Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How Political Primaries Drive Britain’s Dysfunction

      by

      In the United States, too, the rise of inside-party primaries has empowered candidates at the extremes, and the result is likely to be a greater disconnect with the public.The rise and fall of Liz Truss, Britain’s six-week prime minister, embodies a seismic and long-mounting change in British politics, though its cause and consequences may not always be obvious.Ms. Truss was only the fourth British leader to win the job through a particularly American practice newly common in her country: a party primary.As in most parliamentary democracies, British parties, for most of their history, chose their leaders, and therefore the prime minister, through a poll of party officials.But in recent elections, Britain has shifted that power to party bases, which now select party leaders in elections somewhat like those held in the United States for party nominations.This was intended to empower voters over back-room party bosses, elevating politicians who would be more representative and therefore more electable. But the consequences have been very different.As in the United States, British primary voters tend to be more ideologically fervent and less inclined to moderation than are party bosses or even the median party supporter, surveys find.This has, in both countries, tended to elevate candidates who are more extreme, with research suggesting that the effect has been to make politics more polarized and dysfunctional. Ms. Truss, and the policies that seemingly ended her brief tenure, have become prime examples.Britain’s Conservative Party selects leaders first by winnowing down candidates in the traditional way: voting among party lawmakers. In four out of five such rounds, Ms. Truss was only the third-most selected candidate. In the fifth round, she came in second to Rishi Sunak, who is seen as more moderate.But, since 2001, the party has put its final two leadership candidates to a vote among dues-paying members. Ms. Truss’s libertarian ideas were seen as risky and extreme among party officials. But they were embraced by primary voters, who chose her over Mr. Sunak.More on the Situation in BritainA Rapid Downfall: Liz Truss is about to become the shortest-serving prime minister in British history. How did she get there?Lifelong Allowance: The departing prime minister is eligible for a taxpayer-funded annual payout for the rest of her life. Some say she shouldn’t be allowed to receive it.Staging a Comeback?: When Boris Johnson left his role as prime minister in September, he hinted he might return. He is now being mentioned as a successor to Ms. Truss.Those voters — about 172,000 of them — bear little resemblance to the average Briton. Roughly two in three are male. Two in five are 65 or older, double the proportion in the general population. Three in four voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 Brexit referendum, compared with only 52 percent of Britons, and 58 percent of all Conservative supporters.Ms. Truss’s economic ideas may have wooed those primary voters, but her policies, and the economic shudder that followed them, alienated much of the rest of the country. Even many Conservative supporters, most of whom do not qualify to vote in primaries, told pollsters that they intended to vote for other parties.In this case, the political shift brought about by primary voters’ pull toward an extreme was stark and, with Ms. Truss having resigned under party pressure, ultimately brief.But it is of a piece with what a growing body of political science research suggests are deeper and longer-term changes brought about by the rise of party primaries in a few democracies.A Quietly Seismic ShiftDavid Cameron, a former British prime minister, deepened his party’s commitment to primaries.Pool photo by ReutersBritain’s first leadership primary open to party members was held by Labour in 1994, part of an effort by that party to emphasize a connection to everyday citizens.The Conservatives followed in 2001, responding to deep election losses, said Agnès Alexandre-Collier, who studies British party politics at the University of Burgundy in France. Conservatives also began holding primaries for some individual seats in Parliament.This was intended to elevate Conservative politicians, Dr. Alexandre-Collier said, who would be “more modern, closer to the people, more in touch with the population, because the Conservatives were seen to be disconnected, out-of-touch elites.”Primaries were a relatively untested concept in Europe. The United States had only begun inviting voters into the process of selecting party nominees in the 1970s and ’80s.American party officials had long used control over nominations to block candidates who did not embrace party orthodoxy — and, often, to bar racial and religious minorities. Many Americans objected to this as undemocratic and divisive, pressuring parties to open up.In Britain, it was David Cameron, then the Conservative leader, who in 2009 deepened his party’s commitment to primaries, surrendering party control over nominations in dozens of races.“This will have a transformative effect on our politics, taking power from the party elites and the old boy networks,” he said at the time. A year later, he became prime minister.But in both the United States and Britain, primaries brought other changes, too.Party officials tend to overwhelmingly prefer moderate candidates over ideological ones, research has found. This holds true even in uncontested districts, suggesting that the preference runs deeper than electability considerations.To activists looking to push their parties further left or right, this can look like a conspiracy to block change. To parties, it is often intended to enforce internal unity and cohesion, as well as what is known in European politics as the “cordon sanitaire,” or an informal ban on extremists and demagogues.As primaries have shifted power from parties to the rank-and-file, these barriers have fallen away.This has also granted individual lawmakers greater independence, allowing them to more freely buck party positions — but binding them to primary voters’ desires instead.How Primaries Change PoliticsJeremy Corbyn won a Labour Party leadership vote in 2015 thanks to primary voters.Jessica Taylor/Agence France-Presse, via U.K. Parliament/AFP via Getty ImagesMr. Cameron quickly saw his party fill with rebellious lawmakers who had won primaries by championing a position that party insiders had opposed: leaving the European Union.At the same time, Mr. Cameron faced the prospect that, in any future leadership contest, his fate would be up to primary voters who also favored this policy. In 2016, partly as an effort to stave off these threats, Mr. Cameron held the referendum that ultimately resulted in Britain’s departure from the union.This is why some political scientists now argue that a straight line can be drawn from the Conservatives’ use of primaries, and the power it handed to a small and ideologically committed faction of voters, to Brexit.Britain’s Labour Party has also changed.Jeremy Corbyn, a left-wing lawmaker long at odds with his party’s leadership, won a leadership vote in 2015 thanks to heavy support from primary voters.But Mr. Corbyn took a soft line on Brexit, which saw his party’s support drop in polls and angered party officials who wanted Labour to champion a policy of remaining in Europe.Still, even as Labour officials tried to eject Mr. Corbyn, primary voters kept him in power. During his five-year leadership, Labour failed to win a majority although Conservatives struggled through leadership crises and economic turmoil.“Internal democracy can undermine a party’s ability to select candidates who can win general elections,” Georgia Kernell, a U.C.L.A. political scientist, wrote in a Washington Post essay, referring to Mr. Corbyn.“Party activists rarely represent the population,” she added. “Nor do they often represent the party’s own voters.”Weaker PartiesWhen Donald J. Trump was running his primary campaign, Republican officials tried to stop his rise.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesIn perhaps the most famous case of primary voters overruling party officials, Republican leaders repeatedly attempted to halt Donald J. Trump’s rise in their party’s 2016 primary.Those who have not subsequently fallen in line, like Representative Liz Cheney, who called Mr. Trump a threat to democracy, have often seen their careers ended by primary challenges.“It’s counterintuitive, but democratizing parties will ultimately harm democracy,” Jennifer N. Victor, a George Mason University political scientist, wrote in 2018, just as Democrats announced changes to curtail party bosses’ influence over primary nominations.“Democracy requires institutional forces of coordination to enforce collective action,” Dr. Victor said. “It comes in many forms. All of them can be called leadership.”“Without them,” she added, “we’re all just in ‘Lord of the Flies.’”Still, in countries where voters now expect to select their party’s leaders, reverting that authority back to party insiders, even if their choices were sometimes more representative of the electorate, would surely feel to citizens like an unacceptable loss of democratic rights.Voter-led primaries remain unusual in the world.One exception was, briefly, France, whose two traditionally dominant parties held primaries for nominations to the 2017 presidential contest.Voters in France’s right-wing party, which had been expected to win, chose a scandal-plagued candidate who was friendly with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and who lost. The winner of the left-wing party’s primary went on to take only 6 percent of the national vote.“This experiment was seen as an absolute failure,” Dr. Alexandre-Collier said. “It gave priority to the most populist leaders,” she added, as primaries have tended to do across countries.Both parties quietly ended the practice, returning candidate selection in France to party officials. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      How Tumultuous Forces of Brexit Divided U.K.’s Conservative Party

