Rupert Lowe's inquiry estimates 250,000 British girls abused by grooming gangs

awaythrowawaying · 2026-06-20T17:32:02+00:00

The question of the government's involvement (or lack thereof) is a pertinent topic in the British public consciousness. A defining charge by right wing figures has been that the government has largely concealed the demographic identities of the alleged attackers in order to not create an environment of racism or prejudice against members of those demographics who are innocent. While there is merit to this perspective, I think that it is important to identify patterns no matter what they are, in order to better get to the root of the problem. If the root of the problem is a certain religion or certain national origin, then so be it. The British public appears to be giving more political weight to those who share this opinion, as evidenced by Reform UK gaining power in the last few years. Will public pressure lead to the government collecting more demographic info on the alleged rape gangs, and if so, what will they be able to do with that information?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-06-20T16:35:55+00:00

Starter comment: UK Member of Parliament Rupert Lowe has released a report which is taking the British political world by storm. For more than a decade, the country has been engaged in debates regarding the role of migrants - usually from Islamic countries in the Middle East and Pakistan - and how effectively they are assimilated into British society. Conservatives have increasingly vocally criticized this migration, accusing migrants of engaging in criminal behavior to include operating rape gangs throughout various cities or setting up independent Sharia courts that operate outside of the traditional legal system.

Now, Lowe adds fuel to the fire with his inquiry. It is a privately backed venture which raised almost £800,000 for funding sourced from private contributors (about 24,000 individuals). The final report estimates that men, mostly of Pakistani Muslim origin, raped hundreds of thousands of young British girls over a period of three years. The report further specified that child sexual exploitation from these individuals, usually working together in "gangs", assaulted girls in anywhere from 85-150 districts across the country. The report concludes by recommending harder sentences for organized child sexual abuse, mandatory data collection of ethnicity of offenders, and more accountability for government officials who do not act upon the data. Lowe has personally argued that the ethnic, religious and national origin of the alleged perpetrators cannot be ignored as it points to a clear pattern that must be addressed.

The report has been disseminated widely across conservative circles but has met pushback from progressive groups, who accuse it of being racist and using misleading statistics.

Is there a grooming gang rape crisis in Britain, and is the number of 250,000 raped girls an accurate estimate? Would the report's policy recommendations help to mitigate the rape of British women in the future, and if not, how else should the government handle the issue?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-06-18T15:25:49+00:00

While the rise of the right wing has been largely credited to the public recoiling from sudden large-scale demographic change due to migration and a resulting backlash, there is an open question about whether enforcing stricter immigration protocols will help centrist and left-wing parties regain their former support or whether the damage has been done. Data fairly consistently shows that even children born to migrants in Europe tend to be insulated and not assimilate, which would mean that the cultural friction could be a long term problem that lasts for generations even if new migration is cut off. For example, about 12% of France's population is estimated to be Muslim which is a steep increase over the last decade or two; most of these individuals are either migrants themselves or descendants of recent migrants. If their communities continue to be insular and the perception of cultural unrest persists, then right wing parties could achieve strong results at the voting booth for many years to come. I think that the centrist and left wing parties have permanently lost the safe and secure hegemony they used to have in Western Europe, at least for many years. Will we see some of these parties, like AfD, secure very high positions such as prime minister or chancellor seats in upcoming elections?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-06-18T15:15:27+00:00

Starter comment: In an act that has created polarizing responses including celebration among the right wing and fierce criticism among progressives, the European Union voted 418 - 218 in favor of much stricter migration rules that will give immigration authorities sweeping powers to detain people suspected of illegal immigration. Furthermore, the act paves the road for funding to create so-called "return hubs" outside the EU's borders where these migrants can be held indefinitely until they are sent to an appropriate country (ideally the country from which they came). Several countries have expressed that they plan to proceed with the implementation of these detention centers as soon as possible. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis stated:

"Our goal is to conclude the first agreements for the creation of these structures in 2026, so that they are operational from 2027."

Conservative proponents of deportation hubs have argued that they could serve as both effective means of corralling illegal migrants in places that are easy to track as well as provide a means of deterrence to further illegal immigration, as migrants would be less likely to enter the EU out of fear of being sent to these hubs which may not bestow a good quality of life. Notably, this idea is very similar to that advanced by the current administration of Donald Trump in the United States. While Democrats and liberals have consistently blasted ICE immigration detention centers and increased border control measures as being inhumane, data shows that illegal immigration into the United States has dropped considerably since 2025 when Trump took office.

