channel. And his voice is heard everywhere.

He also controls all the levers of power, rules by decree under a state of emergency and can count on a tame judiciary and presidential guard.

Government employees are ordered to attend Mr. Erdogan’s rallies — and give him their vote if they value their jobs — opposition campaigners say — and journalists in media outlets, which are mostly owned by allies of the president, are given guidelines on what to write.

But signs of disaffection are visible. Supporters declare their love for Mr. Erdogan, yet many start leaving his rallies halfway through his long-winded speeches.

The former Islamist allies who have turned against the president are the most outspoken.

Temel Karamollaoglu, leader of the small Felicity Party, criticizes Mr. Erdogan for betraying his religion by letting corruption and injustice invade his government. He is set to draw away 2 to 3 percent of Mr. Erdogan’s conservative religious following.

“You cannot have one man with all the power,” Mr. Karamollaoglu told supporters in the town of Sakarya. “You cannot expect any justice from judges receiving orders from the top.”

The party has produced some of the most surprising campaign ads, passed around on social media. One shows workers in a tailor’s shop packing away plaid jackets similar to those that Mr. Erdogan wears. The sign on the door says: “Boss gone crazy. Closeout sale.”

The Republican People’s Party, which has a long tradition of secularism, has added several Islamists to its party list to build an Islamist alternative to Mr. Erdogan’s A.K.P.

One of the co-founders of the A.K.P. with Mr. Erdogan, a former deputy prime minister, Abdullatif Sener, is running for Parliament on the Republican People’s Party list in the conservative city of Konya.

He stunned villagers during meetings in a farming district with strident criticism of Mr. Erdogan, the likes of which is never heard in the mainstream media.

“If you cannot buy food and clothes for yourself, it means the economy is not growing,” he told them, disputing government claims of 7 percent growth.

He accused Mr. Erdogan of neglecting Turkey’s agriculture to make money on deals importing foodstuffs.

“You want to farm your land but this government made us completely dependent on imports,” he said. “All they think of is ransacking the country.”

A shopkeeper in the village of Cayhan told Mr. Sener that villagers were too scared to tell the truth but that almost all were going to switch their support away from Mr. Erdogan.

“Something is going to happen,” said Bulent Ecevit Tatlidil, a member of the executive bureau of the Republican People’s Party who is from the farming district.

Outrage over a sudden paucity of onions has even hit the main television news. Ms. Aksener accused Mr. Erdogan of treason for his neglect of agriculture.

“One million are jobless,” she told a rally in Istanbul. “The fields are empty, livestock is finished. To wipe out Turkish agriculture is treason.”

Yet the opposition is also bracing for every manner of obstruction, including fraud and violence.

Mr. Sener’s campaign office in Konya was attacked last week by members of the local youth wing of the A.K.P., who slashed a poster of Mr. Sener and smashed campaign cars.

The election observer mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has noted in a preliminary report that the president enjoys favorable conditions, while other parties face obstructions to campaigning and a pervasive atmosphere of fear in the Kurdish areas of the southeast.

The opposition parties are fielding 100,000 volunteers to observe voting in every polling station but face multiple challenges as regulations have been changed to allow unstamped ballots to be counted, and some polling stations have been closed and voting moved to other locations.

In the southeast, violence has already broken out; an election dispute led to the deaths of three people in the town of Suruc. Some analysts speculated that the clash was about how to fix the vote for Mr. Erdogan.

The Kurdish vote, which represents about 10 percent, is particularly important for both sides.

If Mr. Demirtas’s People’s Democratic Party, or H.D.P., can pass a 10 percent threshold, it could rob Mr. Erdogan of a majority in Parliament.

If the party wins less than 10 percent of the vote, its votes will be distributed to the other parties, which would most likely help Mr. Erdogan secure a majority.

In a sign of how crucial the Kurdish vote is, Mr. Erdogan urged party members to make sure the H.D.P. vote remained below 10 percent.

In a video posted inadvertently over social media last week, he told a closed gathering of regional party members to watch H.D.P. voters.

Then he asked his supporters to “mark their opponents,” suggesting that by doing so they would be doing “a special job that I believe may bring us a very different result.”

The post Turkey’s Democratic Opposition Tests Cracks in Erdogan’s Iron Grip on Voters appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2MSWdCq via Breaking News

#News Headlines #News Update #Sports Update #Business Update #World The News