      by

      Some experts link Liz Truss’s downfall to the ripple effect of Britain’s departure from the European Union and the bitter, ideologically opposed factions it created in her party.LONDON — When Prime Minister Liz Truss of Britain resigned on Thursday after only 44 days in office, she spoke almost wistfully about how the collapse of her economic plans meant she would never achieve her goal of creating a “low-tax, high-growth economy that would take advantage of the freedoms of Brexit.”Her nostalgia for Britain’s exit from the European Union might be misplaced, at least when it comes to her Conservative Party. Brexit is the fault line that runs through Ms. Truss’s ill-fated attempt to transform Britain’s economy, just as it ran through Prime Minister Theresa May’s doomed government, and David Cameron’s before hers.Except for Boris Johnson, who was forced out because of scandals related to his personal conduct, the forces unleashed by Brexit have undone every Conservative prime minister since 2016. They have also severely divided the party, creating bitter, ideologically opposed factions seemingly more interested in warring with each other than in governing a country with the world’s sixth-largest economy.Ms. Truss’s calamitous tenure, critics said, is the most extreme example of post-Brexit politics that have now brought the Conservatives to crisis. In the process, it has damaged Britain’s economic standing, its credibility in the markets, and its reputation with the public, which is watching a leadership contest that may return Mr. Johnson to the helm of a party that tossed him out only three months ago.Prime Minister Liz Truss after announcing her resignation on Thursday at Downing Street in London.Daniel Leal/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“The Conservatives are never going to recover the coherence that will make for good governance,” said Timothy Garton Ash, a professor of European studies at Oxford University. “This is a party that is tearing itself apart.”He traced the party’s unraveling from the 2016 referendum, called by Mr. Cameron, through Mrs. May’s futile efforts to craft a softer form of Brexit, to the uncompromising “hard Brexit” of Mr. Johnson, and finally to Ms. Truss’s experiment in trickle-down economics, which he said bore all of the hallmarks of Brexit thinking, from the derision of expert opinion to the disregard of Britain’s neighbors and the market.“It’s taking the logic of Brexit to the absurd,” said Professor Garton Ash, who has long lamented the vote to leave.Ms. Truss’s tax cuts made Britain an outlier among Western countries, but the factionalism of post-Brexit Britain plagues other European countries, from Italy to Germany, as well as the United States, where some may view the potential return of Mr. Johnson as a harbinger for another restless populist, Donald J. Trump.In announcing her trickle-down policies, Ms. Truss was an evangelist for a particular model of Brexit, an agile, fast-growing, lightly regulated Britain that its backers once branded Singapore-on-Thames. Whether that is a viable economic construct was never tested. Her policies were swiftly rejected by the markets because they were judged to be reckless at a time of double-digit inflation.More on the Situation in BritainA Rapid Downfall: Liz Truss is about to become the shortest-serving prime minister in British history. How did she get there?Lifelong Allowance: The departing prime minister is eligible for a taxpayer-funded annual payout for the rest of her life. Some say she shouldn’t be allowed to receive it.Staging a Comeback?: When Boris Johnson left his role as prime minister in September, he hinted he might return. He is now being mentioned as a successor to Ms. Truss.But Ms. Truss faced equally hostile forces within her own cabinet, which are fueled by the same nationalistic passions that drove Brexit.Suella Braverman, the home secretary whom Ms. Truss fired last week ostensibly for violating security rules, attacked Ms. Truss for abandoning the party’s promise to cut down immigration numbers. The prime minister talks tough about illegal immigrants, too, but her policies were shaping up to be more moderate because she believes new arrivals are needed to accelerate Britain’s growth.The clash between Ms. Truss and Ms. Braverman was part of a bigger clash between rival camps in the party — a free-market, libertarian wing, exemplified by the prime minister, and a hard-line anti-immigration wing, represented by Ms. Braverman. Those views, Ms. Braverman argues, are critical to retaining the loyalty of working-class voters in the north of England, who used to back the Labour Party but who propelled the Conservatives to a landslide general election victory in 2019.Suella Braverman, a Conservative Party hard-liner on immigration.Tolga Akmen/EPA, via ShutterstockThe party also has a centrist faction — personified by Ms. Truss’s chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt — which embraces small-government, business-friendly policies that predate Brexit. The centrists regained some influence after the market’s repudiation of Ms. Truss, when she was forced to hand over the Treasury to Mr. Hunt and the home office to one of his allies, Grant Shapps.Some major party figures, like Rishi Sunak, who served as chancellor under Mr. Johnson and is expected to run in next week’s leadership contest, do not fit neatly into a single group. He voted in favor of Brexit but opposed Ms. Truss’s tax cuts, warning that they would cause havoc in the markets.Quarrels over Britain’s relationship with Europe date back decades in the Conservative Party, of course. Mr. Cameron had little choice but to resign after failing to persuade voters to reject a motion to leave in his referendum. Mrs. May was forced out by her party’s lawmakers after trying to strike compromises with the European Union that made her look, to some, as too conciliatory.With Mr. Johnson having led Britain out of the European Union in 2020, the battles are now over how to shape its post-Brexit society. But they still revolve to a great degree around Europe-related issues, like the flow of asylum seekers across the English Channel or trade rules in Northern Ireland. Pressure from the party’s hard-liners forced Mr. Johnson and Ms. Truss to toughen their approach to Northern Ireland, for example.“The factions are on display in this leadership campaign,” said Tony Travers, a professor of politics at the London School of Economics. “But this is now on a bigger scale and profoundly affects what was once the incredible adherence of the Conservative Party to common-sense and pragmatism.”It also helps explain why Mr. Johnson, who only six weeks ago left Downing Street under a wreath of scandal that prompted a wholesale mutiny of Conservative lawmakers and a mass walkout of his ministers, suddenly finds himself a plausible candidate to retake control of the party. He returned on Saturday from a vacation in the Dominican Republic to lobby lawmakers for votes.Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson is one of three top contenders to replace Ms. Truss as prime minister.Alberto Pezzali/Associated PressMany Conservative lawmakers, fearful of losing their seats in the next general election, yearn for the political magic of “Get Brexit Done,” the upbeat slogan that Mr. Johnson used to unite the party’s affluent southeastern suburbanites with the so-called red wall voters in the Midlands and north. They are willing to accept Mr. Johnson, even with his ethical flaws, for the big-tent appeal he once commanded.“The advantage that Boris has is that he’s not interested in these factions,” Professor Travers said. “He’s not interested in ideology but in power. And the reason the members want him back is because they think he can help them stay in power.”As prime minister, Mr. Johnson did not hesitate to exploit populist passions. His government began the practice of putting asylum seekers on flights to Rwanda, drawing condemnation from human-rights lawyers and activists.But Mr. Johnson also oversaw a costly state intervention in the economy to insulate people from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. And his signature program involved spending hundreds of billions of pounds on high-speed trains and other projects to “level up” corroded cities in the north with more prosperous London.Ms. Truss said comparatively little about leveling up. One of the first moves made by her first choice as chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, was to scrap a limit on bonuses paid to bankers, a move intended to appease London’s financial district.The problem for Mr. Johnson, if he were to run and win, is that he would have far fewer financial resources this time around to govern as a big-state Conservative. Mr. Hunt has warned that the government will have to make “eye-wateringly difficult” decisions about which programs to cut. Britain’s need to rebuild its shattered credibility with investors will require strict fiscal discipline.Jeremy Hunt represents a centrist faction of the Conservative Party.Henry Nicholls/ReutersBritain’s economic troubles, experts say, cannot be blamed wholly or even mainly on Brexit. While its departure from the European Union has tightened the labor market and hampered trade, Britain’s growth never recovered after the financial crisis of 2008. Its depleted public services are a legacy of the austerity of Mr. Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne, which predated Brexit.Still, the often-ruthless tactics of the “Vote Leave” campaign, critics say, planted the seeds for the Truss government’s mishandling of economic policy. Campaigners for Brexit famously argued that the country should ignore experts who warned that leaving the European Union would exact a high cost. They brandished spurious figures about the cost for Britain of remaining in the bloc.This experts-be-damned philosophy was the underpinning of Ms. Truss’s economic plan. When Mr. Kwarteng announced the tax cuts, he refused to submit them to scrutiny by the government’s independent watchdog. He fired the most senior civil servant at the Treasury, Tom Scholar, a sign of his disdain for economic orthodoxy.“It wasn’t so much the fact of Brexit, or even the referendum itself, but the dishonesty of the referendum campaign,” said Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London. “They took a lesson from that, which was that dishonesty and trashing institutions was a way to success.” More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Auge y caída de Liz Truss en la escena política del Reino Unido

