Time For The UK To Adopt Spain’s Electoral System? – Analysis

 July 11, 2024 

By Elcano Royal Institute

By William Chislett

\

Labour won a landslide victory in the UK general election in terms of seats in parliament, but not in votes. It obtained 411 of the 650 seats (63.2% of the total) on 33.8% of the vote compared with 202 seats in the 2019 election (31%) on 32.1% of the vote (see Figure 1).

This is the largest gap on record between vote share and proportion of seats, raising questions about whether the first-past-the-post electoral system -FPTP- needs to be changed in order to better reflect how the electorate votes. Labour’s latest vote share is actually less than it achieved in 2017, when it lost to the Conservatives!

Figure 1. Result of UK general elections 2024 and 2019 (seats and % of total votes cast)

	2024 seats	% of votes	2019 seats	% of votes
Labour	411	33.8	202	32.1
Conservative	121	23.7	365	43.6
Liberal Democrats	72	12.2	11	11.5
Scottish National Party	9	2.5	48	3.9
Sinn Fein	7	0.7	7	0.6
Reform UK	5	14.3	—	—
Democratic Unionist	5	0.6	8	0.8
Green	4	6.8	1	2.6
Other	16	5.4	8	4.9
Total seats	650		650
Turnout	60.0	60.0	67.3	67.3

Source: House of Commons.

Under FPTP, sometimes described as winner-takes-all, the candidate who wins the most votes in each constituency, even if only one more than the next party, is elected. It has been used in the UK since the Middle Ages and has generally given the UK stable governments, with both the Conservatives and Labour over the past 60 years tending to last their full five-year term in office until 2017, when Teresa May called a snap election in the hope of winning a bigger majority (which did not happen), and in 2019, when Boris Johnson went to the polls early.

FPTP is used in fewer than 50 countries. Many more use proportional representation (PR) systems. The former tends to favour the largest parties and those with strong regional support to the detriment of smaller parties without a geographically concentrated base. As a result, it often produces disproportionate results, as the latest UK election shows. While Labour’s share of seats was almost twice that of its slice of the vote, the hard-right Reform UK (the revamped Brexit party) got only five seats on 14.3% of the vote, while the Liberal Democrats won 72 on just 12.2% of the vote.

The incumbent Conservatives dropped from 365 seats in 2019 (43.6% of the vote and 56% of the seats) to 121 seats (23.7% and 18.6%, respectively). The combined vote share of the Conservatives and Reform (many of whose voters are disaffected Conservatives) was higher than that of Labour, but their combined number of seats was just under one third of Labour’s.

The UK’s Electoral Reform Society says FPTP is ‘bad for voters, bad for government and bad for democracy’. In return for the support of the Liberal Democrats in a coalition government (the party had long complained of FPTP), the Conservative David Cameron agreed to a referendum in 2011 on the electoral system. But the question asked was whether FPTP should be replaced by Alternative Vote (AV), also known as a preferential voting system, and not by PR.

Under AV voters rank candidates in order of preference. If any single candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes, that candidate is deemed elected. If no candidate clears this hurdle, the last-place candidate is eliminated and that candidate’s second preferences are reapportioned to others and so on until a candidate clears the threshold of 50% of the vote plus one. This method was rejected by 67% of voters on a turnout of 42%.

Spain uses the d’Hondt system of proportional representation (PR), with ‘closed lists’, which, by awarding a minimum of two seats to each of the 50 provinces, gives a bonus to the majority party as well as over-representing rural areas. In the 2023 election the Socialists won 121 of the 350 seats in congress (34.5%) on 33.1% of the vote, compared with 34.3% and 28%, respectively, in 2019 (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Results of Spain’s general elections 2023 and 2019 (seats and % of total votes cast)

	2023 seats	% of votes	2019	% of votes
Popular Party	137	33.1	89	20.8
Socialists	121	31.7	120	28.0
VOX	33	12.4	52	15.1
Unidas Podemos	–	–	35	12.9
Sumar	31	12.3	–	–
Catalan Republican Left	7	1.9	13	3.6
Ciudadanos	–	–	10	6.8
J×Cat	7	1.6	8	2.2
EH Bildu	6	1.4	5	1.1
Basque Nationalist Party	5	1.1	6	1.6
Other parties	3	1.3	5	0.9
Total seats	350		350
Voter turnout (%)	70.4	70.4	66.2	66.2

Source: Interior Ministry.