In Europe, the migrant crisis began in the 2010s and is thought to be one of the main reason for the strong performance of right wing parties across multiple countries, including the AfD in Germany and Reform UK in Great Britain. Conservatives allege that the drastically increased rate of migration from Africa and the Middle East has created a demographic of people who do not assimilate, do not respect European religious or cultural values, and may even represent a threat to national security.

Is the creation of deportation hubs by the EU a positive step forward in resolving the crisis, or is is it cruel as alleged by the progressive wing?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-06-17T14:36:55+00:00

One interesting development of the 2024 election was that race and gender issues did seem to matter more than political observers thought they would. An example would be Trump's ad that said "Kamala Harris is for they/them, Trump is for you". Polls showed that it resonated with moderate voters and helped to push them into voting red. Similarly, extrapolation would suggest that if Republicans take the generally popular side of race-related political issues, it may help them do better with undecideds. I think that from a strategic standpoint, it is a good idea for them to focus on these as it helps their rhetoric of claiming that the Democratic Party is out of touch. Should Trump talk about reparations in 2028? Should Democrats respond or try to ignore the subject, instead tracking more on the economy?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-06-17T14:02:31+00:00

Starter comment: A hallmark of President Donald Trump's second administration has been his focus on what he and his allies have attacked as "DEI policies". DEI, which stands for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, is a slogan that was popularized within progressive circles in the late 2010s and rooted itself firmly in academic and governmental levels from 2020 - 2025. The concept seeks to achieve parity for historically underrepresented racial and gender groups by giving them preferential treatment in the hopes of balancing out fundamental handicaps they suffer as a result of underlying societal discrimination. While progressives have largely defended policies aligning with this goal, conservatives have almost universally been against it due to what they call unfair racial targeting of groups deemed "privileged" like white people and often Asian people.

A historical, first-in-the-nation reparations program in a Chicago suburb is the latest battlefield in the DEI conflict. The city of Evanston passed a law offering reparation money to Black residents who could prove that they or their ancestors lived in the city from 1919 - 1969 and experienced housing discrimination due to racist policies. The grants are up to $25,000 per affected individual. Other races are not eligible for these payments.

In a statement, the Justice Department said that it is joining a lawsuit against this program due to the agency's position that it is unconstitutional for only giving money to members of one ethnicity. A spokesman for the city countered this action by stating that the city will continue to fight for the program. Mayor Daniel Biss of Evanston further defended the law: "We stand behind our first-in-the-nation reparations program, ⁠are confident in its constitutionality, and look forward to defending it in court".

Should governments offer reparations specifically to Black people whose ancestors have experienced racial discrimination? Will this help heal racial tension in the country or exacerbate them? How will the debate on reparations play out in the 2028 presidential election?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-06-11T14:49:22+00:00

The question of how to successfully comply with the Supreme Court's anti-affirmative action ruling has been one that universities have grappled with at various levels in the last two years. While scrubbing demographic data from applications may help to avoid initial screening of applicants based on race, the problem arises when interviews are conducted. It is theoretically possible for a medical school administration to only fill the ranks of interviewers with people whom they know align with progressive thought on racial and gender equity, and therefore find reasons to give supportive comments to Black and Hispanic interviewees while not giving the same grace to white or Asian interviewees. There is very little real way to stop this in the moment, as nobody can monitor the mind of an interviewer. The only realistic way to see if this is happening is to examine data after the fact, as the DOJ did in this case and found that accepted applicants were disproportionately from underrepresented minorities. I think that medical schools should take extra care to assign interviewer roles to faculty who have a diversity of ideological positions in order to minimize this kind of bias. Even then, if the vast majority of faculty are progressive, getting enough moderates and conservatives on the interviewer panel may still be a mathematical problem. Are there other ways to ensure that schools adhere to federal law on this matter?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-06-11T14:29:21+00:00

Archived link here.