      by

      Cuando solo habían transcurrido un poco más de seis semanas del inicio de su gestión, la primera ministra británica anunció su renuncia.LONDRES — El colapso político de Liz Truss concluyó con el anuncio de su renuncia el jueves 20 de octubre, poco más de seis semanas después de haberse convertido en la primera ministra del Reino Unido. Sus planes trastabillaron, su propio partido le dio la espalda y proliferaron los pronósticos de comentaristas de todos los ámbitos de que no podría sobrevivir más tiempo que una lechuga fresca. Y así fue.Truss reiteró su determinación de vadear la tormenta política a pesar del clamor generalizado que pedía su renuncia. Por desgracia, la presión aumentaba minuto a minuto… hasta que, en cierto momento, se percató de que no había salida.Si necesitas ponerte al día, a continuación te presentamos una síntesis de los hechos básicos.¿Quién es Liz Truss y cómo se convirtió en primera ministra?El 6 de septiembre, Truss fue designada para remplazar a Boris Johnson, quien fue elegido por los votantes en 2019, pero sufrió una espectacular caída tras una serie de escándalos que no le dejaron más remedio que abandonar el cargo en julio.Los ciudadanos no eligieron a Truss, sino que ascendió al poder gracias a su triunfo en una contienda interna del Partido Conservador para convertirse en su dirigente. Para elegir al sustituto de Johnson, los miembros del partido en el Parlamento seleccionaron, de entre un grupo de candidatos, solo a dos. Estos dos candidatos se sometieron a una votación en la que participaron alrededor de 160.000 miembros del partido que pagan su afiliación (se trata de un grupo nada representativo de una nación de 67 millones de residentes, pues en su mayoría son varones de edad avanzada, blancos y de clase media).Truss, de 47 años, fungió como secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores durante el gobierno de Johnson. Favorecía medidas políticas agresivas, era partidaria del libre mercado y, tras cambiar de opinión, apoyó el brexit, con lo que se ganó al bando de derecha del partido a pesar de su pasado más moderado (antes de integrarse al Partido Conservador, perteneció al Partido Liberal Demócratas, un movimiento de centro, durante sus años de estudiante en la Universidad de Oxford).¿Cómo empezó su declive?Nunca fue una tarea fácil. Cuando Truss asumió el cargo, la nación enfrentaba un panorama económico desastroso, especialmente porque se esperaba que los costos de la energía se elevaran un 80 por ciento en octubre y que volvieran a subir en enero. Esta situación amenazaba con condenar a millones de británicos, que ya sufrían los efectos de la inflación y otros problemas, a condiciones de pobreza extrema que les imposibilitaran calentar su hogar o usar electricidad.Así que, cuando los planes económicos que tanto promovió empeoraron esos problemas, el descontento masivo no se hizo esperar.Sus planes de recortes fiscales, desregulación y uso de préstamos causaron tal alarma entre los inversionistas de todo el mundo, que el valor de la libra británica cayó a niveles récord con respecto al dólar. El Banco de Inglaterra tomó medidas para apuntalar los bonos soberanos, en una intervención extraordinaria con la intención de calmar a los mercados.Esta respuesta demostró que sus ambiciones de libre mercado eran insostenibles. En una decisión humillante, esta semana se vio obligada a revertir casi todos los recortes fiscales, incluido uno aplicable al grupo de mayores ingresos que fue objeto de muchas críticas. Despidió a Kwasi Kwarteng, el ministro de Hacienda encargado de preparar el plan y su aliado cercano, y adoptó políticas económicas promovidas por el Partido Laborista, el partido de oposición.“No es posible dar un giro total como el que ella dio y esperar que tu credibilidad política se mantenga”, dijo Jon Tonge, profesor de política en la Universidad de Liverpool.¿Cómo puso en peligro su cargo?Sus concesiones no lograron apaciguar la rebelión que se propagaba dentro de su propio partido que, como le sucedió a Johnson, tenía el poder para derrocarla.Los conservadores (también conocidos como tories), que ya habían sufrido una marcada caída en sus índices de popularidad en la opinión pública tras los escándalos de Johnson, vieron sus estadísticas hundirse a profundidades impresionantes con los tropiezos de Truss. Una encuesta dada a conocer por Redfield & Wilton Strategies esta semana reveló el porcentaje de aprobación más bajo registrado en la historia para un primer ministro: el 70 por ciento de la población ve con malos ojos a Truss y ese porcentaje incluye al 67 por ciento de los conservadores.Si se celebraran elecciones generales el día de hoy, el 56 por ciento de los votos favorecerían al Partido Laborista, mientras que el 20 por ciento de los electores votarían por el Partido Conservador, según la encuesta.El descontento del Partido Conservador con Truss llegó a su clímax y se vio envuelta en un ambiente palpable de crisis. El miércoles 19 de octubre, explotó en una lucha frenética por su supervivencia. En pleno bombardeo de preguntas de los miembros del Parlamento, declaró: “Siempre lucho, no me doy por vencida”.Entonces, sobrevino una oleada de caos. Suella Braverman, la ministra británica del Interior, que se vio obligada a renunciar a causa del uso indebido de su correo electrónico, aprovechó su carta de renuncia para criticar a Truss, expresando “inquietud por la dirección que ha tomado este gobierno”. Además, una votación sobre el tema de la fracturación hidráulica en el Parlamento se transformó, según la información que circula, en una escena de hostigamiento, gritos, maltrato físico y lágrimas. Más conservadores del Parlamento expresaron abiertamente su deseo de que Truss renunciara al cargo. Y empezaron a correr rumores sobre renuncias al más alto nivel. En ese contexto, resultaba difícil tener información actualizada.“En resumen, es un caos total, absoluto y abyecto”, dijo un presentador de noticias en iTV. Charles Walker, un legislador conservador, no se contuvo en una entrevista en la BBC.El jueves, Truss anunció que había entregado su renuncia al rey y que el plan era elegir una nueva dirigencia en el plazo de una semana.¿Y ahora qué?Los conservadores planean elegir al próximo primer ministro la próxima semana. (Aquí ofrecemos un listado de los candidatos favoritos).El partido ha optado por un proceso simplificado que fue diseñado para evitar una campaña larga. Los candidatos deben recibir 100 nominaciones entre 357 legisladores conservadores antes de las 2:00 p.m. del 24 de octubre. Si solo un candidato alcanza el umbral, esa persona se convertirá en el primer ministro.Si dos candidatos logran las 100 nominaciones, los legisladores votarán para indicar cuál tiene más apoyo. Si el finalista del segundo lugar no se retira, los aproximadamente 160.000 miembros del partido votarán en una encuesta en línea que finaliza el viernes.Si tres candidatos cruzan el umbral, la votación de los legisladores que se celebrará el 24 de octubre eliminará a un candidato, y los dos primeros clasificados avanzarán a la votación en línea.El candidato ganador será el segundo líder consecutivo del Reino Unido que no ha sido escogido en elecciones generales. Truss seguirá siendo primera ministra hasta que su sucesor sea elegido.Las próximas elecciones generales, en las que podrán participar todos los ciudadanos y el Partido Laborista tendrá una nueva oportunidad para tomar el control, están programadas para enero de 2025, a más tardar. El dirigente conservador podría convocar a elecciones antes, pero no sería nada lógico hacerlo pronto, pues las encuestas indican que el partido sufriría una derrota arrasadora frente al Partido Laborista.Tonge subrayó que una ventaja que tienen los conservadores es el tiempo. En teoría, el partido podría recuperar su credibilidad si la economía se recupera en los siguientes años, señaló.“No creo que el cambio de liderazgo garantice que los conservadores se salven”, aseveró. “Pero es posible que sea una buena medida para limitar los daños”.Daniel Victor es un reportero de temas generales radicado en Londres; ha reportado desde Hong Kong y Nueva York. Se unió al Times en 2012. @bydanielvictor More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      What Happened With Liz Truss in Britain? A Guide to the Basics.

