web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > elections

Awash in Disinformation Before Vote, Taiwan Points Finger at China

Westlake Legal Group 00taiwanmeddling-1-facebookJumbo Awash in Disinformation Before Vote, Taiwan Points Finger at China Voting and Voters Tsai Ing-wen Taiwan Social Media Rumors and Misinformation Propaganda Politics and Government Han Kuo-yu elections Democratic Progressive Party (Taiwan) Computers and the Internet Chinese Nationalist Party (Taiwan) China

TAIPEI, Taiwan — At first glance, the bespectacled YouTuber railing against Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, just seems like a concerned citizen making an appeal to his fellow Taiwanese.

He speaks Taiwanese-accented Mandarin, with the occasional phrase in Taiwanese dialect. His captions are written with the traditional Chinese characters used in Taiwan, not the simplified ones used in China. With outrage in his voice, he accuses Ms. Tsai of selling out “our beloved land of Taiwan” to Japan and the United States.

The man, Zhang Xida, does not say in his videos whom he works for. But other websites and videos make it clear: He is a host for China National Radio, the Beijing-run broadcaster.

As Taiwan gears up for a major election this week, officials and researchers worry that China is experimenting with social media manipulation to sway the vote. Doing so would be easy, they fear, in the island’s rowdy democracy, where the news cycle is fast and voters are already awash in false or highly partisan information.

China has been upfront about its dislike for President Tsai, who opposes closer ties with Beijing. The Communist Party claims Taiwan as part of China’s territory, and it has long deployed propaganda and intimidation to try to influence elections here.

Polls suggest, however, that Beijing’s heavy-handed ways might be backfiring and driving voters to embrace Ms. Tsai. Thousands of Taiwan citizens marched last month against “red media,” or local news organizations supposedly influenced by the Chinese government.

That is why Beijing may be turning to subtler, digital-age methods to inflame and divide.

Recently, there have been Facebook posts saying falsely that Joshua Wong, a Hong Kong democracy activist who has fans in Taiwan, had attacked an old man. There were posts about nonexistent protests outside Taiwan’s presidential house, and hoax messages warning that ballots for the opposition Kuomintang, or Chinese Nationalist Party, would be automatically invalidated.

So many rumors and falsehoods circulate on Taiwanese social media that it can be hard to tell whether they originate in Taiwan or in China, and whether they are the work of private provocateurs or of state agents.

Taiwan’s National Security Bureau in May issued a downbeat assessment of Chinese-backed disinformation on the island, urging a “‘whole of government’ and ‘whole of society’ response.”

“False information is the last step in an information war,” the bureau’s report said. “If you find false information, that means you have already been thoroughly infiltrated.”

Taiwanese society has woken up to the threat. The government has strengthened laws against spreading harmful rumors. Companies including Facebook, Google and the messaging service Line have agreed to police their platforms more stringently. Government departments and civil society groups now race to debunk hoaxes as quickly as they appear.

The election will put these efforts — and the resilience of Taiwan’s democracy — to the test.

“The ultimate goal, just like what Russia tried to do in the United States, is to crush people’s confidence in the democratic system,” said Tzeng Yi-suo of the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, a think tank funded by the government of Taiwan.

Fears of Chinese meddling became acute in recent months after a man named Wang Liqiang sought asylum in Australia claiming he had worked for Chinese intelligence to fund pro-Beijing candidates in Taiwan, buy off media groups and conduct social media attacks.

Mr. Wang’s account remains largely unverified. But there are other signs that Beijing is working to upgrade its techniques of information warfare.

Twitter, which is blocked in mainland China, recently took down a vast network of accounts that it described as Chinese state-backed trolls trying to discredit Hong Kong’s protesters.

A 2018 paper in a journal linked to the United Front Work Department, a Communist Party organ that organizes overseas political networking, argued that Beijing had failed to shape Taiwanese public discourse in favor of unification with China.

In November, the United Front Work Department held a conference in Beijing on internet influence activities, according to an official social media account. The department’s head, You Quan, said the United Front would help people such as social media influencers, live-streamers and professional e-sports players to “play an active role in guiding public opinion.”

“We understand that the people who are sowing discord are also building a community, that they are also learning from each other’s playbooks,” said Audrey Tang, Taiwan’s digital minister. “There are new innovations happening literally every day.”

In Taiwan, Chinese internet trolls were once easily spotted because they posted using the simplified Chinese characters found only on the mainland.

That happens less these days, though there are still linguistic slip-ups.

In one of the YouTube videos from Mr. Zhang, the China National Radio employee, a character in the description is incorrectly translated into traditional Chinese from simplified Chinese. Mr. Zhang did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Puma Shen, an assistant professor at National Taipei University who studies Chinese influence efforts, does not believe that disinformation from China is always guided by some central authority as it spreads around the internet.

“It’s not an order from Beijing,” Mr. Shen said. Much of the activity seems to be scattered groups of troublemakers, paid or not, who feed off one another’s trolling. “People are enthusiastic about doing this kind of stuff there in China,” he said.

In December, Taiwan’s justice ministry warned about a fake government notice saying Taiwan was deporting protesters who had fled Hong Kong. The hoax first appeared on the Chinese social platform Weibo, the ministry said, before spreading to a Chinese nationalist Facebook group.

Sometimes, Chinese trolls amplify rumors already floating around in Taiwan, Mr. Shen said. He is also on the lookout for Taiwanese social media accounts that may be bought or supported by Chinese operatives.

Ahead of midterm elections in 2018, his team had been monitoring several YouTube channels that discussed Taiwanese politics. The day after voting ended, the channels disappeared.

After Yu Hsin-Hsien was elected to the City Council that year in Taoyuan, a city near Taipei, mysterious strangers began inquiring about buying his Facebook page, which had around 280,000 followers. Mr. Yu, 30, immediately suspected China.

His suspicions grew after he demanded an extravagantly high price and the buyers accepted. Mr. Yu, who represents Ms. Tsai’s party, the Democratic Progressive Party, did not sell.

“Someone approaches a just-elected legislator and offers to buy his oldest weapon,” Mr. Yu said. “What’s his motive? To serve the public? It can’t be.”

Recently, internet users in Taiwan noticed a group of influencers, many of them pretty young women, posting messages on Facebook and Instagram with the hashtag #DeclareMyDeterminationToVote. The posts did not mention candidates or parties, but the people included selfies with a fist at their chest, a gesture often used by Han Kuo-yu, the Kuomintang’s presidential candidate.

Many of the posts later vanished. Mr. Han’s campaign denied involvement. But some have speculated that China’s United Front might be to blame. The United Front Work Department did not respond to a fax requesting comment.

One line of attack against Ms. Tsai has added to the atmosphere of mistrust and high conspiracy ahead of this week’s vote.

Politicians and media outlets have questioned whether Ms. Tsai’s doctoral dissertation is authentic, even though her alma mater, the London School of Economics, has confirmed that it is.

Dennis Peng hosts a daily YouTube show dedicated to proving otherwise. His channel has 173,000 subscribers. Theories about Ms. Tsai’s dissertation have circulated in China, too, with the help of the Chinese news media.

Mr. Peng, a former television anchor, once supported Ms. Tsai. He was proud that Taiwan elected a female president. Now he says he is not being paid by anyone, including China, to crusade against her.

He is not worried about being smeared as fake news.

“Let news and fake news compete against each other,” Mr. Peng said. “I trust that most people aren’t so stupid. Everybody eventually figures it out.”

Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting. Wang Yiwei contributed research from Beijing.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Netanyahu Rebuffs a Challenge From Within, Despite Graft Charges

Westlake Legal Group 26bibi-wins-hfo-facebookJumbo Netanyahu Rebuffs a Challenge From Within, Despite Graft Charges Saar, Gideon Politics and Government Netanyahu, Benjamin Likud Party (Israel) Israel elections Corruption (Institutional)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel easily brushed off a challenge for the leadership of the conservative Likud party early Friday, a crucial victory for Israel’s longest-serving leader but one that may only harden the country’s yearlong political standoff.

For Mr. Netanyahu, the landslide in a party primary on Thursday reaffirmed his political prowess and staying power despite his indictment last month on corruption charges, and it gives a jolt of fresh energy to his campaign for Israel’s next general election in March.

But it also assures that one of Israel’s most polarizing issues will be on the ballot in that election: Mr. Netanyahu himself.

Israel has already had two inconclusive elections this year, each ending in deadlock with voters nearly evenly divided on whether the corruption cases against Mr. Netanyahu should disqualify him from serving a fourth consecutive term.

And though support for Mr. Netanyahu has been slipping since his indictment, recent polls suggest that a third election may not resolve anything. Once again, neither Mr. Netanyahu nor his main opponent, Benny Gantz of the centrist Blue and White party, may have the votes to form a majority government.

In the party primary on Thursday, the most serious internal leadership challenge Mr. Netanyahu had faced in years, he handily beat a rival party veteran, Gideon Saar, by a vote of 72.5 percent to 27.5 percent, according to an unofficial final count.

“A giant victory!” Mr. Netanyahu declared on Twitter just after midnight, barely more than an hour after the polls closed. “With the help of God and with your help, I will lead Likud to a great victory in the upcoming elections and we will continue to lead the country to unprecedented achievements,” he added.