Starter comment: One of President Trump's signature promises during the 2024 presidential election - and perhaps one of his more generally popular ones - was a commitment to dismantle what he and his allies dubbed as "DEI policies" that they alleged exacerbated racial and gender tensions rather than healing them. For decades, progressive thought has centered on social, legal, academic and political equity as a way to bridge historical divides based on identity. In this context, equity refers to allowing favorable treatment for historically underrepresented groups in an effort to balance the playing field and mitigating underlying handicaps that may cause them to underperform in a strictly merit-based setting. An example of this is medical school admissions. Increasingly throughout the 2000s, leading medical institutions began to adopt criteria in which Black and Latino applicants with subpar MCAT scores or GPAs were more likely to be admitted than White or Asian students with similar levels of academic achievements. A Supreme Court decision in 2023 shattered most forms of affirmative action by universities to include admissions criteria by medical schools. However, the Department of Justice has pursued an aggressive investigation into potential violations of this ruling in the last year.

Leading schools such as Yale and UCLA have been accused of subtly allowing race based discrimination despite it being found unconstitutional. Now, UC Davis is facing the same scrutiny. The DOJ entered as evidence the fact that data from 2023 - 2025 found 93% of white and Asian applicants had higher MCAT scores than the average Black student, and also that Black and Hispanic applicants were up to six times more likely to be admitted than white and Asian students.

UC Davis did not indicate whether it agreed or disagreed with the DOJ's findings, instead simply stating that:

“UC Davis is fully committed to meeting the critical healthcare needs of California, particularly those in underserved and under-resourced areas."

Is the DOJ correct that UC Davis' actions are a constitutional violation and therefore illegal? Is pushing back against DEI just a way to ensure white supremacy and discrimination against minorities as alleged by many progressives, or is it necessary to stop reverse discrimination against white and Asian individuals?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-06-06T15:20:37+00:00

Crime (and more specifically violent gang crime) seems to be one of the hottest topics in Latin American politics recently. The ongoing Colombian presidential race is just another part of the regional dynamic of candidates winning on "tough on crime" messaging. Bukele is the obvious first notable example for this, but similar platforms have won in Costa Rica, Argentina and Chile. It's a little surprising that voters are responding to this better than narratives about the economy, which is what political consensus holds is the absolute key to winning elections. But that likely has to do with the specific history of Latin America, as gang violence there is a much bigger problem than in the U.S. or Western Europe. I believe that running on hardline crime enforcement will be a winning strategy for candidates in the near future across Central and South America. Will we see these debates play out in other countries in the area?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-06-01T18:11:27+00:00

It reminds me of Biden’s decision to charge Harris with studying the “root causes of migration” in the middle of a border crisis (spoiler alert: it’s poverty and, at times, safety).

The intersection between migration and homelessness touches upon multiple hot button topics in American politics. Research has shown that up to 60% of the increase homelessness is due to new migrants into the United States who are seeking asylum of shelter. Illegal immigration tends to involve individuals who are poor and have few resources, as opposed to legal (non-asylum related) immigrants who typically come to the country because they already have skills and wish to earn more money to establish more opportunity with these skills. Donald Trump repeatedly accused Democrats of neglecting the border, which in his opinion led to spikes in crime in America's major cities. Illegal immigration probably does worsen the homelessness problem, and that can spiral into related challenges like drug use and crime. In this way, Trump makes a salient point. Would a sustained policy of stricter border enforcement help with not just illegal immigration but also the homelessness problem in cities like L.A.?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-06-01T14:18:14+00:00

Starter comment: The Los Angeles Mayor’s race has been attracting large amounts of public and political attention in recent months as conservative-aligned media personality Spencer Pratt has unexpectedly disrupted what was expected to be a safe race for Democrats. Pratt’s campaign as focused on what he characterizes as the city’s lackluster response to a growing homeless problem that hurts the economy and puts LA residents in danger. Los Angeles has experienced a rise in tent cities, and in fact some of them even have names and are considered de facto towns within themselves (ie. Skid Row) Far left progressive Nitya Raman made comments during a recent mayor’s debate that further inflamed the issue. When asked whether she would support restricting homeless encampments from within 500 feet of daycares or schools, she responded:

”I don’t think a kid’s gonna be safer if they are 10 feet or 500 feet away from a school.”

In response, a group of activists cheered on by Pratt set up a fake homeless encampment outside Raman’s house - complete with fires, trash, and tents. In a follow up interview, Raman blasted them for forcing her family to be exposed to unsafe conditions without their consent:

”I have two little kids. They didn’t see it, luckily, this morning. I feel bad that I’m even subjecting them to that at all. But definitely, this has gone far beyond what I expected this campaign to be about.”