      by

      A little over six weeks into her leadership, the British prime minister said she would resign.LONDON — The rapid political collapse of Liz Truss ended as she announced her resignation on Thursday, a little more than six weeks after she became Britain’s leader. Her agenda had floundered, her own party had turned on her and commentators widely speculated on whether she could outlast a head of lettuce. She couldn’t.She had pledged to shoulder through the turmoil despite widespread calls for her resignation. But minute by minute the heat on her grew until there was no path out.If you need to get caught up, here is a guide to the basics.Who is Liz Truss and how did she become prime minister?Ms. Truss was anointed on Sept. 6 to replace Boris Johnson, who was elected by voters in 2019 but who flamed out in spectacular fashion after a series of scandals, forcing him to step down in July.The general public did not elect Ms. Truss — instead, she won a leadership contest among members of her Conservative Party. To replace Mr. Johnson, the party’s members of Parliament narrowed a field of candidates to two, who were then put up to a vote by about 160,000 dues-paying party members. (They’re an unrepresentative group of the nation’s 67 million residents, far more likely to be male, older, middle-class and white.)Ms. Truss, 47, had been Mr. Johnson’s hawkish foreign secretary, a free-market champion and eventual supporter of Brexit (after she changed her mind), winning over the right flank of the party despite her more moderate past. (Before joining the Conservative Party, she was a member of the centrist Liberal Democrats when she was a student at Oxford University.)How did it start to come undone?She was never going to have it easy. As Ms. Truss entered office, the nation was staring down a calamitous economic picture, highlighted by energy bills that were predicted to jump 80 percent in October and jump again in January. It threatened to send millions of Britons, already reeling from inflation and other challenges, spiraling into destitution, unable to heat or power their homes.So it was unwelcome news when her signature economic plans immediately made things worse.Her announced plans for tax cuts, deregulation and borrowing so alarmed global investors that the value of the British pound sank to a record low against the U.S. dollar. The Bank of England stepped in to prop up government bonds, an extraordinary intervention to calm the markets.The response left no doubt that her free-market ambitions were untenable. In a humiliating reversal, she was forced to reverse virtually all of the tax cuts this week, including a much-criticized one on high earners. She fired Kwasi Kwarteng, the chancellor of the Exchequer who was the architect of the plan and a close ally, and adopted economic policies favored by the opposition Labour party.“You cannot engage in the sort of U-turn that she has engaged in and retain your political credibility,” said Jon Tonge, a professor of politics at the University of Liverpool.How did her tenure come under threat?Her concessions did little to mollify a growing rebellion from within her own party, which had the power to topple her in much the same way it toppled Mr. Johnson.The Conservatives — also known as Tories — had seen their popularity decline in public opinion polls after Mr. Johnson’s scandals, and their numbers cratered to staggering new lows as Ms. Truss stumbled. A Redfield & Wilton Strategies poll this week revealed the lowest approval rating it had ever recorded for a prime minister, with 70 percent disapproving of Ms. Truss, including 67 percent of Conservatives.If a general election were held today, 56 percent would vote for Labour while 20 percent would vote Conservative, the poll found.The Conservative Party’s discontent with Ms. Truss crescendoed in turn, and she was enveloped with a palpable sense of crisis. On Wednesday, it boiled into a frantic fight for her survival — “I’m a fighter and not a quitter,” she said while being grilled by members of Parliament.Then even more chaos broke out. Suella Braverman, Britain’s interior minister, stepped down after an email breach, but took a swipe at Ms. Truss in her resignation letter, saying she had “concerns about the direction of this government.” A vote on fracking in Parliament turned into a reported scene of bullying, shouting, physical manhandling and tears. More Conservative members of Parliament openly called for Ms. Truss to step down. Rumors swirled of high-profile resignations. It was difficult to keep up.“In short, it is total, absolute, abject chaos,” a news announcer said on iTV. Charles Walker, a Conservative lawmaker, did not hold back in an interview on BBC.On Thursday, she said she had handed her resignation to the king, with a new leadership election planned within a week.What comes next?Ms. Truss will remain prime minister until her successor is chosen. (Here are the likely front-runners.) In her resignation remarks, Ms. Truss said a leadership election would be completed in the next week, bringing Britain its second unelected leader in a row.The next general election — when the entire public can participate, and the next opportunity for Labour to take control — is not scheduled until January 2025 at the latest. A Conservative leader could call for one earlier, but they would have little reason to do so imminently since polls indicate the party would be wiped out by Labour.Mr. Tonge said one advantage Conservatives have is time — the party could theoretically regain credibility if the economy recovers in the following years, he said.“I don’t think that changing the leader will necessarily save the Conservatives,” he said. “But you can engage in damage limitation by doing so.” More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Why the British Pound Continues to Sink

      by

      Britain’s pound coin — rimmed in nickel and brass with an embossed image of Queen Elizabeth II at the center — could always be counted on to be significantly more valuable than the dollar.Such boasting rights effectively came to an end this week when the value of the pound sank to its lowest recorded level: £1 = $1.03 after falling more than 20 percent this year.The nearly one-to-one parity between the currencies sounded the close of a chapter in Britain’s history nearly as much as the metronomic footfalls of the procession that carried the queen’s funeral bier up the pavement to Windsor Castle.“The queen’s death for many people brought to an end a long era of which the soft power in the United Kingdom” was paramount, said Ian Goldin, professor of globalization and development at the University of Oxford. “The pound’s demise to its lowest level is sort of indicative of this broader decline in multiple dimensions.”The immediate cause of the pound’s alarming fall on Monday was the announcement of a spending and tax plan by Britain’s new Conservative government, which promised steep tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthiest individuals along with expensive measures to help blunt the painful rise in energy prices on consumers and businesses.The sense of crisis ramped up Wednesday when the Bank of England intervened, in a rare move, and warned of “material risk to U.K. financial stability” from the government’s plan. The central bank said it would start buying British government bonds “on whatever scale is necessary” to stem a sell-off in British debt.The Bank of England’s emergency action seemed at odds with its efforts that began months ago to try to slow the nearly 10 percent annual inflation rate, which has lifted the price of essentials like petrol and food to painful levels.Rising Inflation in BritainInflation Slows Slightly: Consumer prices are still rising at about the fastest pace in 40 years, despite a small drop to 9.9 percent in August.Interest Rates: On Sept. 22, the Bank of England raised its key rate by another half a percentage point, to 2.25 percent, as it tries to keep high inflation from becoming embedded in the nation’s economy.Energy Bills to Soar: Gas and electric charges for most British households are set to rise 80 percent this fall, further squeezing consumers and stoking inflation.Investor Worries: The financial markets have been grumbling with unease about Britain’s economic outlook. The government plan to freeze energy bills and cut taxes is not easing concerns.The swooning pound this week has carried an unmistakable political message, amounting to a no-confidence vote by the world’s financial community in the economic strategy proposed by Prime Minister Liz Truss and her chancellor of the Exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng.To Mr. Goldin, the pound’s journey indicates a decline in economic and political influence that accelerated when Britain voted to leave the European Union in 2016. In many respects, Britain already has the worst performing economy, aside from Russia, of the 38-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.“It’s just a question of time before it falls out of the top 10 economies in the world,” Mr. Goldin said. Britain ranks sixth, having been surpassed by India.Eswar Prasad, an economist at Cornell University, said this latest plunge had delivered a bracing blow to Britain’s standing. A series of “self-inflicted wounds,” including Brexit and the government’s latest spending plan, have accelerated the pound’s slide and further endangered London’s status as a global financial center.Dozens of currencies, including the euro, the Japanese yen and the Chinese renminbi, have slumped in recent weeks. Rising interest rates and a relatively bright economic outlook in the United States combined with turmoil in the global economy have made investments in dollars particularly appealing.But the revival by the Truss government of an extreme version of Thatcher and Reagan-era “trickle-down” economic policies elicited a brutal response.“The problem isn’t that the U.K. budget was inflationary,” wrote Dario Perkins, a managing director at TS Lombard, a research firm, on Twitter. “It’s that it was moronic.”To some, the pound’s journey indicates a decline in Britain’s economic and political influence.Suzie Howell for The New York TimesDuring the more than 1,000 years in which the pound sterling has reigned as Britain’s national currency, it has suffered its share of ups and downs. Its value in the modern era could never match the value of an actual pound of silver, which in the 10th century could buy 15 cows.Over the centuries, British leaders have often gone to extraordinary lengths to protect the pound’s value, viewing its strength as a sign of the country’s economic power and influence. King Henry I issued a decree in 1125 ordering that those who produced substandard currency “lose their right hand and be castrated.”In the 1960s, the Labour government under Harold Wilson so resisted devaluing the pound — then set at a fixed rate of $2.80, high enough to be holding back the British economy — that he ordered cabinet papers discussing the idea to be burned. In 1967, the government finally cut its value by 14 percent to $2.40.Other economic crises thrashed the pound. In the 1970s, when oil prices skyrocketed and Britain’s inflation rate topped 25 percent, the government was compelled to ask the International Monetary Fund for a $3.9 billion loan. In the mid-1980s, when high U.S. interest rates and a Reagan administration spending spree jacked up the dollar’s value, the pound fell to a then record low.The pound’s dominance has been waning since the end of World War II. Today, the global economy is experiencing a particularly tumultuous time as it recovers from the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, supply chain breakdowns, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an energy shortage and soaring inflation.As Richard Portes, an economics professor at London Business School, said, currency exchanges have enormous swings over time. The euro was worth 82 cents in its early days, he recalled, and people referred to it as a “toilet paper” currency. But by 2008, its value had doubled to $1.60.What might cause the pound to revive is not clear.The Truss government’s economic program has forcefully accelerated the pound’s slide — the latest in a series of what many economists consider egregious economic missteps that peaked with Brexit.Much depends on the Truss government.“The plunge in the pound is the result of policy choices, not some historical inevitability” said Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “Whether this is a new, grim era or just an unfortunate interlude depends on whether they reverse course or are kicked out at the next election.”As it happens, the Bank of England is preparing to issue new pound bank notes and coins featuring King Charles III, at the very moment that the pound has dropped to record lows.“The death of the queen and the fall of the pound do seem jointly to signify decisively the end of an era,” Mr. Prasad of Cornell said. “These two events could be considered markers in a long historical procession in the British economy and the pound sterling becoming far less important than they once were.” More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Turkish Author Ece Temelkuran Sees a Contested U.S. Election Through the Lens of an Attempted Coup