Mr. Saar congratulated Mr. Netanyahu and conceded defeat in a televised statement an hour later. He said he and his colleagues would stand behind Mr. Netanyahu in the party’s campaign for the general election.

“I am content with my decision to have run” in the primary, Mr. Saar said, adding, “Those who are unwilling to take a risk for what they believe in will never succeed.”

But the fact that there even was a battle exposed cracks in Likud’s long-united front as it prepares for an eventual post-Netanyahu era.

Despite fears of a low turnout because of stormy weather and the Hanukkah holiday, about half the 116,000 paying Likud members came out to vote, a fairly typical number for Likud party primaries.

Though those eligible to vote in the Likud leadership primary were only a small fraction of those who vote for the party in general elections, Thursday’s contest may serve to allay broader concerns ahead of the March election that Israelis are suffering from voter fatigue and may give up on the democratic process.

Mr. Saar, a hawkish ideologue and technocrat, had argued that only he could return Likud and its right-wing allies to power and that Mr. Netanyahu was “blocked” after failing to form a government after the two previous elections, in April and September.

In those elections, neither Mr. Netanyahu nor Mr. Gantz was able to muster a majority to build a viable coalition.

Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gantz both professed interest in joining forces in a unity government, which polls showed most Israelis wanted, but Mr. Gantz said he would refuse to serve in a government with a prime minister who is under indictment, and Mr. Netanyahu insisted that under any agreement to rotate the prime minister’s job, he must serve first.

Mr. Netanyahu had little incentive to yield on that demand. He remains prime minister until a new government is formed, and retaining the job leaves him in better position to fight his legal battle.

He could, for instance, try to negotiate a plea deal with law enforcement authorities in which the charges are dropped in return for his departure from public life. A sweeping victory in the next election could even get him enough support to grant him parliamentary immunity from prosecution.

Mr. Netanyahu is accused of trading official favors worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Israeli media moguls for lavish gifts and positive news coverage. He has denied any wrongdoing, casting himself as the victim of a witch hunt by a left-wing elite that he says dominates the news media and has pressured the law enforcement authorities to pursue criminal investigations against him.

Fighting for his political survival, Mr. Netanyahu left nothing to chance in the Likud primary contest. He attended campaign rallies in up to five different towns a night and appealed to voters in Facebook Live videos, re-establishing his popularity within the Likud and firing up the party’s rank and file ahead of the more fateful contest against Mr. Gantz.

Mr. Netanyahu, 70, has brought Likud to power four times and has led the party for the past 14 years, and for a total of 20 years in all. Known to all as “Bibi,” he has inspired a cultlike devotion, with supporters at his rallies chanting “Bibi, King of Israel.”

At age 53, Mr. Saar is one of the next generation of Likud leaders vying to succeed Mr. Netanyahu. He, too, pulled out all the stops in his bid to lead the party, even pledging to work to secure a new job for Mr. Netanyahu as the president of Israel. That post, high profile but mostly ceremonial, is meant to be apolitical and unifying.

Other would-be Netanyahu successors have preferred to wait in the wings, saying they would seek the Likud leadership only once the Netanyahu era is over. Likudniks pride themselves on their fierce loyalty to their leader and challenging Mr. Netanyahu risks being cast into the political wilderness, the fate of some other former Likud ministers who bucked his control. The party has only had four leaders since its formation and rise to power in the 1970s, and has never unseated an incumbent.

It remains to be seen whether Mr. Saar’s bid for the job will position him as a front-runner in the post-Netanyahu era, or if he will pay for his perceived disloyalty in challenging Mr. Netanyahu in a time of trouble.

Mr. Netanyahu’s political and legal path forward remains far from clear, even with the Likud battle over. A clear election victory in March could keep him in office and give him a chance of seeking parliamentary immunity from prosecution, but nothing is guaranteed.

Israel’s Supreme Court will hold a hearing this week in response to a petition requesting a ruling on whether a candidate charged with serious crimes may be asked to form a new government.

Under current Israeli law, a prime minister under indictment can continue to serve until a final conviction. But the law does not address what to do in the case of a candidate for prime minister who has been charged.

The judicial authorities have so far tried to avoid ruling on the matter, hoping it would be decided in the public and political realm, through elections.

So far, though, as Thursday’s contest showed, the charismatic Mr. Netanyahu still commands a strong and emotional following.

Ben Caspit, a political columnist, wrote in the Maariv newspaper on Thursday that the Likud voters’ choice between Mr. Saar and Mr. Netanyahu was one “between the head and gut; between cold logic and the warm heart.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Politics of And. Securing the Majority. 2) Tackling electoral fraud

The phrase is Tim Montgomerie’s.  He used to deploy it roughly as follows.  Yes, politics means making choices.  But they doesn’t always have to be either/or.  The Conservatives can have immigration control and international development.  Green growth and more fracking.  Same-sex marriage and transferable tax allowances.

The new majority Tory Government won’t necessarily smile on these examples.  But it will want to follow the principle.  To this end, ConservativeHome is reviving The Politics Of And.  In one series, we will examine Securing the Majority.  In another, Growing the Majority.  Boris Johnson will want to do both.

– – –

Securing The Majority 2) Tackling electoral fraud

We begin with our usual tribute to Peter Golds, who has led the charge on combatting fraud in Tower Hamlet, and wrote recently on this site.  He complained last month that the Electoral Commission has rewritten the law to make it difficult to investigate vote fraudsters.  In October, he pointed out on this site that voter ID for elections is long overdue.

The Government is planning an Electoral Integrity Bill which will introduce identification to vote at polling stations and stop postal vote harvesting.  Government sources point out that most European countries require some form of ID for elections; that pilot schemes have already been carried out in local elections this year and last, and that producing ID is already necessary in Northern Ireland.

Labour and other opposition parties will argue that Ministers are planning voter repression.  But the Northern Ireland requirement was Labour’s in the first place.  And the Government says that councils will offer a free, voluntary electoral proof of ID if an elector wants one.  In any event, Labour itself requires two types of voter ID for its members to vote in selection meetings.

In answer to claims that fraud is rare, Ministers counter that personation, by definition, is a covert activity – so the critics don’t really know. And the Electoral Commission says that the pilots “worked well”.  This is a classic instance of a measures that the new Government will want to take because it is good for its own sake – but which will also have the side-effect of helping to secure the majority.  We hope to see the Bill in this Queen’s Speech.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Politics of And. Securing the Majority. 1) Equalising boundaries

The phrase is Tim Montgomerie’s.  He used to deploy it roughly as follows.  Yes, politics means making choices.  But they doesn’t always have to be either/or.  The Conservatives can have immigration control and international development.  Green growth and more fracking.  Same-sex marriage and transferable tax allowances.

The new majority Tory Government won’t necessarily smile on these examples.  But it will want to follow the principle.  To this end, ConservativeHome is reviving The Politics Of And.  In one series, we will examine Securing the Majority.  In another, Growing the Majority.  Boris Johnson will want to do both.

– – –

Securing The Majority 1) Equalising boundaries

There are a number of actions which the new Government will want to take which are good for their own sake.  But which will also have the side-effect of helping to secure the majority.

One of these is equalising boundaries – not the cure-all that some believe the move to be (as Government sources concede), but likely to be helpful to the Conservatives, since Tory constituencies are larger on average than Labour’s.

There is a separate-but-related debate on whether the number of seats should also be reduced.  The manifesto itself says

We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy.

Proposals were presented to Parliament in September last year to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600.  If the 2017 election had been fought on them, the Conservatives would have won a majority of 16.

The argument for change is essentially that the number of constituencies has risen steadily from 615 in 1922 to a peak of 659 in 1997 (and now stands at 650).

A Parliamentary committee argued for reform in 2007.  The then Labour Government agreed in principle; the Coalitiion tried to act in practice, passing a Bill to empower change and introducing five year reviews.

The core of the case for change pre-Brexit is that MPs didn’t have enough to do – with powers being passed up from Westminster to the EU and downwards to new devolved institutions – and that a numbers reduction is therefore sensible.  The argument gained new force after the expenses scandal.

A new case against reduction is that this was all very well pre-the EU referendum and this general election.  But Britain is now going to leave the EU, and powers will return to Westminster.  It might therefore be unwise to give MPs a bigger constituency workload at the same time as returning to them larger legislative responsibilities.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Brexit’s Advance Opens a New Trade Era

Westlake Legal Group 13uktrade-hung-01-facebookJumbo Brexit’s Advance Opens a New Trade Era United States Protectionism (Trade) International Trade and World Market Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain European Union elections Customs (Tariff)

LONDON — The notion that global economic integration amounts to human progress had a good run, dominating the thinking of the powers that be for more than seven decades. But a new era is underway in which national interests take primacy over collective concerns, with trading arrangements negotiated among individual countries.

Britain’s voters made that clear on Thursday in handing an emphatic majority to Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party, all but ensuring that the world’s fifth-largest economy — and a charter member of the international trading system — will proceed with its abandonment of the European Union.

A preliminary deal hailed on Friday by the two largest economies, the United States and China, raised the prospect of easing their high-stakes trade animosities. But the nature of their engagement — country to country, not mediated by the World Trade Organization or some other international authority — underscored the principles of the new age.