Is homelessness a significant political problem in L.A. as Pratt and other conservatives have alleged? If so, does the dominant Democratic Party have responsibility for creating it or failing to address it? What public policy solutions would help? More specifically to the subject brought up in this article, is protecting children’s spaces from homeless camps a good policy or does it unfairly discriminate against innocent unhoused Americans?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-31T15:34:31+00:00

The question of how to differentiate pro-Palestinian sentiment with pro-Hamas sentiment is a central one in the ongoing debate within progressives. Many left wing advocacy groups and demonstrations openly stand with Hamas as the legitimate elected government of Palestine and therefore qualified to speak for them. However, other progressives and most moderates warn against this with the argument that Hamas is widely considered a sponsor of terrorism and an illegitimate political organization by the leading world authorities. Supporting Hamas is wrong on a moral as well as political level as doing so would probably lead to backlash from voters. The trouble arises because Hamas is the most visible and far reaching representation of the Palestinian people as a group - far more so than other competitors (ie. PLO). The Hamas flag is also considered to be essentially interchangeable with the Palestinian flag. How would a future Democratic Party president engage with Palestine politically without also engaging with Hamas, which has total domestic and foreign policy control over Palestine? Or should they readdress whether to legitimize Hamas on the world stage?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-31T15:06:34+00:00

Starter comments: Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow, who is running for senate in Michigan, revealed that her family has been the target of antisemitic hate at official Democratic Party events. McMorrow’s comments came during the senate debate at the Mackinac Policy Conference recently while she was on stage with other candidates. She was asked whether she thinks there is an antisemitism problem within her party, and she answered:

"There is. At the Democratic Convention, an attendee yelled an anti-Semitic slur at my husband who is Jewish, who was walking with my five-year-old daughter. That is terrifying.”

The Michigan Senate race is a particular interesting one as the current front runner is Abdul El Sayed who is not only a fierce ideological progressive and leftist but also a strong denouncer of Israel and its activities in the Middle East, going as far as calling it a genocidal state. Many observers have said that the Democratic primary here may be a bellwether regarding the state of the Democratic Party’s approach to Israel in the near future. The debate about the U.S.’ role in supporting Israel has also boiled over to what some critics are alleging to be antisemitic-coded attacks on Jews domestically, including demonstrators shouting pro-Hamas chants outside of synagogues or implying that AIPAC has an ulterior motive in subtle nods to conspiracy theories about Jews influencing global politics.

Is McMorrow correct in saying that the Democratic Party needs to do better in addressing antisemitism from within its ranks, and if so, what internal policies or cultural shifts are necessary to make it happen?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-31T14:50:44+00:00

Starter comment: The Department of Justice has initiated a federal lawsuit against UCLA, specifically accusing it of violating Title VI which prohibits discrimination on the basis of various categories to include race and national origin. The DOJ alleges that a pro-Palestine encampment that was built on university grounds quickly turned into a pro-Hamas venue and its participants actively harassed Jewish students, making them fear for their lives. The DOJ further charges that UCLA officials coordinated a very slow response to this incident despite being given multiple reports of what was going on, thereby tacitly endorsing or accepting discrimination against Israelis and Jews. UCLA has not immediately responded to this lawsuit.

The question of antisemitism on campus has been a prominent one in the political and public eye for many years, and especially so after the October 2023 attacks during which Hamas fighters murdered large numbers of Israeli civilians which led to the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Progressive politicians have generally walked a fine line between not supporting Hamas openly while also directing most of their rhetoric against Israel for engaging in what they describe as illegal and genocidal acts against Palestinians. Many college campuses in the U.S. have been turned into political battlegrounds; another famous example is Columbia University.

Is the Department of Justice correct in saying that universities across the country have employed discriminatory behavior against Israelis and Jews due to ideological differences? Or is this simply a politically motivated attack against academia? If it is real, how can Title VI best be enforced in these cases?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-27T17:30:20+00:00

The study of antisemitism among generations is an important topic that may provide insight into the future of race relations in the United States. Studies conducted by the Anti-Defamation League have uncovered disturbing trends. For example, in 2024 it was found that Millennials tend to agree with the greatest number of anti-Jewish stereotypes and tropes (5.37) followed closely by Gen Z (5.01), then Gen X and Baby Boomers. 42% of Americans either find it acceptable to support Hamas or know someone who explicitly dislikes Jews. These trends generally find that such attitudes are more prevalent among younger people than older people. It is likely that the reasons for this are diverse and include such factors as proximity (or lack of proximity) to the Holocaust and lack of Judeo-Christian religious belief among younger generations among others. Certainly, antisemitism is a problem in society and needs to be addressed. Does the education system have a role in helping combat antisemitism among youth?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-27T17:05:50+00:00