The PR system is more representative of the whole electorate and delivers fairer treatment of minority parties and independent candidates. It encourages people to vote and reduces apathy (voter turnout of 60% at the UK’s election was the lowest since 2001, compared with 70.4% in Spain’s 2023 election): fewer votes are ‘wasted’ as more people’s preferences are taken into account. It often leads to greater consensus in policy-making.

Spain had one-party governments between 1977 and January 2020, when Socialist leader Pedro Sánchez narrowly won parliamentary backing for the country’s first coalition government (with the hard-left Podemos) since the 1930s. But since it was a minority one, he was left reliant on a fragile patchwork of alliances with other parties to pass laws. This situation has prevailed since then, with Sumar replacing Podemos. The Socialists and Popular Party tended to last their full four-year term in office until 2015, when the political system fragmented with the entry into parliament first of two new parties, Podemos and the would-be centrist Ciudadanos, and subsequently a third, the hard-right VOX. Since 2015, Spain has had five general elections.

The disadvantages of the PR system are that it makes it easier for extreme parties to gain representation, as has been the case with Podemos (as of 2023 Sumar), on the left, and VOX, on the right; it can create political gridlock (as in Spain, where four of the five elections since 2015 were held between that year and 2019) and it favours coalitions which are not always the best course when only a strong majority government is able to push through much needed reforms (which some would argue is what Spain needs at the moment). But PR, more than FPTP, does better reflect a country’s political reality in all its complexity, however frustrating that might be for voters of the dominant parties. It also increases the risk of dysfunctional governments. So which is the fairer system, FPTP or PR? As more parties enter national politics, so PR seems the more just way to elect members of parliament. In the current polarised political climate, however, Spain perhaps could do with a dosis of FPTP as it might provide a more stable government, while the UK could do with PR to better represent parties that have considerable support but are rarely first past the post. No system is perfect.

• About the author: William Chislett (Oxford, 1951) is Emeritus Senior Research Fellow at the Elcano Royal Institute. He covered Spain’s transition to democracy for The Times of London between 1975 and 1978. He was then based in Mexico City for the Financial Times between 1978 and 1984. He returned to Madrid on a permanent basis in 1986 and since then, among other things, has written 20 books on various countries.
• Source: This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute

Elcano Royal Institute

The Elcano Royal Institute (Real Instituto Elcano) is a private entity, independent of both the Public Administration and the companies that provide most of its funding. It was established, under the honorary presidency of HRH the Prince of Asturias, on 2 December 2001 as a forum for analysis and debate on international affairs and particularly on Spain’s international relations. Its output aims to be of use to Spain’s decision-makers, both public and private, active on the international scene. Its work should similarly promote the knowledge of Spain in the strategic scenarios in which the country’s interests are at stake.

Debt, sewage and dividends: the rising tide of Thames Water’s troubles

Anna Isaac and Alex Lawson

THE GUARDIAN
Wed, 10 July 2024 

Thames’s financial and environmental problems have made it a focus for rising criticism of the privatised water industry.Composite: Guardian Design/Getty Images/Rex/Shutterstock

Government officials who tour Coppermills, a vast Thames Water treatment works in north-east London, are left under no illusions about the dire condition of Britain’s infrastructure.

“It’s in a shocking state,” said one official who has visited the 1960s site, which supplies approximately a third of the capital’s population with drinking water and sewage services. “It’s a slow-motion management disaster.”

Thames has publicly admitted that Coppermills is in such poor condition that it could be a “point of failure”, leading to prolonged water supply disruption for more than 500,000 people.

Coppermills is just one corner of a huge, decaying empire that serves 16 million customers across London and the Thames Valley.