Britain now faces another complex phase in its tangled European divorce proceedings — negotiations over the terms of its future economic relationship with the Continent. But in one form or another, “getting Brexit done,” the mantra that Mr. Johnson promised and can now deliver, marks a profound change in the world trading system.

In the aftermath of World War II, the victorious Allies built an international order on the understanding that when countries swap goods they become less inclined to trade artillery volleys.

Britain’s departure from the European Union is the clearest manifestation that this idea no longer holds decisive sway. It is not the only one.

The traditional arbiter of international trade disputes, the World Trade Organization, is listing toward irrelevance as countries bypass its channels to impose tariffs. Its appellate body, which adjudicates disputes, has been rendered inoperative by the Trump administration’s blocking of new judges. The panel needs at least three judges to render verdicts, but now has only one.

“The sense that policy moves in one direction, toward more liberalization and more integration, has been replaced by recognition that policy can go backward as well as forward,” said Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

The United States and China together account for more than a third of the global economy, making their wave of escalating tariffs a cause for alarm about diminishing fortunes in nearly every country exposed to international trade — from Germany to South Korea to Mexico.

President Trump has put stock in the unrivaled scale of the American economy in seeking favorable trading arrangements. In his calculus, the United States boasts the advantage in any bilateral trade negotiations and can tilt the rules toward American interests.

This was the logic that prompted Mr. Trump to renounce American participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade bloc spanning a dozen countries. It was a project pursued by his immediate predecessor, President Barack Obama, in part to press China to address longstanding complaints that it subsidized key industries, doled out credit to favored companies and manipulated the value of its currency to gain advantage in world markets.

In taking on China, the Obama administration employed the multilateralist mind-set that had guided American policy since the end of World War II. The Pacific trading bloc would set rules on investment, labor and environmental standards. Its members would profit through growing trade, and China would want in. To gain access, China would be forced to adopt the bloc’s rules.

But in Trumpian thinking, multilateralism is for suckers. Shortly after he was sworn in, declaring as his credo “America First,” Mr. Trump ditched the Pacific bloc and weaponized the American market: If China wanted access to the 327 million consumers in the richest country on earth, it would have to buy more American goods and play fair.

On Friday, Mr. Trump cited the preliminary agreement as evidence that his strategy was working. The United States would sharply reduce the tariffs it had affixed to Chinese goods, while China promised to buy more American farm products and respect intellectual property. Mr. Trump called it “an amazing deal for all.”

But economists said the announcement of new farm purchases reflected goods that China was already buying. Even as the scrapping of the next wave of tariffs weighed as positive for the global economy, few were proclaiming the advent of enduring peace. The United States and China have descended into such an adversarial state that they are likely to continue seeking alternatives to exchanging goods and investment. Companies that make goods in China will face pressure to explore other countries, posing disruption to the global supply chain.

China’s leaders have come to construe trade hostilities as part of an American bullying campaign engineered to suppress their national aspirations and deny the country its rightful place as a superpower. Nationalist sentiments and security concerns have become intertwined with trade policy, complicating the pursuit of a final deal.

Now Britain, in leaving the European bloc, embarks on a strategy aimed at securing bilateral trading arrangements with major economies, from the United States and China to Australia and India.

Trade deals are complex and difficult. They entail prying open new markets for exports in exchange for exposing domestic companies to new competitors. Powerful interest groups complain. Deals take years.

Arithmetic reveals that no combination of trade deals is likely to compensate Britain fully for what it stands to lose in walking away from the European single marketplace, a territory stretching from Greece to Ireland.

Britain sends nearly half of its exports to the European Union, a flow of goods imperiled by Brexit. Britain’s appeal as a headquarters for multinational companies will be undermined as it finds itself separated from the Continent by a revived border.

The fraying of international trading arrangements and the rise of nationalist imperatives have been driven by intensifying public anger in many countries over widening economic inequality, and the perception that trade has been bountiful for the executive class while leaving ordinary people behind.

In Britain, struggling communities used the June 2016 referendum that unleashed Brexit as a protest vote against the bankers in London who had engineered a catastrophic financial crisis, and who then forced regular people to absorb the costs through wrenching fiscal austerity.

In the United States, Mr. Trump’s political base has rallied to his trade war. In Italy, France and Germany, furious popular movements have fixed on trade as a threat to workers’ livelihoods, while embracing nationalist and nativist responses that promise to halt globalization.

“The era of freewheeling markets and liberalism is ending,” said Meredith Crowley, an international trade expert at the University of Cambridge in England. “People are dissatisfied with the complexity of policy and this feeling that those who have the levers of policy are somehow out of their reach.”

Economists see perils in this unfolding era, especially as governments champion national industries at the expense of competition. They point to history, notably the Great Depression, which was deepened by a wave of tit-for-tat trade protectionism kicked off by the United States through the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.

The law sharply raised tariffs on a vast range of agricultural and factory goods, prompting American trading partners to respond. As world trade disintegrated, nationalist rage spread, culminating in the brutalities of World War II.

The British election, and the splintering of the European trading bloc, amounts to the most consequential upsurge of economic nationalism in generations.

“Since Smoot-Hawley, I don’t think we have seen something as dramatic as this,” said Swati Dhingra, an economist at the London School of Economics.

One major variable has gained clarity: Congressional Democrats and the Trump administration this week hailed an accord that clears passage of the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the deal that has allowed some $1.2 trillion worth of goods a year to be exchanged freely across the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Yet on another front, Mr. Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on imported automobiles, a step that would be especially disruptive in Germany, Europe’s largest economy. Germany sells far more goods to the United States than it imports, drawing the ire of the American president.

Mr. Trump has openly warned that he could cite a national security threat as justification for auto tariffs. Trade experts have derided that strategy as an affront to the norms of the international trading system.

Last month, Mr. Trump allowed a self-imposed deadline to lapse without imposing auto tariffs. But he has left a major international industry guessing about what happens next.

Since Britain shocked the world with its vote to abandon the European Union, its political institutions have tangled themselves in knots trying to decide what to do with their nebulous mandate to leave. Businesses have deferred hiring and investments, awaiting clarity on future trading terms.

The uncertainty has already exacted significant costs, and far beyond Europe, according to a new paper by Tarek Hassan, an economist at Boston University, and three European accounting experts, Stephan Hollander, Laurence van Lent and Ahmed Tahoun.

Every year since the referendum, the average company in Ireland — which trades heavily with Britain — has seen its growth in investment reduced by 4.2 percent, and hiring is 15 percent less than it otherwise would have been because of uncertainty, the paper concludes. Yet even across the Atlantic, the average American company has seen investment growth limited by 0.5 percent a year and hiring slowed by 1.7 percent.

“There is already a significant drop in employment as a result of the risks of Brexit,” Mr. Hassan said.

Some analysts suggested that the election enhanced the possibility that Mr. Johnson would pursue a softer form of Brexit, keeping Britain closer to the European market. His majority is so comfortable that he need not worry about alienating the hard-liners in his party who favor a clean break with Europe.

But some alteration now lies ahead. If Brexit uncertainty has been damaging, what replaces it is the near certainty of weaker economic growth and diminished living standards.

“It’s going to have massive implications,” Mr. Hassan said.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

How Labour’s Working-Class Vote Crumbled and Its Nemesis Won the North

Westlake Legal Group 13uk-redwall1-facebookJumbo How Labour’s Working-Class Vote Crumbled and Its Nemesis Won the North Voting and Voters Politics and Government Mines and Mining Legislatures and Parliaments Labor and Jobs Johnson, Boris Immigration and Emigration Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain elections

BARLBOROUGH, England — They trudged through a stinging rain to polling stations, streams of people who once powered the left in Britain: ex-miners, supermarket clerks, retired schoolteachers, health aides.

But when they re-emerged, they had voted not for the Labour Party, the side that had shepherded them through decades of political upheaval, but instead for their old nemesis, the party long despised here for shutting down the mines and shrinking the British state: the Conservatives.

“I’m from a Labour background: the coal pits and fighting Maggie Thatcher and everything else,” said Dawn Ridsdale, 56, an unemployed sales agent, as she stood outside the converted barn in Barlborough where she cast her ballot. She had opposed Brexit, but now wanted someone with the ruthless streak of the prime minister who had closed the mines, Margaret Thatcher, to sort it out, once and for all.

“The country’s on its backside,” she said. “I’ve unfortunately had to vote for Boris. He’s the best of a bad bunch.”

She meant Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, the upper-class eccentric who defied half a century of political geography on Thursday to tear through Labour’s old coalition of small-town, working-class voters in the Midlands and north of England, a block of seats once thought so impregnable that it was called the Red Wall.

Down went at least nine seats that Labour had held without interruption since the Second World War. Down went a type of tribal politics in northern England, in which people inherited voting customs from their parents and grandparents, passing fights over mine closures and benefit cuts down the generations.

And down went Dennis Skinner, the so-called Beast of Bolsover, an ex-miner and Labour lawmaker whose fusion of socialism and pro-Brexit values had put him in control of Bolsover, the constituency around Barlborough, for 49 years.