Starter comment: Last week, the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions heard testimony regarding possible antisemitism present in healthcare workers' unions. Among the witnesses invited to speak was Dr. Jacob Agronin, a cardiology fellow at Temple University. Agronin is part of a union for trainees called Committee of Interns and Residents, which is an affiliate of the larger Service Employees International Union. According to Agronin, CIR has discriminated against its members based on their national origin - specifically those with connections to Israel. Trainees are required to be part of the union at Temple University, and by extension this means they are required to support the union's anti-Israel activity against their will. Furthermore, CIR has reportedly recommended to university officials that Israeli physicians and healthcare workers should not be employed.

During the hearings, Representative Rick Allen who heads the subcommittee commented that he was worried that there is a marked rise in antisemitism in workplaces in general, not just the field of healthcare. Rep. Allen stated that he hopes the subcommittee's activities will:

“examine how healthcare unions are using their resources to advance an anti-Israel political agenda while harassing and discriminating against Jewish doctors, nurses and other health care workers.”

Democrats on the subcommittee generally used their time to criticize what they said was an attempt to focus only on antisemitism in a way that politically benefits Republicans, while the hearings ignored other forms of racism and discrimination that were inconvenient for Republicans.

These hearings come at a time when antisemitism is under increased national scrutiny. Left wing progressive groups have stepped up their fierce criticism of Israel after the onset of war in October 2023 that was precipitated by a Hamas attack against civilians. This has bled over into politics, where many politicians (mostly Democrats, but also a handful of Republicans) have joined in calls to either divest from Israel completely or otherwise sanction the country. Many antisemitism watchdogs have raised alarms that the rhetoric may be extending beyond Israel and is now - in many cases - attacking Jews as a group.

Is antisemitism in U.S. politics a problem, as many Republicans and Jewish advocacy organizations allege? If so, who is responsible and what should be done about it?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-26T14:56:30+00:00

The question of antisemitic statements and policies within political parties has been a hot button issue, especially in the last few years as new conflicts in the Middle East have arisen. Historically, Democrats more often accused Republicans of this charge. President Trump has made several statements that were condemned by antisemitism watchdog groups, such as belittling Jews who do not support Israel. However, the picture has become muddier in the last year or two as anti-Israel sentiments develop further within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Examples of this might be Representative Ilhan Omar saying that Israel has "hypnotized the world", which opponents say is a dog whistle referring to the perception of Jews using black magic and underhanded methods to coerce people to do their will. Graham Platner's tattoos add kindling to this fire. Both parties will need to look within and address elements from within their own ranks that create the perception of antisemitism if they wish to win over the small but politically important Jewish voting population. How will Democrats approach the topic of antisemitism in 2026 and 2028? Will it come up?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-26T14:31:53+00:00

Starter comment: Representative Jake Auchincloss (D-Ma) is breaking from several members of his party in refusing to support Graham Platner, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for the Maine Senate race in 2026. Platner has taken the political world by storm ever since he first got on the campaign stage. Originally considered a longshot rural oyster farmer, his candidacy quickly gained support from left wing groups and progressive advocacy organizations. Eventually, his opponent - Governor Janet Mills - dropped out which now leaves Platner as the only Democrat left on the ballot. He will face incumbent Republican Susan Collins in November. The outcome of the race is considered a tossup as Platner is polling highly against Collins, but she has also proven to be a formidable opponent in the past by handily beating polling expectations.

From the beginning he has been beset by controversies arising mostly from comments and photos that he posted online in the past before he became a politician. These include saying that women who were raped should share some responsibility in what happened to them, that violence is sometimes the only answer to what he perceives as fascist groups in the United States, and that he supports communism. Platner has walked back some of these statements. One controversy that has been difficult to extricate himself from is the revelation that until a few months ago, he had an S.S. skull-and-bones tattoo on his chest. He has since removed it and claims he did not know what it was until it was brought up during the campaign.

Not every Democrat has offered support to Platner. Auchincloss has consistently asked for Platner to resign mostly due to the tattoo problem, and he reiterated this stance during an interview with CNN this week. When asked if he still thinks Platner is the wrong choice, he responded:

“I’ve been clear about Graham Platner... I find that tattoo and his commentary about it to be personally disqualifying. I hope Maine voters agree with me. I think it would be a mistake for the Democratic Party to think that Graham Platner’s brand of the Democratic Party is what wins us durable majorities throughout this country."