Evidence of that decay has become all too frequent: from the rivers clouded with sewage when it rains, and the burst pipes and water mains, to the threatened water shortages when the sun shines. A slow-moving crisis that has engulfed Thames has left it teetering on the brink of a painful restructuring, or even a temporary renationalisation.

Thames has also become a powerful totem of mismanagement, corporate greed and lax regulatory oversight. And for a new Labour government coming to terms with its economic inheritance, Thames is a timebomb that is about to detonate.

New breed of investors

The roots of that decay can be traced back more than two decades. In the early 2000s, as the government prepared to shunt two renationalised companies, Railtrack and British Energy, back into private hands, the message to regulators was clear: play nice and do not put off foreign investors.

It was against this backdrop of light-touch regulation that Macquarie, which started out as a small Australian merchant bank in the 1960s, decided to buy Thames Water in 2006.

Britain’s privatisation wave, kicked off by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, was entering a new phase. The early owners were cashing in their lucrative investments, and a new breed of financially savvy investors was circling.

The Macquarie-led consortium outmuscled investment heavyweights – including the gas-rich state of Qatar and Guy Hands’s Terra Firma – to land the £8bn acquisition from German’s RWE.

Macquarie pruned costs ruthlessly. Thames Water lifer Cliff Roney, who had a four-decade career within the company before retiring in 2018, recalls a perceptible shift when it took over from RWE.

“When Macquarie arrived, they presented a glossy presentation to us, promising investment in assets and staff. Within months, it was clear we’d been sold a pup,” he says. “Some important sites needed in case of water shortages were sold off. They were so tight on spending, you could barely order a box of pens. All the skills were contracted out – we had electricians, blacksmiths, window fitters – they were all outsourced under Macquarie.”

Parsimony even extended to the boardroom – although not where pay was concerned. When Martin Baggs left his job running Thames Water in late 2016, he might have expected a lavish celebration, or at least a gold watch. Baggs had spent seven years as chief executive churning out profits and dividends for Macquarie. But in recognition of his service, Baggs and his top team were each presented with a tea towel.

“It had self-portraits drawn by the directors – they didn’t even pay for a designer to create them,” says a former Thames executive. “Macquarie ran a very tight ship: if money didn’t need to be spent, it wasn’t.”

They added: “I’m not saying they’re not the bad guys in this, but they were responsible in the core running of the company. If you needed to buy vital chemicals, you could buy them – you just couldn’t buy any more than was absolutely necessary. It was all very precise. They would not leave any dividends if that could be taken out.”

Hollowed outInteractive

But money was flowing, elsewhere. A £656m dividend was extracted in the first year of Macquarie’s stewardship, in 2007, dwarfing the company’s profits of £241m. Thames churned out dividends of more than £200m in each of the seven years which followed.

It carved Thames up into a complex corporate structure, layering debt across multiple tiers of companies. This so-called whole-business securitisation even involved setting up subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands.

The consortium would ultimately take out £2.8bn during Macquarie’s ownership, representing two-fifths of the total £7bn in dividends that Thames Water has paid between 1990 and 2022, according to Guardian analysis. Macquarie said £1.1bn was paid out to all shareholders, with its funds receiving £508m.

Its current owners – which include Canadian pension fund Omers, the UK universities pension fund and a subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund – have not taken a dividend since 2017, although “internal” dividends have been paid to service debts higher up its complex corporate structure.

Thames Water, which was privatised with zero debt, saw its debts swell from £3.4bn in 2006 to £10.8bn in 2017, when Macquarie sold its final stake. The pension position went from a £26.1m surplus in 2008 to a £260m deficit in 2015. “They left Thames in a crumbling state,” says Roney.

From 2004 to 2019, there were “grotesque excesses” of debt amassed at water companies, including Thames, while dividends grew fatter, a senior water industry source said. “It was asset stripping, pure and simple.”

A Macquarie spokesperson said: “Debt increased in line with the company’s asset base, which doubled due to the record £11bn of investment delivered over the period.”