For Labour, which suffered its worst election defeat since 1935, the results signaled the end of an era of being able to reach into both thriving cities and left-behind former mining villages for votes. The party’s two wings — pro- and anti-immigrant, young and old, university graduates and tradespeople — were cleaved.

“It’s the detachment of the Labour Party from great swaths of the country, which they seem not to sympathize with,” said Robert Tombs, a historian at the University of Cambridge. “That leaves the party in a pretty dire position in the long term, unless it can miraculously reinvent itself.”

The big, longstanding parties of the left started vanishing from Europe years ago as class alliances faded in a postindustrial economy. But the consequences of the political realignment in Britain, as in the United States, are much graver because their two-party systems prevent left-wing parties from simply resolving their differences by splitting.

The left is now squabbling on both sides of the Atlantic, with both the Labour and Democratic parties grappling with a rancorous battle between young activists and more moderate voters. The results yesterday in Britain were a sobering lesson in the consequences of destroying age-old party alliances before new ones had time to germinate, analysts said.

“You’ll have the pro-migration, culturally liberal left saying, ‘We don’t want to ally with racists,’ and you’ll have the socially conservative, economically left-wing part of the coalition saying, ‘We don’t ally with people who think we’re racists,’ and that’s a very, very hard argument to resolve,” said Rob Ford, a professor of politics at the University of Manchester.

By Friday morning, Britons awoke to a Labour Party largely consigned to the cities of England. The Conservatives, on the other hand, harnessed the power of Brexit to storm districts where the party’s brand had been toxic for generations.

In doing so, they replicated the success of President Trump in breaching the so-called Blue Wall in states like Michigan and Wisconsin in 2016, exploiting a combination of anti-immigrant messaging and dissolving class allegiances to take seats thought to belong to the Democrats.

But outside the pubs, churches, schoolhouses and trailers where people in Bolsover cast their ballots on Thursday, it was clear that many ex-Labour voters felt more at home for the moment in Mr. Johnson’s Conservative Party than anywhere else.

They bemoaned a decade of broken promises, many of them made by the Conservative Party, but bought into Mr. Johnson’s idea that the political elite, and not his party, were to blame.

They were seething with anger: at immigrants, at Britain’s postindustrial economy and at the constant gaze of the country’s news media and political elite in the south, toward London.

And above all, the people who made up Labour’s old base in Bolsover unburdened themselves of their withering feelings about Mr. Corbyn, spitting epithets — “Marxist,” “terrorist sympathizer,” “idiot” — about a man who made them far more unhappy than even an old Etonian like Mr. Johnson could.

In Bolsover, the market town at the center of this sprawling district, one voter, Thomas, pointed from the polling station to where he had spent three decades working in a coal mine. For all its dangers, mining had held the promise of steady work and fair pay, and came with all the advantages of union protection now absent in the industries that took its place.

But for Thomas and his wife, Christine, who declined to give their last name because they did not want friends to know how they voted, frustration at the region’s decline became wedded to anger at the immigrant workers who took the low-wage jobs that replaced mining.

“Jobs there should have gone to ex-miners, not to foreign workers,” Christine said of a warehouse on the site of a nearby mine. “Instead you see ex-miners thrown in the scrap heap.”

They had just been shopping near the warehouse, and found themselves among so many Polish people that, Thomas said, “we were foreigners.”

Lifelong Labour voters, they broke from much of the party in supporting Brexit and then finally stopped voting for it because of Mr. Corbyn’s leadership, they said, dominated as it was by an economic agenda too far to the left and a leadership rooted in London.

“It hurts,” Thomas said, though not all his allegiance was lost. “I still am a Labour man. I’ll vote Labour again when they get rid of this lot.”

Britain’s political realignment holds risks for the Conservative Party, too.

Just as the Republicans in the United States seized the South, only to find themselves suddenly unable to win seats in places like New England, so too do the Conservatives risk losing their socially liberal voters in southern England if they become dominated by the ex-Labour heartlands of the north, Professor Ford said.

At the same time, in a country growing more diverse, the Labour Party will eventually benefit from aligning itself to socially liberal values — but not for some time, and not unless its supporters spread out across the electoral map, said Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London.

Many voters in Bolsover described a drift from Labour that started years ago, well before Brexit, as ties to trade unions frayed and the Labour leadership became identified with increasing immigration.

But it was Brexit that cemented their vote for the Conservatives. While the idea of rerunning the Brexit referendum a second time had taken hold in London, it sounded to voters in Bolsover, Leavers and Remainers alike, like a serious threat to democratic legitimacy.

“There’s been a referendum, and there’s a will of the people to leave, despite my personal beliefs,” said Craig Beddow, a retail worker in the area. “I don’t think the country can risk a hung Parliament, because we’re just static now. Despite my beliefs about Remain, I think we need to get on with it and let the country move on.”

Not that he harbored any affection for Mr. Johnson, whom he called “the worst conservative leader in my lifetime.”

Barry Salt, another voter, had similar sentiments, saying that Mr. Johnson was “a fool,” but that Mr. Corbyn was worse: “He’s going to turn this into a communist state if he’s left alone.”

Many voters knew and loved Mr. Skinner, the longest-serving lawmaker running for a seat in this election, and some Labour loyalists said nothing could sway their vote.

“I’d vote for a donkey with a red rose on it,” said Jason Vardy, a bookmaker, referring to the symbol for Labour. His father, Stanley, an ex-miner, felt the same way: “If I voted Tory, my dad would’ve shot me.”

But for others, being a Labour lawmaker was exactly what was wrong with Mr. Skinner. Despite the lawmaker’s own pro-Brexit views, the Labour label put him on the side of the big-city elites who looked down their noses at the north.

“If he weren’t a Labour man, he’d be brilliant,” said Malcolm Shaw, a military veteran and ex-Labour voter, after ticking a box for the Conservatives.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Brexit’s Advance Is Latest Blow to Postwar Trade Order

Westlake Legal Group 13uktrade-hung-01-facebookJumbo Brexit’s Advance Is Latest Blow to Postwar Trade Order United States Protectionism (Trade) International Trade and World Market Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain European Union elections Customs (Tariff)

LONDON — For more than seven decades, the global powers that be operated on the assumption that greater economic integration amounts to historical progress. But that era is over, as Britain’s voters have now made clear.

The decisive majority secured by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party all but ensures that the country will proceed with its abandonment of the European Union.

Another complex phase of the tangled divorce proceedings lies ahead — negotiations over the terms of Britain’s future economic relationship with the Continent. But in one form or another, “getting Brexit done,” the mantra that Mr. Johnson promised and can now deliver, marks a profound change in the world trading system.

In the aftermath of World War II, the victorious Allies forged an international order built on the understanding that when countries swap goods they become less inclined to trade artillery volleys.

Britain’s departure from Europe is the clearest manifestation that this principle no longer holds decisive sway. Yet it is far from the only sign that the world trading system is devolving into a state in which national interests have primacy over collective concerns.

The United States and China are locked in a trade war that is heightening concerns about a global economic slowdown.

Tensions appeared to ease on Thursday, as the United States was reported to have settled on the outlines of a deal that could significantly reduce tariffs on $360 billion in Chinese goods in exchange for China’s promise to buy goods from American farmers. The deal was expected to halt American tariffs scheduled to hit another $160 billion worth of Chinese imports this weekend.

But even if such a deal takes hold, the United States and China have descended into such an adversarial state that they are likely to continue seeking alternatives to exchanging goods and investment. Companies that make goods in China will face pressure to explore other countries, posing disruption to the global supply chain.

The traditional arbiter of international trade disputes, the World Trade Organization, is listing toward irrelevance as countries bypass its channels to impose tariffs.

“The sense that policy moves in one direction, toward more liberalization and more integration, has been replaced by recognition that policy can go backward as well as forwards,” said Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

The fraying of international trading arrangements has been driven by intensifying public anger in many countries over widening economic inequality, and the perception that trade has been bountiful for the executive class while leaving ordinary people behind.

In Britain, struggling communities used the June 2016 referendum that unleashed Brexit as a protest vote against the bankers in London who had engineered a catastrophic financial crisis, and then forced regular people to absorb the costs through wrenching fiscal austerity.

In the United States, President Trump’s political base has rallied to his trade war, inclined to view it as a necessary corrective to the destruction of the industrial economy by Chinese factories.

From Italy to France to Germany, furious popular movements have fixed on trade as a threat to workers’ livelihoods, while embracing nationalist and nativist responses that promise to halt globalization.

“The era of freewheeling markets and liberalism is ending,” said Meredith Crowley, an international trade expert at the University of Cambridge in England. “People are dissatisfied with the complexity of policy, and this feeling that those who have the levers of policy are somehow out of their reach.”

Economists see perils in this unfolding era, like impediments to trade as governments champion national industries at the expense of competition. They point to history for portents — especially the Great Depression, which was deepened by a wave of tit-for-tat trade protectionism kicked off by the United States through the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.

The law sharply raised tariffs on a vast range of agricultural and factory goods, prompting American trading partners to respond in kind. As world trade disintegrated, nationalist rage spread, culminating in the brutalities of World War II.

The British election, and the splintering of the European trading bloc, amounts to the most consequential upsurge of economic nationalism in generations.

“Since Smoot-Hawley, I don’t think we have seen something as dramatic as this,” said Swati Dhingra, an economist at the London School of Economics.