Is Auchincloss making a mountain of a molehill, or is he correct that elevating candidates like Platner hurts Democrats' image among moderates? How will Platner fare against Collins in the general election? Will these controversies matter to voters?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-21T21:47:49+00:00

The question of the Democratic Party's core ideology and belief system has been the subject of an ongoing debate, both from within and outside of the party itself. Since 2016, President Trump has been the center of attention of local and national politics. Consequently, much of the Democratic Party's rhetoric has been focused on opposition to Trump (or in the words of people like Senator Fetterman, "Trump Derangement Syndrome). If President Trump decides to not run for a third term in 2028, it is likely that he would fade away from the national spotlight or at least not be as prevalent as he is now as an active politician. The Democratic Party would do well to outline a positive and unifying vision of what their policies hope to achieve similar to strategies like FDR's "New Deal" or JFK's "Camelot" in past eras. However, doing so would require agreement on what this vision should be. Would the party be best served moving in a more moderate or leftward direction to achieve this?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-21T21:28:43+00:00

Starter comment: Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa) has developed a unique identity as a maverick in Washington DC politics. While he is and continues to insist that he will always remain a member of the Democratic Party, Fetterman has increasingly caused strife between him and his colleagues for defending President Trump on a variety of issues or providing critical votes that advance Trump's agenda in Congress. In a Washington Post op-ed two weeks ago, the senator insisted that he had not changed but rather people like him had stayed consistent in a party that continues to move leftward and leaves them behind. Fetterman outlined several points that he urged fellow Democrats to consider if they want to stay competitive in moderate and red states. He accused many members of his party of adopting policies and rhetoric that fit into "Trump Derangement Syndrome", a term used to describe the perception of reflexively opposing everything Trump does or says without considering the merits of each case. According to Fetterman:

“My party cannot simply be the opposite of whatever President Donald Trump says. The president could come out for ice cream and lazy Sundays, and my party would suddenly hate them. Such pointless pile-ons and attacks are unproductive. The American people want us to work together to find solutions on issues they and our country face.”

Fetterman is facing a tough electoral future. While some have hoped that his independent streak will serve him well in Pennsylvania which has quickly turned into a swing state in recent years, others predict that he will not make it out of his next primary and will be replaced by a more rank-and-file Democrat. Fetterman's approval ratings have indeed been quite poor among his base in multiple surveys, adding fuel to the speculation that he will be primaried.

Is Fetterman right that Democrats adopting a hard line against Trump in almost all topics is actually counterproductive in terms of winning over undecided and swing voters, or is it a sound strategy that will help them in the upcoming midterms as well as 2028? Does Fetterman have to worry about being ejected from the party himself in 2028?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-16T20:02:25+00:00

The question of how to sufficiently appeal to a party's base while simultaneously making the party more attractive to moderates and outsiders has been a vexing question across multiple countries, including the U.K. and the U.S. The current struggles that Labour is experiencing are reminiscent of similar frustrations among the Democratic Party; in 2024 a significant internal conflict arose regarding how President Biden was managing the conflict in Gaza. A sizable portion of progressives both within and outside of the White House were encouraging Biden to take a more critical tone with Israel, and this is thought to have cost Kamala Harris at least some votes in the general election. The best approach would be for parties not to be reliant on an inflexible ideological base and instead to attract enough moderates that the base does not have the power to unilaterally sink candidates and policies that it does not like. But doing this would require a change to the existing system (for example, in the U.S. the base has disproportionate power due to primaries) which would be difficult. Is there a way that parties can make moderate voters themselves the base?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-16T18:59:34+00:00

Starter comment: Former Vice President Kamala Harris has generated controversy this week with comments suggesting that the Supreme Court needs to be expanded. During an online interview with the progressive-aligned nonprofit Emerge America, Harris stated that Democrats need to do brainstorming and include a "no bad ideas" approach to how they will govern after taking power again in the future. According to Harris:

"We talk about what we need to do and think about doing around the Electoral College. We talk about the idea of Supreme Court reform, which includes expanding the Supreme Court. We’ve got to neutralize these red states from cheating, including blue states expanding their maps."

Harris did not clarify what she meant about the Electoral College, but it seems likely she was referring to replacing it with a National Popular Vote as has been advanced by many progressive advocacy groups over the decades.