      by

      Ece Temelkuran, a Turkish author, sees parallels between Donald Trump’s claims of election theft and the 2016 attempt to depose Recep Tayyip Erdogan.This article is from a special report on the Athens Democracy Forum, which convenes this week in the Greek capital to examine the ways in which self-governance might evolve.When President Donald J. Trump announced in November 2020 that he had been robbed of victory in the presidential election that month, the author and political commentator Ece Temelkuran (pronounced eh-jeh) drew direct parallels with her homeland, Turkey.“Make no mistake, this is an attempted coup,” she wrote in an editorial for The Guardian. “If it were happening in Turkey, the world’s media would not think twice about calling it so.”Ms. Temelkuran spoke from experience. She lived through the July 2016 coup attempt against the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and left the country to avoid the crackdown that followed. Three years later, she published “How to Lose a Country: The 7 Steps from Democracy to Dictatorship,” a nonfiction book that charted a democratic country’s potential slide into authoritarianism.Ms. Temelkuran was born into a political family. Her mother was a student activist who was imprisoned after a military coup in Turkey in the 1970s and rescued by a young lawyer whom she would go on to marry.When she was 16, Ms. Temelkuran started writing for a feminist magazine and went on to become one of Turkey’s most widely read political commentators.She remains a high-profile commentator today while she lives in Hamburg, Germany, where she is a fellow at the New Institute’s Future of Democracy program.In a recent interview, Ms. Temelkuran spoke of the threats to democracy in the West and in her native Turkey. This conversation has been edited and condensed.Since you published your book “How to Lose Your Country,” a few things have happened. Mr. Trump is no longer in power. Nor is the British prime minister Boris Johnson, who championed Britain’s exit from the European Union. How do you view the world today?I think there’s too much optimism, and also too much pessimism. The optimists think that if they get rid of Boris Johnson or Trump, everything will be back to normal in terms of democracy — that we can just fix a few mechanisms in the democratic machine, and we will be fine after that. I think this is a deeper crisis: a cluster of crises, actually, that we have to look deeper into.The crisis of democracy is very much intertwined with the crisis of capitalism. There is no way out, unless we address the issue of social equality.Ece Temelkuran is an author and political commentator who lives in Hamburg, Germany, where she is a fellow at the New Institute’s Future of Democracy program.Roberto Ricciuti/Getty ImagesYou say democracy in its present form is dead, because capitalism is essentially incompatible with democracy. Can you explain?Right-wing populist movements did not suddenly appear in the last 10 years. We have to go back to the 1980s to understand what really is happening in the world today, especially in terms of democracy.Democracy stands on the fundamental promise of equality and social justice. Capitalism does not promise social justice. If people are not equal in real terms, meaning financially and economically, how can you promise them equality as citizens?Why do you believe that capitalism is at odds with social justice?People pretend as if the rights that workers enjoy — Sundays off, eight-hour work days, etc. — are all thanks to capitalism. In fact, whatever the working classes have achieved or earned has come after a very long and hard struggle against the ruling classes.The depoliticization of society in the 1970s and 1980s contributed to an infantilization of citizens — to their perception of politics as being dirty. This massive depoliticization contributed to the right-wing populist movements of today. That’s why we have all these masses who believe that Trump is the savior, or that Brexit will make Britain great again.Another consequence was that we were made to be afraid of words like socialism, social democracy, regulation, financial regulation. These words became taboo after the 1970s.We’ve ended up in a place where we don’t even allow ourselves to think of a better system than capitalism. It is as if the end of capitalism were to lead to the end of the world.You use the word fascism to describe political realities in the West. That word has serious historical resonance. Why use it?Because I think we should use that word. We were made to believe that fascism was buried in the battlefields of the Second World War. The version that wears boots and uniform was buried, yes. But fascism does not just come in a uniform and boots, marching in goose step. If freedom of speech, freedom of organization, and the rights of the working classes are oppressed, that builds up to fascism.In countries such as the United States and Britain, the democratic establishment is powerful enough to protect itself. But in countries where the political and democratic establishment is not mature enough, you see fully formed oppression. There is no doubt that these are regimes that we can easily call fascism — in Turkey, in India, and in several other countries.Parliamentary democracies aren’t suddenly going to turn Hitlerian, are they?They don’t need to. At the time of Hitler, there was a need to be oppressive and violent because there was a massive union movement in Germany and the rest of Europe, a socialist movement. Nowadays, there is no such thing. So why use violence? They can use post-truths or social media to manipulate people, to spread misinformation and so on.If we can shift global politics to being more progressive, then we can get rid of these movements. At the moment, the center of the political spectrum is empty. Centrist politicians don’t have a story with which to mobilize and organize people. There’s a vacuum.Take French President Emmanuel Macron, for example. Why is he there? Because everybody is so afraid of far-right leader Marine Le Pen. For the last decade, at least, voting has become a tool to protect us from the worst.This is not politics. It’s a survival reaction.Unless the center opens its arms to the left and to progressives, there is no way out for democracy in the world.Turkey was for a long time a model when it came to the transition to democracy in the Muslim world. What’s going on there now?It’s a massive form of dictatorship. But then these dictatorships do not have to use violence. Now they’re using a different political tool, which is this very wide web of political money that spans the entire country. Even the smallest sympathizer to the party is getting this money. They have a good life. If you are part of the party, or in the party circle, you have a life. Otherwise, it’s not just economic transactions that are impossible. You cannot exercise your basic rights as a citizen.There are first-class citizens who are submissive to the party or Erdogan, and the others. The others, as Erdogan has said, are welcome to leave, and they are leaving. There is a massive brain drain from Turkey at the moment. It’s another tragic story. Doctors, nurses, well-educated people, academics: They’re all leaving.What’s the way out?The way out, which Turkish political forces are in a very inadequate way trying at the moment, is coming together: for all the opposition parties, despite their political differences, to come together and, in the interests of democracy, participate in elections. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Disappearing World of Wolfgang Tillmans