As the rupture in Europe plays out, the world’s two largest economies — the United States and China — remain ensnared in conflict.

The Trump administration began imposing tariffs in response to what it portrays as a decades-long Chinese effort to destroy American jobs by subsidizing key industries. But among hard-liners, the trade war is increasingly a means of weaponizing the enormous American marketplace — threatening China’s access to American consumers — to contain a supposed strategic and security threat.

China’s leaders have come to construe trade hostilities as part of an American bullying campaign engineered to suppress their national aspirations and deny the country its rightful place as a superpower.

Nationalist sentiments and security concerns combined with trade policy do not make for a conducive climate for a meaningful deal that can comprehensively end trade hostilities.

“If anything, the positions are hardening,” Ms. Crowley said.

On another front, Mr. Trump has threated to impose tariffs on imported automobiles, a step that would be especially disruptive in Germany, Europe’s largest economy. Germany sells far more goods to the United States than it imports, drawing the ire of the American president.

Mr. Trump has openly threatened to cite a national security threat as justification for auto tariffs. Trade experts have derided that approach as an affront to the norms of the international trading system.

Last month, Mr. Trump allowed a self-imposed deadline to lapse without imposing auto tariffs. But he has left a major international industry guessing about what happens next.

The World Trade Organization’s appellate body, which adjudicates disputes, has been rendered inoperative by the Trump administration’s blocking of new judges. The panel needs at least three judges to render verdicts, but now has only one.

One major variable has gained clarity: Congressional Democrats and the Trump administration this week hailed an agreement that clears passage of the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the sprawling deal that has allowed some $1.2 trillion worth of goods a year to be exchanged freely across the United States, Canada and Mexico.

But the results of Britain’s election raise the likelihood that commerce in one large swath of the globe is likely to be impeded.

Britain sends nearly half of its exports to the European Union, a flow of goods potentially imperiled by Brexit. Its departure from the European single market — which allows trade to be conducted seamlessly from Greece to Ireland, as if the territory were one vast country — risks undermining Britain’s appeal as a headquarters for multinational companies.

Since Britain shocked the world with its vote to abandon the European Union, its political institutions have tangled themselves in knots trying to decide what to do with their nebulous mandate to leave. Businesses have deferred hiring and investments, awaiting clarity on future trading terms.

The uncertainty has already exacted significant costs, and far beyond Europe, according to a new paper by Tarek Hassan, an economist at Boston University, and three European accounting experts, Stephan Hollander, Laurence van Lent and Ahmed Tahoun.

Every year since the referendum, the average company in Ireland — which trades heavily with Britain — has seen its growth in investment reduced by 15 percent, and hiring is 4.2 percent less than it otherwise would have been because of uncertainty, the paper concludes. Yet even across the Atlantic, the average American company has seen investment growth limited by 0.5 percent a year and hiring slowed by 1.7 percent.

“There is already a significant drop in employment as a result of the risks of Brexit,” Mr. Hassan said.

Though Thursday’s election provided clarity on Brexit, substantial variables remain. Assuming Mr. Johnson’s Brexit plan now sails through Parliament, Britain must negotiate trade terms with Europe before the end of a transition period running through the end of next year — a monumental task.

Mr. Johnson has ruled out extending that deadline, renewing the prospect that Britain could again flirt with crashing out of the European bloc without a deal. That threat could force businesses to again stockpile goods and implement complicated contingency plans.

Some analysts suggested that the election enhanced the possibility that Mr. Johnson would pursue a softer form of Brexit that keeps Britain closer to the European market. His majority is so comfortable that he need not worry about alienating the hard-liners in his party who favor a clean break with Europe.

But some alteration is clearly ahead. If Brexit uncertainty has been damaging, what replaces it is the near-certainty of weaker economic growth and diminished living standards. Britain’s political mandate to “take back control” carries costs.

“It’s going to have massive implications,” Mr. Hassan said.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

British Election Heralds End of a Global Trade Era

Westlake Legal Group 13uktrade-hung-01-facebookJumbo British Election Heralds End of a Global Trade Era United States Protectionism (Trade) International Trade and World Market Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain European Union elections Customs (Tariff)

LONDON — For more than seven decades, the global powers that be operated on the assumption that greater economic integration amounts to historical progress. But that era is over, as Britain’s voters have now made clear.

The decisive majority secured by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party all but ensures that the country will proceed with its abandonment of the European Union.

Another complex phase of the tangled divorce proceedings lies ahead — negotiations over the terms of Britain’s future economic relationship with the Continent. But in one form or another, “getting Brexit done,” the mantra that Mr. Johnson promised and can now deliver, marks a profound change in the world trading system.

In the aftermath of World War II, the victorious Allies forged an international order built on the understanding that when countries swap goods they become less inclined to trade artillery volleys.

Britain’s departure from Europe is the clearest manifestation that this principle no longer holds decisive sway. Yet it is far from the only sign that the world trading system is devolving into a state in which national interests have primacy over collective concerns.

The United States and China are locked in a trade war that is heightening concerns about a global economic slowdown.

Tensions appeared to ease on Thursday, as the United States was reported to have settled on the outlines of a deal that could significantly reduce tariffs on $360 billion in Chinese goods in exchange for China’s promise to buy goods from American farmers. The deal was expected to halt American tariffs scheduled to hit another $160 billion worth of Chinese imports this weekend.

But even if such a deal takes hold, the United States and China have descended into such an adversarial state that they are likely to continue seeking alternatives to exchanging goods and investment. Companies that make goods in China will face pressure to explore other countries, posing disruption to the global supply chain.

The traditional arbiter of international trade disputes, the World Trade Organization, is listing toward irrelevance as countries bypass its channels to impose tariffs.

“The sense that policy moves in one direction, toward more liberalization and more integration, has been replaced by recognition that policy can go backward as well as forwards,” said Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

The fraying of international trading arrangements has been driven by intensifying public anger in many countries over widening economic inequality, and the perception that trade has been bountiful for the executive class while leaving ordinary people behind.

In Britain, struggling communities used the June 2016 referendum that unleashed Brexit as a protest vote against the bankers in London who had engineered a catastrophic financial crisis, and then forced regular people to absorb the costs through wrenching fiscal austerity.

In the United States, President Trump’s political base has rallied to his trade war, inclined to view it as a necessary corrective to the destruction of the industrial economy by Chinese factories.

From Italy to France to Germany, furious popular movements have fixed on trade as a threat to workers’ livelihoods, while embracing nationalist and nativist responses that promise to halt globalization.

“The era of freewheeling markets and liberalism is ending,” said Meredith Crowley, an international trade expert at the University of Cambridge in England. “People are dissatisfied with the complexity of policy, and this feeling that those who have the levers of policy are somehow out of their reach.”

Economists see perils in this unfolding era, like impediments to trade as governments champion national industries at the expense of competition. They point to history for portents — especially the Great Depression, which was deepened by a wave of tit-for-tat trade protectionism kicked off by the United States through the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.

The law sharply raised tariffs on a vast range of agricultural and factory goods, prompting American trading partners to respond in kind. As world trade disintegrated, nationalist rage spread, culminating in the brutalities of World War II.

The British election, and the splintering of the European trading bloc, amounts to the most consequential upsurge of economic nationalism in generations.

“Since Smoot-Hawley, I don’t think we have seen something as dramatic as this,” said Swati Dhingra, an economist at the London School of Economics.

As the rupture in Europe plays out, the world’s two largest economies — the United States and China — remain ensnared in conflict.

The Trump administration began imposing tariffs in response to what it portrays as a decades-long Chinese effort to destroy American jobs by subsidizing key industries. But among hard-liners, the trade war is increasingly a means of weaponizing the enormous American marketplace — threatening China’s access to American consumers — to contain a supposed strategic and security threat.

China’s leaders have come to construe trade hostilities as part of an American bullying campaign engineered to suppress their national aspirations and deny the country its rightful place as a superpower.

Nationalist sentiments and security concerns combined with trade policy do not make for a conducive climate for a meaningful deal that can comprehensively end trade hostilities.

“If anything, the positions are hardening,” Ms. Crowley said.

On another front, Mr. Trump has threated to impose tariffs on imported automobiles, a step that would be especially disruptive in Germany, Europe’s largest economy. Germany sells far more goods to the United States than it imports, drawing the ire of the American president.

Mr. Trump has openly threatened to cite a national security threat as justification for auto tariffs. Trade experts have derided that approach as an affront to the norms of the international trading system.

Last month, Mr. Trump allowed a self-imposed deadline to lapse without imposing auto tariffs. But he has left a major international industry guessing about what happens next.

The World Trade Organization’s appellate body, which adjudicates disputes, has been rendered inoperative by the Trump administration’s blocking of new judges. The panel needs at least three judges to render verdicts, but now has only one.

One major variable has gained clarity: Congressional Democrats and the Trump administration this week hailed an agreement that clears passage of the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the sprawling deal that has allowed some $1.2 trillion worth of goods a year to be exchanged freely across the United States, Canada and Mexico.

But the results of Britain’s election raise the likelihood that commerce in one large swath of the globe is likely to be impeded.