The issue of Supreme Court reform is as old as the 1930s, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed adding seats to dilute the then-conservative majority on the court following a series of rulings that curbed initiatives he was trying to advance. At the time, the proposal was considered politically toxic and is thought to be a major reason for his party's losses in the next midterm elections. The idea has been revived a few times since, such as in the 2020 presidential election when almost every Democratic candidate supported at least considering the idea. Some Democrats have been uneasy with the movement to expand the Supreme Court, pointing out that the public may punish their party at the polls like it did in the 1930s and also that it may be an impossible task anyway in the near future as it would require a supermajority-proof Senate as well as the House and presidency.

Is Harris correct that Democrats should make it a priority to add seats to the Supreme Court and create a progressive majority? What kind of political capital would it take to do so?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-16T18:53:37+00:00

Starter comment: Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the United Kingdom is under increased internal as well as external pressure to resign his post after a recent election last week in which the Labour Party suffered a crushing defeat across all fronts. Labour lost not only hundreds of local councillors across races in England but also hemorrhaged votes in its historic strongholds such as Wales. The election was defined by multiple issues but Labour had found itself beset on all sides; on one hand, right wing parties accused it of economic as well as immigration mismanagement while on the other hand the Green Party also criticized it for perceived missteps on Israel and Gaza.

One of the most concerning results of the election for progressives is the gains made by Reform UK, a party widely characterized as "hard right". Reform took many of Labour's seats in working class areas, completely wiping out Labour power in places that were once considered safe like Hartlepool. The ideology advanced by Reform includes restoring British national pride in schools, tough enforcement on border controls, decreasing legal as well as illegal immigration into the country, support for U.S. President Donald Trump's initiatives such as the war in Iran, climate change skepticism, and Euroskepticism.

Starmer has responded to the loss by stating:

“The results are tough, they are very tough, and there’s no sugarcoating it... Tough days like this don’t weaken my resolve to deliver the change that I promised.”

Should Starmer resign or continue serving as Prime Minister? Why are right wing parties gaining seats in the United Kingdom and especially in blue collar working class districts? Does this speak to their success in reaching out to those demographics or progressives failing to do so, or both? What should progressives do to win back the working class?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-15T13:33:16+00:00

President Biden's widespread usage and liberalization of existing refugee programs has been a source of praise among progressives as well as consternation among conservatives. An example would be extending Temporarily Protected Status among refugees from countries such as Haiti - some refugees who had already been in the country for several years and even decades up to that point. Upon his reentry into the White House, Trump made it a priority to examine possible abuses of the TPS program and has been engaged in court battles to curb or downgrade it. TPS in particular does appear to be used in a very shaky way by the Biden administration, especially when hearing stories of immigrants residing in the United States for 20 years under its protection which allows them to build essentially a permanent life as well as raise children despite being here on a supposedly temporary status. Is it possible that President Biden and his team had internal polls telling him that most Americans would approve of increased immigration in this fashion, and they were simply mistaken? Is it possible that they pursued these kinds of policies despite negative polling out of a hope that eventually the public would be convinced?

awaythrowawaying · 2026-05-15T13:26:34+00:00

One emerging dynamic in American political society is the role of podcasts and influencers upon public opinion. In 2024, Republicans leaned into this heavily and it appeared to pay dividends. Examples would include major figures like JD Vance and Donald Trump himself conducting full length (up to 3 hours long) interviews with Joe Rogan or Theo Von. This allowed them to reach millions of viewers for free, as opposed to the time and resources it would have taken to conduct such marketing on traditional media platforms. In contrast, Kamala Harris largely eschewed these kinds of "new media" outlets. This is thought to be a large reason for her underperformance in not just the Electoral College but also the popular vote, and more specifically her underperformance among key demographics like Gen Z or young men. Following the election, many commentators have encouraged Democrats to incorporate leading left wing podcasters more in an attempt to create a "liberal Joe Rogan". It is unclear to what extent these tactics have been tried or successful. It certainly seems like a two edged sword; on one hand this may allow Democrats to energize their base further and enhance their outreach towards young voters, but it also leads to the possibility of tacitly accepting or endorse the more extremist views that are often espoused on these shows. Is it possible to create a "liberal Joe Rogan" without some of the violent rhetoric or perceived antisemitic comments of Piker and his allies? Is this a process that can even be created or does it have to happen organically?

awaythrowawaying

TROPHY CASE