      by

      It doesn’t seem like a titillating photograph: an orderly queue of Germans, waiting to enter a nondescript industrial site. It is dark. Just a single light illuminates the door. What does it look like? Like a color remake of Depression-era imagery: the factory entrance, the bread line.But the men in single file — they are all men — are at this factory not to work but to play. This old train shed in the former East Berlin has been reborn as Snax, a raunchy gay nightclub, and that light in the darkness is the gateway to pleasure. It’s 2001 now, the wall is a memory. The world is flat, we are young and proud. We got here on a train, there are no more border controls, or maybe we got here on a cheap new airline called easyJet.We are ready to dance, and to do other things in the dark. The party will go on well past sunrise. It feels like it might go on forever.Wolfgang Tillmans, “Outside Snax Club,” 2001.Wolfgang Tillmans, via David Zwirner, New York/Hong Kong; Galerie Buchholz, Berlin/Cologne; Maureen Paley, London“Outside Snax Club” (2001) is one little star in a constellation of photographs by Wolfgang Tillmans at the Museum of Modern Art: one node in a life’s network of tender portraits, straightforward still lifes and streaky abstractions. The sky from a window seat. A boy’s feet in tube socks. An apple tree in the London morning, a kiss stolen in the London night. The German photographer has been taking these deceptively natural pictures since 1986, and linking them in exhibitions and books that absorb different modes of photography into idiosyncratic associations. These have made Tillmans (especially to gay audiences) not just a renowned artist, but someone we feel we know personally. He is just “Wolfgang,” even to many who have never met him; his photos are intimacy enough.“Wolfgang Tillmans: To Look Without Fear,” which opens to museum members this weekend and to the public Monday, is one of the most anticipated exhibitions of the year; actually, it’s been anticipated longer than that. Roxana Marcoci, a MoMA senior curator, has been working since 2014 on this tremendous, pandemic-detained overview, the largest of Tillmans’s career. It rambles across the museum’s sixth floor, vacant for more than a year and a half. It includes 417 works (mostly photographs, though there are a few minor videos) displayed, as always with Tillmans, in asymmetric arrays of large and small prints. He affixes the majority to the wall with Scotch tape or bulldog clips — although, as with the soft lighting and easy cropping of his photography, the ostensibly “informal” hang is actually calculated to the quarter-inch.Tillmans presents his photographs taped to or clipped to the wall, and prints them anew for each exhibition. Left, “Deer Hirsch” (1995). Right, “Smokin’ Jo” (1995). Emile Askey/The Museum of Modern Art, New York“Omen” (1991), printed at small scale and taped to the side of a free-standing gallery wall of the Museum of Modern Art.Lila Barth for The New York TimesThe show is candid, unaffected, breezily intelligent; moralistic, too, in the later galleries. It is required viewing for both photography scholars and sportswear fetishists, and a worthy retrospective of one of the most significant artists to emerge at the end of the last century. (The show will tour next year to Toronto and San Francisco.)It is also — in a way I was not prepared for — one of the saddest museum exhibitions I have ever attended. It is a show of friends lost, of technologies abandoned, of cities grown insular, of principles forsaken. It maps, over 35 years, the ascent of a photographer to the height of his profession, and then the disintegration of almost everything he loved, the art form of photography not least among them.We follow the fragile peace of the ’90s into a century of war, extremism, post-truth and privation. We follow the artist through the last days of the darkroom and the rise of digital cameras, which he adopted with only moderate success. A sunset in Puerto Rico, a club night in Hackney, the transit of Venus, liquid concrete before it hardens: “To Look Without Fear” confirms that Tillmans has always been a photographer of transience, of things here today and gone tomorrow. Now his two hometowns, Berlin and London, are both facing frigid winters with life-threatening power shortages, and his whole world feels on the cusp of vanishing.Tillmans was born in 1968 in the industrial heartland of West Germany. He had a childhood love of astronomy, acquiring his first telescope at age 12, and of British pop groups like New Order and Culture Club that inspired a lifelong passion for London. (In 1983, on an exchange program in the British capital, the 14-year-old Tillmans somehow got past the bouncer at the gay nightclub Heaven, but left early to get the last Tube home.)The artist considers “Lacanau (self),” from 1986, to be his first self-portrait. Lila Barth for The New York Times“Selbstportrait (Self-portrait),” from 1988, when Tillmans was 20.Wolfgang Tillmans, via David Zwirner, New York/Hong Kong; Galerie Buchholz, Berlin/Cologne; Maureen Paley, London“Faltenwurf (Keithstrasse),” a 2021 example of Tillmans’s drapery studies.Wolfgang Tillmans, via David Zwirner, New York/Hong Kong; Galerie Buchholz, Berlin/Cologne; Maureen Paley, London.Photography came more accidentally. On the beach in France one summer, Tillmans aimed a point-and-shoot camera at his flexed knee and silky black Adidas shorts: a first, abstracted self-portrait. That picture is in the first room at MoMA, and one of the funnier leitmotifs of “To Look Without Fear” is the three stripes of the Adidas logo, a queer sportswear fixation that endures even as cities and bodies change. At the show’s entrance we see the 20-year-old Tillmans in a skimpy red Adidas bathing suit. At its exit is a photograph from three decades later of another, crumpled pair of glistening red Adidas shorts: a drapery study, a memento mori.He moved to Britain for art school but got his break in magazines, shooting raves, festivals, and also fashion editorials. The London indie magazine i-D first published this show’s well-traveled photographs of his friends Lutz and Alex, gripping each other’s androgynous bodies. A giant portrait of the British DJ Smokin’ Jo, her silver sequined dress twinkling in the golden hour, was a commission for Interview. There were new gay magazines like Attitude, for which he photographed Tony Blair, and Butt, which printed his images of half-dressed fashion designers on pink paper, like a not-safe-for-work Financial Times.