Britain sends nearly half of its exports to the European Union, a flow of goods potentially imperiled by Brexit. Its departure from the European single market — which allows trade to be conducted seamlessly from Greece to Ireland, as if the territory were one vast country — risks undermining Britain’s appeal as a headquarters for multinational companies.

Since Britain shocked the world with its vote to abandon the European Union, its political institutions have tangled themselves in knots trying to decide what to do with their nebulous mandate to leave. Businesses have deferred hiring and investments, awaiting clarity on future trading terms.

The uncertainty has already exacted significant costs, and far beyond Europe, according to a new paper by Tarek Hassan, an economist at Boston University, and three European accounting experts, Stephan Hollander, Laurence van Lent and Ahmed Tahoun.

Every year since the referendum, the average company in Ireland — which trades heavily with Britain — has seen its growth in investment reduced by 15 percent, and hiring is 4.2 percent less than it otherwise would have been because of uncertainty, the paper concludes. Yet even across the Atlantic, the average American company has seen investment growth limited by 0.5 percent a year and hiring slowed by 1.7 percent.

“There is already a significant drop in employment as a result of the risks of Brexit,” Mr. Hassan said.

Though Thursday’s election provided clarity on Brexit, substantial variables remain. Assuming Mr. Johnson’s Brexit plan now sails through Parliament, Britain must negotiate trade terms with Europe before the end of a transition period running through the end of next year — a monumental task.

Mr. Johnson has ruled out extending that deadline, renewing the prospect that Britain could again flirt with crashing out of the European bloc without a deal. That threat could force businesses to again stockpile goods and implement complicated contingency plans.

Some analysts suggested that the election enhanced the possibility that Mr. Johnson would pursue a softer form of Brexit that keeps Britain closer to the European market. His majority is so comfortable that he need not worry about alienating the hard-liners in his party who favor a clean break with Europe.

But some alteration is clearly ahead. If Brexit uncertainty has been damaging, what replaces it is the near-certainty of weaker economic growth and diminished living standards. Britain’s political mandate to “take back control” carries costs.

“It’s going to have massive implications,” Mr. Hassan said.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

U.K. Election Updates: In Victory, Johnson Promises Brexit and More

Here’s what you need to know:

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_165877104_5f58567c-a6da-4963-8afe-3bc099c0c934-articleLarge U.K. Election Updates: In Victory, Johnson Promises Brexit and More Scottish National Party Scotland Politics and Government Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats (Great Britain) Legislatures and Parliaments Labour Party (Great Britain) Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain European Union Europe elections Conservative Party (Great Britain)

Celebrations at a Conservative results party at a pub in central London.Credit…Andrew Testa for The New York Times

With all but one district declared on Friday morning, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservatives had won 364 seats — 47 more than they won in the last election, in 2017.

The victory is the party’s biggest since Margaret Thatcher captured a third term in 1987 — “literally before many of you were born,” Mr. Johnson told supporters Friday morning. It gives him a comfortable majority in the 650-seat House of Commons.

“We did it,” he said. “We smashed it, didn’t we?”

Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party had to reach even farther back to find a more extreme result. It won 203 seats, down 59 from the previous vote, in its worst showing since 1935. It had not suffered a similar drubbing since 1983, when it took 209 seats.

The Scottish National Party captured 48 of Scotland’s 59 seats, a gain of 13. The Liberal Democrats, who were hoping to ride an anti-Brexit stance back to prominence, won just 11 seats, one fewer than in 2017.

The Conservatives collected 43.6 percent of the popular vote, to 32.2 percent for Labour. That 11.3 percentage point margin was also the largest for the Tories since 1987 — a dramatic shift from 2017, when Labour lost the popular vote by just 2.4 percent.

Westlake Legal Group uk-general-election-results-1576181944497-articleLarge-v2 U.K. Election Updates: In Victory, Johnson Promises Brexit and More Scottish National Party Scotland Politics and Government Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats (Great Britain) Legislatures and Parliaments Labour Party (Great Britain) Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain European Union Europe elections Conservative Party (Great Britain)

U.K. Election Results Map: How Conservatives Won in a Landslide

Prime Minister Boris Johnson secured a large majority in Parliament. Here’s how he did it.

Speaking to his constituents in Uxbridge early Friday morning, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that the election results appeared to have given his government “a powerful new mandate to get Brexit done.”

Later in the morning, he told supporters, “we put an end to all those miserable threats of a second referendum” that might have reversed the results of the 2016 vote on Brexit.

“We will get Brexit done on time on the 31st of January — no ifs, no buts, no maybes,” he added.

He visited Buckingham Palace and met with Queen Elizabeth II, who formally asked him to form a new government.

He also promised that his government would spend more at home after a decade of austerity under Conservative governments — in particular on Britain’s National Health Service, known commonly as the N.H.S., a cherished program whose conditions have deteriorated.

Mr. Johnson said that he would seek “to unite this country and to take it forward and to focus on the priorities of the British people, and above all on the N.H.S.”

As hospital beds have overflowed, waiting times have gone up and vacancies have gone unfilled, many Britons have grown fearful that the health service could be privatized or otherwise overhauled — for instance by a trade deal with the United States that could drive up drug prices. (President Trump, tweeting congratulations on Friday morning, said Britain could “strike a massive new Trade Deal” after Brexit.)

Mr. Johnson insisted he would protect the health service, echoing his campaign promises to hire 50,000 more nurses and 6,000 doctors.

He promised again to hire more police officers, whose ranks have also thinned, and vowed “colossal new investments in infrastructure and science.”

“Let’s spread opportunity to every corner of the U.K.”

Speaking in his constituency of Islington in London, the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said that he would step down before the next general election, but would stay at the party’s helm for now, as it reflects on how to move forward from its dismal showing.

Mr. Corbyn is already under intense pressure to resign. His has been accused of poor leadership and of failing to handle accusations of anti-Semitism in the party ranks.

“I will not lead the party in any future general election campaign,” he said. “I will discuss with our party to ensure there is a process now of reflection on this result and on the policies that the party will take going forward and I will lead the party during that period to ensure that discussion takes place and we move on into the future.”

It was not clear how long Mr. Corbyn meant to stay on as party leader. The next election could be as long as five years away.

Some members of the Labour Party were quick to criticize him on Thursday night.

“The Labour Party has huge, huge questions to answer,” Ruth Smeeth, a former lawmaker, told Sky News. She immediately laid blame on Mr. Corbyn.

“Jeremy Corbyn should announce that he’s resigning as the leader of the Labour Party from his count today,” she said. “He should have gone many, many, many months ago.”

The pound jumped in value on Thursday night and remained high on Friday, buoyed by the receding prospect of a chaotic exit from the European Union without a divorce agreement. At midmorning, it stood at about $1.34, up from about $1.32 a day earlier.

Equity markets were similarly been lifted by the broad Conservative victory, with the FTSE 250 up more than 4 percent. The FTSE 100, which includes companies that rely more heavily on overseas earnings that would be dampened by a stronger pound, rose less sharply.

If the Conservatives manage to pass the withdrawal agreement bill as planned, the gains are likely to hold up through the end of the year, said Peter Dixon, an economist at Commerzbank. Easing global trade tensions should support markets too, after the United States and China, which have been locked in a trade war, settled on a partial deal.

Prospects look more uncertain for the new year.

The current deadline gives the British government has just 11 months to negotiate a complex deal on its long-term trading relationship with the European Union. The two sides may struggle to meet the Dec. 31, 2020 deadline, once again raising the prospect of a damaging “no-deal” Brexit.

“If negotiators get stuck or bogged down or become more fractious, there’s a prospect of more volatility in the currency,” Mr. Dixon said. “The risk of an accidental no-deal Brexit might keep the market on their toes.”

In the longer term, bond yields could also start to edge up if the Scottish secessionist movement gains momentum now that the Scottish National Party has won most of the seats in Scotland.

“The one thing which certain investors, maybe bond market investors, will look at again is the integrity of the U.K. following the strong Scottish result for the S.N.P.,” Mr. Dixon added.

European leaders on Friday welcomed the clarity of the British election result, which came during the last day of their summit meeting in Brussels, in hopes that it would make way for resolution of the Brexit deal.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson now has the majority needed to ratify his withdrawal agreement with Brussels by the Jan. 31 deadline laid out by Europe.

Charles Michel, president of the European Council, congratulated Mr. Johnson on Twitter and said that he expected British Parliament to vote on the deal “as soon as possible.”

But that will only start the clock on new negotiations about Britain’s future trading and security relationship with the bloc. Mr. Johnson has said that will be quick and easy, but few experts agree. It can be quick, Brussels argues, only if Britain agrees to keep its regulations and tariffs the very close to those of the European Union.

European leaders remain unsure whether Mr. Johnson, with a resounding mandate, will stick to his campaign pledge to finish any trade negotiation with the European Union by the end of 2020, or choose next summer to seek a year’s delay for longer talks. So long as they are negotiating, Britain is in a “transition” period, and its relationship with the European Union is essentially unchanged, even if it will be legally out of the bloc.

Xavier Bettel, Luxembourg’s prime minister, said he hoped that Mr. Johnson would deliver on his campaign promises, as “people need to have clarity.”

“I hope that with yesterday’s results, they do,” he said. “The excuse that there is no clear majority in London doesn’t last anymore.”

But talks on the future relationship between Britain and the European Union are “not going to be simple,’’ he said.

The Scottish National Party’s success — it won 48 of the 59 seats that it contested — will intensify the debate over independence for Scotland, which voted against Brexit and has largely rejected Britain’s major parties.

In a 2014 referendum, 45 percent of the voters in Scotland backed independence, and as Brexit approaches, the Scottish National Party, which backs independence, has insisted on a second referendum.

Mr. Johnson has said a national government under him would not hold a Scottish independence vote, but the Scottish government has suggested that it might go ahead with one. And on Friday morning, hours after the result of the vote was clear, Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party and the first minister of Scotland, said it planned to do just that.

That raises the prospect of the kind of disarray and animosity plaguing Spain, where the government of Catalonia held an independence referendum two years ago that the central government said was illegal.

“It is clear beyond any doubt that the kind of future desired by the majority in Scotland is very different to that chosen by much of the rest of the U.K.,” Ms. Sturgeon told reporters during a news briefing.

“Scotland has rejected Boris Johnson and the Tories and yet again we have said no to Brexit,” Ms. Sturgeon said. She said within one week, the Scottish government would publish their plan for holding a new referendum.

“I accept, regretfully, that he has a mandate for Brexit in England,” she said. “But he has no mandate whatsoever to take Scotland out of the European Union.”

Ms. Sturgeon was clear that the decision on Scottish independence should be left up to the Scottish people, not the prime minister, to decide,

“The people of Scotland have spoken, it is time now to decide our own future,” she said.

On Friday morning, voters in and around the heavily pro-Labour north London constituency represented by Jeremy Corbyn, the party’s leader, woke up dismayed by its losses nationally.

“He failed to lead a proper campaign,” said Sarah Rose, a 43-year-old sociologist, said of Mr. Corbyn as she walked her dogs in Clissold Park. “He failed to tackle accusations of anti-Semitism, and he failed to have a sensible position on Brexit. It’s devastating.”

As expected, Mr. Corbyn won a landslide re-election in this Labour stronghold, but many people said they had doubts about continuing to support him. And as commuters headed to work in a cold drizzle, Labour sympathizers said the party needed to think long and hard about the outcome.

“Nobody here was thinking that Labour would have a majority, and it’s now clear that nobody wants a future with Corbyn,” said Tom Findlay, a 46-year-old music producer and psychotherapist.

He said he went to bed after the first exit polls on Thursday night confirmed a sweeping defeat for Labour. After he woke up early on Friday, his disappointment deepened when he heard that Mr. Corbyn would cling, for now, to his leadership position.

Mr. Corbyn told supporters he would not lead the party into another election, but that he would still oversee a “process of reflection.” He didn’t specify when he would step down.

“It’s typical of his arrogance: he is planning to stay a little bit longer while it’s so clear that he has been rejected,” Mr. Findlay said.

But he tried to see a silver lining. Many people in his part of London were devastated, he said, adding, “it’s going to be good for my therapy business, unfortunately.”

Britain’s businesses welcomed the strong result for the Conservatives and the Brexit certainty it is expected to bring, at least for now. But they remain fearful of facing another Brexit deadline at the end of next year.

“The starting point must be rebuilding business confidence, and early reassurance on Brexit will be vital,” said Carolyn Fairbairn, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, the country’s biggest business association.

Parts of the economy have been in limbo for much of the past three years, as negotiations with the European Union dragged on, and Parliament was unable to muster majority support for any one approach.

Both the Conservatives and Labour have worried the business community at different points. Labour had promised to nationalize some industries, while Boris Johnson had unnerved businesspeople with his determination to plow on with leaving the European Union, even without an agreement.

Now, companies want to know that they won’t be staring down another potentially disastrous deadline next year.

“Firms will continue to do all they can to prepare for Brexit, but will want to know they won’t face another no deal cliff-edge next year,” Ms. Fairbairn said.

And while the decisive victory paves the way for the next step in the Brexit process, one thing is clear: the postwar push toward greater global economic integration is at an end. The British election verdict is not the only sign.

In the United States, President Trump’s political base has rallied to his trade war against China. Popular movements across Europe have embraced nationalist and nativist causes that promise to halt globalization.

The traditional arbiter of trade disputes, the World Trade Organization, is listing toward irrelevance.

“The era of freewheeling markets and liberalism is ending,” said Meredith Crowley, an international trade expert at the University of Cambridge in England.

Britain will have a record number of female members of Parliament after Thursday’s vote, when women won at least 220 of the 650 seats, according to the Press Association.

At just over one-third of the House of Commons, women remain far short of parity with men, but they have made tremendous gains since the mid-1980s, when there were only 23 in Parliament. In the last general election, in 2017, women won 211 seats, a record at the time.

This year’s increase comes at a time when many people feared that women were being driven away from politics in a climate of heightened divisions. Online threats and abuse have risen sharply, and were disproportionately directed at female candidates.

Ahead of the campaign, more than a dozen prominent female lawmakers said they would not be standing for re-election citing that abuse as a reason for stepping away from politics. Many female candidates described threats and insults as a grim new reality on the campaign trail, a change that cast a harsh light on British politics.

An analysis of Twitter during the campaign, conducted by PoliMonitor, showed that all candidates received about four times as much abuse as in the 2017 election. The hostility aimed at women, the study said, was often based specifically on their sex or appearance.

Reporting was contributed by Richard Pérez-Peña, Megan Specia, Benjamin Mueller, Steven Erlanger, Ceylan Yeginsu, Amie Tsang, Stephen Castle, Elian Peltier, Peter S. Goodman and Alan Yuhas.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

U.K. Election Updates: In Victory, Johnson Promises Brexit and More

Here’s what you need to know:

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_165877104_5f58567c-a6da-4963-8afe-3bc099c0c934-articleLarge U.K. Election Updates: In Victory, Johnson Promises Brexit and More Scottish National Party Scotland Politics and Government Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats (Great Britain) Legislatures and Parliaments Labour Party (Great Britain) Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain European Union Europe elections Conservative Party (Great Britain)

Celebrations at a Conservative results party at a pub in central London.Credit…Andrew Testa for The New York Times

With all but one district declared on Friday morning, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservatives had won 364 seats — 47 more than they won in the last election, in 2017.

The victory is the party’s biggest since Margaret Thatcher captured a third term in 1987 — “literally before many of you were born,” Mr. Johnson told supporters Friday morning. It gives him a comfortable majority in the 650-seat House of Commons.

“We did it,” he said. “We smashed it, didn’t we?”

Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party had to reach even farther back to find a more extreme result. It won 203 seats, down 59 from the previous vote, in its worst showing since 1935. It had not suffered a similar drubbing since 1983, when it took 209 seats.

The Scottish National Party captured 48 of Scotland’s 59 seats, a gain of 13. The Liberal Democrats, who were hoping to ride an anti-Brexit stance back to prominence, won just 11 seats, one fewer than in 2017.

The Conservatives collected 43.6 percent of the popular vote, to 32.2 percent for Labour. That 11.3 percentage point margin was also the largest for the Tories since 1987 — a dramatic shift from 2017, when Labour lost the popular vote by just 2.4 percent.

Westlake Legal Group uk-general-election-results-1576181944497-articleLarge-v2 U.K. Election Updates: In Victory, Johnson Promises Brexit and More Scottish National Party Scotland Politics and Government Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats (Great Britain) Legislatures and Parliaments Labour Party (Great Britain) Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain European Union Europe elections Conservative Party (Great Britain)

U.K. Election Results Map: How Conservatives Won in a Landslide

Prime Minister Boris Johnson secured a large majority in Parliament. Here’s how he did it.

Speaking to his constituents in Uxbridge early Friday morning, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that the election results appeared to have given his government “a powerful new mandate to get Brexit done.”

Later in the morning, he told supporters, “we put an end to all those miserable threats of a second referendum” that might have reversed the results of the 2016 vote on Brexit.

“We will get Brexit done on time on the 31st of January — no ifs, no buts, no maybes,” he added.

He visited Buckingham Palace and met with Queen Elizabeth II, who formally asked him to form a new government.

He also promised that his government would spend more at home after a decade of austerity under Conservative governments — in particular on Britain’s National Health Service, known commonly as the N.H.S., a cherished program whose conditions have deteriorated.

Mr. Johnson said that he would seek “to unite this country and to take it forward and to focus on the priorities of the British people, and above all on the N.H.S.”

As hospital beds have overflowed, waiting times have gone up and vacancies have gone unfilled, many Britons have grown fearful that the health service could be privatized or otherwise overhauled — for instance by a trade deal with the United States that could drive up drug prices. (President Trump, tweeting congratulations on Friday morning, said Britain could “strike a massive new Trade Deal” after Brexit.)

Mr. Johnson insisted he would protect the health service, echoing his campaign promises to hire 50,000 more nurses and 6,000 doctors.

He promised again to hire more police officers, whose ranks have also thinned, and vowed “colossal new investments in infrastructure and science.”

“Let’s spread opportunity to every corner of the U.K.”

Speaking in his constituency of Islington in London, the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said that he would step down before the next general election, but would stay at the party’s helm for now, as it reflects on how to move forward from its dismal showing.