“Lutz & Alex sitting in the trees” (1992), a double portrait of Tillmans’s childhood friends.Wolfgang Tillmans, via David Zwirner, New York/Hong Kong; Galerie Buchholz, Berlin/Cologne; Maureen Paley, LondonHe was shooting on 35 mm rather than in large formats; he disdained the tripod, abjured conspicuous lighting. Nan Goldin comes to mind before some of his halcyon ’90s pictures, and she herself appears with two nudes in a 1996 Tillmans idyll: a millennial remake of Manet’s “Le Déjeuner sur l’Herbe.” But he’s far less diaristic than Goldin, and a more relevant influence may be the New Objectivity of 1920s Berlin, where painters and photographers like Christian Schad and Otto Dix made a virtue of hard surfaces and louche life.His partyers are often standing still. His nudes are almost always staged. The same cool, surface-level gaze falls upon the windows of London skyscrapers, the water of pools and oceans, and the great love of his youth, the painter Jochen Klein. Klein appears in two of this show’s largest prints: “Deer Hirsch” (1995), a rare black-and-white photograph of Klein and a young buck, staring wondrously at each other on an empty beach, and “Jochen taking a bath” (1997), shot months before his death from AIDS-related pneumonia. (The memory of that photo haunts a 2015 image of the singer Frank Ocean, another sad young man with closely cropped hair against white tiles.)Wolfgang Tillmans, “Jochen taking a bath,” 1997.Wolfgang Tillmans, via David Zwirner, New York/Hong Kong; Galerie Buchholz, Berlin/Cologne; Maureen Paley, London“Frank, in the shower” (2015), depicting the singer Frank Ocean.Wolfgang Tillmans, via David Zwirner, New York/Hong Kong; Galerie Buchholz, Berlin/Cologne; Maureen Paley, LondonWhat mattered more than the photographer’s subjects was the photographer’s regard. It was applied equally, unobtrusively, across genres — portrait, landscape, nude, still life — and united in the taped-up arrangements he first tried out in 1993. All together, on the gallery wall, the modest photographs could express a new, politically and sexually charged way of being in the world. They were promiscuous: not (or not only) in the word’s libertine sense, but freely mixing, ready to be rearranged, most themselves when with others. They were urban, too, and came to typify a newly vibrant and international London, where the mammoth Tate Modern opened in 2000 and, in the same year, Tillmans became the first non-British laureate of the Turner Prize.Later, in the 2005 exhibition “Truth Study Center,” Tillmans introduced a new display module that mixed his photographs with newspaper clippings (about war, fundamentalism, and also scientific breakthroughs) on low wooden tables. With these didactic works he meant to resist the absolutes of Bush-Blair rhetoric, but they ended up as preachy show-and-tell displays: a first act in the 21st-century domestication of Tillmans’s youthful freedom. Anyway, by the time of “Truth Study Center,” different and more disruptive photographic arrangements were coming into view on our (desktop) screens. The tacked-up pictures and the carefully laid-out tables would give way to the image-search grid and the social feed. Tillmans’s unframed printouts were becoming atavistic. The independent magazines where he found his voice were on their last legs.“Freischwimmer 26,” 2003. The abstract work is one of a series of pictures Tillmans has made without a camera, by exposing photo paper to lasers and other light sources.Wolfgang Tillmans, via David Zwirner, New York/Hong Kong; Galerie Buchholz, Berlin/Cologne; Maureen Paley, LondonHis most powerful response to this century’s explosion of images has been the cameraless “Freischwimmer” abstractions, begun in 2003. So beautiful, these pictures: grand, streaky expanses of color, suggesting bodies or currents, made by exposing photosensitive paper to lasers and other hand-held lights. Yet something began to go sour in the Tillmans method around the time of his adoption of a digital camera in 2008. Large, colorful prints of a Shanghai street or an Argentine shantytown are too crisp, artificially alienated. Recent portraits, such as the Frank Ocean photograph, forsake the soft-focus intimacy of the ’90s for hard-candy sheen. The later party pictures are really dreadful: The black tones have lost all their mystery, the sex appeal has drained, and in a time of ubiquitous cameraphones his no-style style feels redundant.Absent at MoMA, though discussed in Marcoci’s catalog, is Tillmans’s most widely seen digital endeavor: his posters for the 2016 referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union. Made in a season of now justified panic, these balmy images of jet-trail-crossed skies or the cliffs of Dover, overlaid with pleas for apathetic youth to vote Remain, were freely distributed online. “What is lost is lost forever,” read the caption on the most ethereal of these posters, and he wasn’t kidding. With Brexit, the imagery of borders introduced earlier that decade — the concrete walls of Gaza, the customs line at Gatwick — arrived at Tillmans’s doorstep. He thought the lack of artifice, the pictures everyone could read, might inspire people to live together; it turned out he was speaking a language narrower than he’d ever known. A 2021 photo of worn-out maroon passports (the color of all E.U. member states’ travel documents; the Johnson government replaced Britain’s with a blue one) might as well be a grave marker for Tillmans’s London. Some people really did have more freedoms when they were young.Recent works by Wolfgang Tillmans at MoMA, including, at center, “Kae Tempest” (2021).Lila Barth for The New York TimesWe all age. We all lose things. And yet I don’t blame Tillmans at all for considering, as he tells my colleague Matthew Anderson in this Sunday’s New York Times, that he might take a sabbatical and leave art for electoral politics. The democratic impulse in his photography, manifested through simple commercial lenses and unpretentious printouts, has receded into self-righteousness now, and his collisions of self-portraits, celebrity pictures, handsome sunsets and political slogans — well, how can these retain their force when a hundred million social media profiles do the same? He has reached the end of something, summed up with panache and great melancholy in this important show, and his accomplishment, not unlike E.U. membership, is easier to appreciate once it’s lost. Those late, sweaty ’90s nights: then, we were sure we had met the chronicler of a new millennium’s freedoms. What if Tillmans was instead a harbinger of the artist as entrepreneur of the self, and of how we would all go on posting pictures even as our misfortunes piled up offscreen?Wolfgang Tillmans: To Look Without FearOpens to members Sept. 9 and to the public Sept. 12 through Jan. 1, 2023, Museum of Modern Art, 11 West 53 Street, Manhattan, (212) 708-9400, moma.org. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Quién es Liz Truss, primera ministra del Reino Unido?