Mr. Corbyn is already under intense pressure to resign. His has been accused of poor leadership and of failing to handle accusations of anti-Semitism in the party ranks.

“I will not lead the party in any future general election campaign,” he said. “I will discuss with our party to ensure there is a process now of reflection on this result and on the policies that the party will take going forward and I will lead the party during that period to ensure that discussion takes place and we move on into the future.”

It was not clear how long Mr. Corbyn meant to stay on as party leader. The next election could be as long as five years away.

Some members of the Labour Party were quick to criticize him on Thursday night.

“The Labour Party has huge, huge questions to answer,” Ruth Smeeth, a former lawmaker, told Sky News. She immediately laid blame on Mr. Corbyn.

“Jeremy Corbyn should announce that he’s resigning as the leader of the Labour Party from his count today,” she said. “He should have gone many, many, many months ago.”

The pound jumped in value on Thursday night and remained high on Friday, buoyed by the receding prospect of a chaotic exit from the European Union without a divorce agreement. At midmorning, it stood at about $1.34, up from about $1.32 a day earlier.

Equity markets were similarly been lifted by the broad Conservative victory, with the FTSE 250 up more than 4 percent. The FTSE 100, which includes companies that rely more heavily on overseas earnings that would be dampened by a stronger pound, rose less sharply.

If the Conservatives manage to pass the withdrawal agreement bill as planned, the gains are likely to hold up through the end of the year, said Peter Dixon, an economist at Commerzbank. Easing global trade tensions should support markets too, after the United States and China, which have been locked in a trade war, settled on a partial deal.

Prospects look more uncertain for the new year.

The current deadline gives the British government has just 11 months to negotiate a complex deal on its long-term trading relationship with the European Union. The two sides may struggle to meet the Dec. 31, 2020 deadline, once again raising the prospect of a damaging “no-deal” Brexit.

“If negotiators get stuck or bogged down or become more fractious, there’s a prospect of more volatility in the currency,” Mr. Dixon said. “The risk of an accidental no-deal Brexit might keep the market on their toes.”

In the longer term, bond yields could also start to edge up if the Scottish secessionist movement gains momentum now that the Scottish National Party has won most of the seats in Scotland.

“The one thing which certain investors, maybe bond market investors, will look at again is the integrity of the U.K. following the strong Scottish result for the S.N.P.,” Mr. Dixon added.

European leaders on Friday welcomed the clarity of the British election result, which came during the last day of their summit meeting in Brussels, in hopes that it would make way for resolution of the Brexit deal.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson now has the majority needed to ratify his withdrawal agreement with Brussels by the Jan. 31 deadline laid out by Europe.

Charles Michel, president of the European Council, congratulated Mr. Johnson on Twitter and said that he expected British Parliament to vote on the deal “as soon as possible.”

But that will only start the clock on new negotiations about Britain’s future trading and security relationship with the bloc. Mr. Johnson has said that will be quick and easy, but few experts agree. It can be quick, Brussels argues, only if Britain agrees to keep its regulations and tariffs the very close to those of the European Union.

European leaders remain unsure whether Mr. Johnson, with a resounding mandate, will stick to his campaign pledge to finish any trade negotiation with the European Union by the end of 2020, or choose next summer to seek a year’s delay for longer talks. So long as they are negotiating, Britain is in a “transition” period, and its relationship with the European Union is essentially unchanged, even if it will be legally out of the bloc.

Xavier Bettel, Luxembourg’s prime minister, said he hoped that Mr. Johnson would deliver on his campaign promises, as “people need to have clarity.”

“I hope that with yesterday’s results, they do,” he said. “The excuse that there is no clear majority in London doesn’t last anymore.”

But talks on the future relationship between Britain and the European Union are “not going to be simple,’’ he said.

The Scottish National Party’s success — it won 48 of the 59 seats that it contested — will intensify the debate over independence for Scotland, which voted against Brexit and has largely rejected Britain’s major parties.

In a 2014 referendum, 45 percent of the voters in Scotland backed independence, and as Brexit approaches, the Scottish National Party, which backs independence, has insisted on a second referendum.

Mr. Johnson has said a national government under him would not hold a Scottish independence vote, but the Scottish government has suggested that it might go ahead with one. And on Friday morning, hours after the result of the vote was clear, Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party and the first minister of Scotland, said it planned to do just that.

That raises the prospect of the kind of disarray and animosity plaguing Spain, where the government of Catalonia held an independence referendum two years ago that the central government said was illegal.

“It is clear beyond any doubt that the kind of future desired by the majority in Scotland is very different to that chosen by much of the rest of the U.K.,” Ms. Sturgeon told reporters during a news briefing.

“Scotland has rejected Boris Johnson and the Tories and yet again we have said no to Brexit,” Ms. Sturgeon said. She said within one week, the Scottish government would publish their plan for holding a new referendum.

“I accept, regretfully, that he has a mandate for Brexit in England,” she said. “But he has no mandate whatsoever to take Scotland out of the European Union.”

Ms. Sturgeon was clear that the decision on Scottish independence should be left up to the Scottish people, not the prime minister, to decide,

“The people of Scotland have spoken, it is time now to decide our own future,” she said.

On Friday morning, voters in and around the heavily pro-Labour north London constituency represented by Jeremy Corbyn, the party’s leader, woke up dismayed by its losses nationally.

“He failed to lead a proper campaign,” said Sarah Rose, a 43-year-old sociologist, said of Mr. Corbyn as she walked her dogs in Clissold Park. “He failed to tackle accusations of anti-Semitism, and he failed to have a sensible position on Brexit. It’s devastating.”

As expected, Mr. Corbyn won a landslide re-election in this Labour stronghold, but many people said they had doubts about continuing to support him. And as commuters headed to work in a cold drizzle, Labour sympathizers said the party needed to think long and hard about the outcome.

“Nobody here was thinking that Labour would have a majority, and it’s now clear that nobody wants a future with Corbyn,” said Tom Findlay, a 46-year-old music producer and psychotherapist.

He said he went to bed after the first exit polls on Thursday night confirmed a sweeping defeat for Labour. After he woke up early on Friday, his disappointment deepened when he heard that Mr. Corbyn would cling, for now, to his leadership position.

Mr. Corbyn told supporters he would not lead the party into another election, but that he would still oversee a “process of reflection.” He didn’t specify when he would step down.

“It’s typical of his arrogance: he is planning to stay a little bit longer while it’s so clear that he has been rejected,” Mr. Findlay said.

But he tried to see a silver lining. Many people in his part of London were devastated, he said, adding, “it’s going to be good for my therapy business, unfortunately.”

Britain’s businesses welcomed the strong result for the Conservatives and the Brexit certainty it is expected to bring, at least for now. But they remain fearful of facing another Brexit deadline at the end of next year.

“The starting point must be rebuilding business confidence, and early reassurance on Brexit will be vital,” said Carolyn Fairbairn, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, the country’s biggest business association.

Parts of the economy have been in limbo for much of the past three years, as negotiations with the European Union dragged on, and Parliament was unable to muster majority support for any one approach.

Both the Conservatives and Labour have worried the business community at different points. Labour had promised to nationalize some industries, while Boris Johnson had unnerved businesspeople with his determination to plow on with leaving the European Union, even without an agreement.

Now, companies want to know that they won’t be staring down another potentially disastrous deadline next year.

“Firms will continue to do all they can to prepare for Brexit, but will want to know they won’t face another no deal cliff-edge next year,” Ms. Fairbairn said.

And while the decisive victory paves the way for the next step in the Brexit process, one thing is clear: the postwar push toward greater global economic integration is at an end. The British election verdict is not the only sign.

In the United States, President Trump’s political base has rallied to his trade war against China. Popular movements across Europe have embraced nationalist and nativist causes that promise to halt globalization.

The traditional arbiter of trade disputes, the World Trade Organization, is listing toward irrelevance.

“The era of freewheeling markets and liberalism is ending,” said Meredith Crowley, an international trade expert at the University of Cambridge in England.

Britain will have a record number of female members of Parliament after Thursday’s vote, when women won at least 220 of the 650 seats, according to the Press Association.

At just over one-third of the House of Commons, women remain far short of parity with men, but they have made tremendous gains since the mid-1980s, when there were only 23 in Parliament. In the last general election, in 2017, women won 211 seats, a record at the time.

This year’s increase comes at a time when many people feared that women were being driven away from politics in a climate of heightened divisions. Online threats and abuse have risen sharply, and were disproportionately directed at female candidates.

Ahead of the campaign, more than a dozen prominent female lawmakers said they would not be standing for re-election citing that abuse as a reason for stepping away from politics. Many female candidates described threats and insults as a grim new reality on the campaign trail, a change that cast a harsh light on British politics.

An analysis of Twitter during the campaign, conducted by PoliMonitor, showed that all candidates received about four times as much abuse as in the 2017 election. The hostility aimed at women, the study said, was often based specifically on their sex or appearance.

Reporting was contributed by Richard Pérez-Peña, Megan Specia, Benjamin Mueller, Steven Erlanger, Ceylan Yeginsu, Amie Tsang, Stephen Castle, Elian Peltier, Peter S. Goodman and Alan Yuhas.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com