      by

      La destreza ideológica de la nueva líder británica, que algunos críticos califican de oportunismo, la ha ayudado a avanzar peldaños en la política. Ahora necesitará toda su habilidad para tener éxito.LONDRES — Cuando era una apasionada estudiante de 19 años en Oxford en 1994, Elizabeth Truss pidió un referéndum para abolir la monarquía británica, diciendo a una audiencia de compañeros demócratas liberales: “No creemos que la gente deba nacer para gobernar”.El martes, tres décadas después, Truss, quien ahora tiene 47 años y es conocida como Liz, viajó a un castillo escocés para ser ungida por la reina Isabel II como la nueva primera ministra del Reino Unido, con lo que completa así una odisea política que la ha llevado de ser una republicana bulliciosa a convertirse en la líder del Partido Conservador, revestida de tradición.Hace tiempo que Truss se decantó por la monarquía por considerarla buena para la democracia británica, y también hace tiempo que abandonó el ala liberal-demócrata por el ala conservadora. Más recientemente, cambió de bando en lo que respecta al brexit: antes del referéndum de 2016 se oponía al esfuerzo para que el Reino Unido abandonara la Unión Europea, y luego revirtió el rumbo y se convirtió en una de sus más fervientes evangelizadoras.Su destreza ideológica —los críticos lo llamarían oportunismo— ha contribuido a impulsar a Truss a la cúspide de la política británica. La preparación de Truss para los rigores del trabajo es otra cuestión, teniendo en cuenta las graves tendencias económicas que envuelven al país, y un partido tory que parece dividido entre el deseo de un nuevo comienzo y el arrepentimiento por haber echado a su extravagante predecesor, Boris Johnson.Simpatizantes animando a Truss en un acto de campaña en Manchester, Inglaterra, en agosto. Su mensaje se centró en bajar los impuestos y reducir el gobierno.Molly Darlington/ReutersTruss, según ella misma admite, no tiene el carisma de Johnson. Es torpe socialmente, mientras que él es de trato fácil, es vacilante en su modo de hablar, mientras que él es fluido. Pero Truss avanzó las filas del partido con lo que sus colegas describen como resistencia, empuje y un apetito por la política disruptiva. Cuando Johnson tuvo problemas, se posicionó con destreza: no rompió nunca públicamente con él y se mantuvo en el centro de la atención como una secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores de línea dura.“Tiene mucha confianza en sus instintos”, dijo Marc Stears, un politólogo que fue tutor de Truss cuando estaba en Oxford. “Está dispuesta a correr riesgos y a decir cosas que otros no están dispuestos a decir. A veces, eso le funciona; otras veces, la perjudica”.Acartonada en público, Truss es divertida en privado, dicen sus amigos, con un trato directo e informal, una debilidad por el karaoke y un amor sin reparos por la estrella del pop Taylor Swift. Una vez compartió una selfi con Swift en una entrega de premios, añadiendo la leyenda “Look what you made me do” (Mira lo que me hiciste hacer), el título de una de las exitosas canciones de Swift.Truss necesitará todo su instinto y agilidad para desempeñar el trabajo que hereda de Johnson. Expulsado del cargo por los legisladores de su partido tras una serie de escándalos, ha dejado tras de sí una pila de problemas de enormes proporciones, no muy diferentes de los que tuvo que afrontar Margaret Thatcher cuando se convirtió en la primera mujer en asumir el gobierno del Reino Unido en 1979, durante un periodo anterior de dificultades económicas.Truss se ha inspirado en Thatcher, posando sobre un tanque como lo hizo su heroína en Alemania Occidental y vistiendo blusas de seda con lazos, un elemento básico del vestuario de Thatcher. Pero sus ideas políticas son más parecidas a las de otro héroe de la derecha, Ronald Reagan: las promesas de bajar los impuestos y reducir el gobierno, junto con una celebración del Reino Unido posbrexit como una “nación de aspiración”.Ese mensaje atrajo a los cerca de 160.000 miembros del Partido Conservador, en su mayoría blancos y de edad avanzada, que la eligieron por encima de las duras verdades ofrecidas por su oponente, Rishi Sunak, exministro de Economía. Ahora, tendrá que volver a pivotar para liderar un país diverso y dividido que se enfrenta a sus peores noticias económicas en una generación.Truss se ha inspirado en Margaret Thatcher, pero sus ideas políticas se parecen más a la de otro héroe de la derecha, Ronald Reagan.Helmuth Lohmann/Associated Press“Una de las cosas que ha beneficiado a Liz Truss es que es tribal”, dijo Jill Rutter, investigadora principal de U.K. in a Changing Europe, un instituto de investigación de Londres. “Está muy dispuesta a abrazar todo lo relacionado con un equipo. El problema de ser una jugadora de equipo es que ahora tiene que definir la agenda”.Nacida en 1975, cuatro años antes de que Thatcher llegara al poder, Truss creció en una familia declaradamente de izquierda, con un padre matemático y una madre profesora y enfermera. Habla a menudo de su paso por una secundaria pública en la dura ciudad de Leeds, que, según ella, “defraudaba” a sus alumnos con bajas expectativas, escasas oportunidades y un ayuntamiento atrapado en las garras de lo políticamente correcto.Algunos de sus contemporáneos cuestionan su relato de la época escolar. Señalan que creció en un barrio acomodado de la ciudad que durante mucho tiempo votó por los conservadores. También la acusan de demeritar a sus profesores, que la ayudaron a ser admitida —después de vivir un año en Canadá con su familia— en el Merton College, uno de los colegios más rigurosos académicamente de Oxford.En Oxford, Truss estudió filosofía, política y economía, un programa de estudios de élite del que ha salido un club de políticos prominentes, incluido un ex primer ministro, David Cameron. Algunos han criticado el programa por dar prioridad a la facilidad de palabra y al estudio rápido. Pero Stears dijo que Truss no se ajustaba al cliché de una estudiante de ese programa.“Su habilidad particular no consistía en dominar un encargo ni en ser simplista o fácil, sino en dar con algo inesperado”, dijo. “Cada obra que realizaba era provocativa. Se deleita en la controversia y en provocar a la gente”.Rishi Sunak, rival de Truss por el liderazgo del Partido Conservador, perdió por unos 21.000 votos.Susannah Ireland/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesLa política la atrajo pronto, y Truss se convirtió en presidenta de los Demócratas Liberales de la Universidad de Oxford, donde hizo campaña para legalizar la marihuana. Sin embargo, poco después de graduarse en 1996, se pasó a los conservadores, un partido que entonces deambulaba hacia el páramo de la política. Trabajó en el sector privado, para el gigante energético Shell y para Cable & Wireless, y obtuvo el título de contadora pública.En el año 2000, Truss se casó con Hugh O’Leary, un contador al que conoció en una conferencia del partido y con el que ahora tiene dos hijas. Su vida personal amenazó brevemente su carrera en 2005, después de que mantuviera una relación extramatrimonial con un miembro del Parlamento, Mark Field, quien también estaba casado, al que el partido había nombrado su mentor político. El matrimonio de Field se rompió; el de Truss sobrevivió.Elegida al Parlamento en 2010 como diputada por el suroeste de Norfolk, Truss llegó a ocupar seis puestos ministeriales durante los gobiernos de tres primeros ministros conservadores. Su historial político, según la gente que la conoce, era variado, y le costaba hablar en público.Mientras ocupaba el cargo de secretaria de Medio Ambiente en 2014, fue objeto de muchas burlas por un discurso en el que señaló con ligereza que el Reino Unido importaba dos tercios de su queso, para luego fruncir el ceño y añadir portentosamente: “¡Eso es una vergüenza!”.Fue más persuasiva en la campaña contra la salida del Reino Unido de la Unión Europea. En un discurso ante un grupo de la industria de la alimentación y las bebidas, Truss dijo: “Creo que los británicos son gente sensata. Entienden fundamentalmente que, desde el punto de vista económico, al Reino Unido le conviene permanecer en una Unión Europea reformada”.Truss haciendo campaña para el Partido Conservador en West Walton, Norfolk, en 2010.Chris Radburn/Press Association vía Associated PressTras la votación de 2016, Truss dio marcha atrás para convertirse en una entusiasta del brexit. “Me equivoqué, y estoy dispuesta a admitir que me equivoqué”, dijo recientemente, al sostener que las advertencias sobre los efectos calamitosos del brexit habían sido exageradas y que, de hecho, había desencadenado beneficios.Aunque pocos culpan a Truss por su cambio juvenil de liberal-demócrata a conservadora, muchos critican su apoyo retroactivo al brexit. “Esa no es una respuesta seria”, dijo Rutter, de U.K. in a Changing Europe. “Se acumulan las pruebas de que si dificultas el comercio con tu mayor socio comercial, eso perjudica a tu economía”.Ese cambio de postura no ha sido un obstáculo en su carrera. Truss pasó por puestos en el Departamento de Justicia y el Tesoro antes de que Johnson la nombrara ministra de Comercio Internacional en 2019. Recorrió el mundo, firmó acuerdos comerciales posbrexit con Japón, Australia y otros países. Los analistas señalaron que eran en gran medida versiones cortadas y pegadas de los acuerdos de la Unión Europea, pero ella supo beneficiarse de la publicidad.“Muy pronto me pareció que era una probable candidata a primera ministra”, dijo Robert E. Lighthizer, quien, como representante comercial del entonces presidente estadounidense Donald Trump, inició conversaciones sobre un acuerdo transatlántico con Truss.Por el camino, Truss ha mostrado intéres por las fuerzas disruptivas, como el servicio de Uber. Una vez publicó en Twitter que la generación más joven de británicos era “#Uber-riding #Airbnb-ing #Deliveroo-eating #freedomfighters”.La campaña por el liderazgo del partido incluyó una visita a una planta de producción de Jaguar el mes pasado.Foto de consorcio de Jacob King“Ha estado muy dispuesta a definirse a sí misma como una disruptora y a establecer un vínculo entre eso y un enfoque político que beneficie al país”, dijo Bronwen Maddox, directora de Chatham House, la institución de investigación londinense. “Eso tiene algo de refrescante, además de ser obviamente un peligro”.Al igual que Thatcher, también se presenta como una férrea defensora de la democracia occidental. Elevada a secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores en 2021, Truss superó incluso a Johnson en su línea dura contra Rusia. “Putin debe perder en Ucrania”, declaró el pasado marzo durante una visita a Lituania. En vísperas de la guerra, mantuvo una famosa y gélida reunión con el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores ruso, Serguéi Lavrov.Según sus colegas, Truss estará encantada de enfrentarse a Putin. Pero algunos predicen que su mayor némesis será Johnson. Ambicioso y todavía popular entre las bases conservadoras, es probable que siga siendo un personaje noticioso, que podría burlarse de Truss desde los bancos del Parlamento o en una columna de prensa, según Gavin Barwell, quien fue jefe de gabinete de la predecesora de Johnson, Theresa May.“Va a ser como el fantasma de Banquo”, dijo Barwell, en referencia a la aparición que atormentaba al Macbeth de Shakespeare. “En el momento en que se vea en dificultades políticas, habrá un movimiento para traer de vuelta a Boris”.Mark Landler es el jefe de la oficina de Londres. En 27 años en el Times, ha sido jefe de la oficina en Hong Kong y Fráncfort, corresponsal en la Casa Blanca, corresponsal diplomático, corresponsal económico europeo y reportero de negocios en Nueva York. @MarkLandler More