The highest profile Macquarie executive linked to Thames is Martin Stanley, its former head of asset management, whose division oversaw Thames Water transactions. He earned £10m in 2021, the year he stepped down from the role.Interactive

Irked by “misconceptions” about utility investors, another Macquarie executive, Martin Bradley, the head of asset management, who oversaw the Thames transactions, wrote to the Financial Times earlier this year arguing that the consortium had kept bills affordable and invested £11bn in network upgrades.

The company has even taken the unusual step of addressing media “mischaracterisations” online.

The Macquarie spokesperson said: “We have had no influence over the decisions taken at Thames Water in the seven years since our managed funds sold their final equity stake. During the 11 years in which our funds were shareholders in Thames Water, we oversaw the largest investment programme in the company’s history and the highest rate of investment per customer in the industry.”

Concerns about underinvestment in the water industry amid the broader challenges of the climate crisis and population growth led to a National Infrastructure Commission report in 2018 which underlined the need for greater drought resilience and leakage reduction. It is still issuing such warnings, saying in 2023 that “a lot more still needs to be done”.

In the aftermath of that report, long-mooted plans for reservoirs finally advanced, including a reservoir to the south-west of Abingdon in Oxfordshire – although it still remains the centre of an intense local tussle.

By the time Macquarie cashed in its stake, work had begun on the much-debated Thames supersewer, a separate project that sits outside Thames Water’s ownership but which will ultimately be paid for by Thames customers.

It was hard to find a corner of British infrastructure free from the bank’s reach. From airports such as Glasgow, Aberdeen and Southampton to the gas pipe network manager Cadent, Macquarie was now deeply embedded in the UK’s critical national infrastructure.

Its link to Cadent would prove handy – insiders say Sir Adrian Montague’s position as Cadent’s chair, and experience dealing with Macquarie, contributed to his appointment as chair of Thames in July last year, parachuted in to handle its turnaround.

But along with those assets, Macquarie has acquired a mixed reputation among financial services professionals. Three current lenders to Thames criticised its approach during its time as a major shareholder at the company, saying its behaviour had reflected poorly on the rest of the investment community.

Outrage grows

In March 2017, Britain’s biggest water company was hit with a huge fine – a precursor of what was to follow.

It was just eight days after Macquarie had sold its final stake in Thames to investment managers controlled by Omers and the Kuwait Investment Authority.

The Environment Agency’s prosecution led to a record £20.3m penalty, imposed after the emergence of huge leaks of untreated sewage into the Thames and its tributaries which had led to serious impacts on residents, farmers and wildlife, killing birds and fish. The incidents, in 2013 and 2014, took place at sewage treatment works at Aylesbury, Didcot, Henley and Little Marlow, and a large sewage pumping station at Littlemore.

“This is a shocking and disgraceful state of affairs,” said Judge Francis Sheridan, delivering the sentence at Aylesbury crown court. “One has to get the message across to the shareholders that the environment is to be treasured and protected, and not poisoned.”

In the four years after Macquarie’s exit, Thames was fined £32.4m for 11 water pollution cases, including £4m for discharging an estimated half a million litres of raw sewage into the Seacourt and Hinksey streams in Oxford.

In 2023, it was fined £3.3m and called “reckless” over a 2017 incident which saw millions of litres of raw sewage enter two rivers near Gatwick airport. That came on top of £12m of penalties for late or badly managed roadworks in London.

The fines were also racking up elsewhere: in 2021, Southern Water was fined a new record of £90m by the Environment Agency for deliberately dumping billions of litres of raw sewage into the seas off north Kent and Hampshire over several years.

Between 2015 and the summer of 2023, there were 59 prosecutions of water companies in England, with fines handed down by the courts of over £150m. As the fines mounted, so did the public outrage, led by a clutch of vociferous campaigners, notably the former lead singer of the Undertones, Feargal Sharkey.

Financial implosion

The political winds started to shift, with the then environment secretary, Michael Gove, saying in 2018 that water companies “have not been acting sufficiently in the public interest.” Some had been “playing the system for the benefit of wealthy managers and owners, at the expense of consumers and the environment”, hiding “behind complex financial structures” to avoid scrutiny, he said. Ultimately, it had allowed “failures to persist for far too long”.

But the wheels of regulation turn slowly. Ofwat’s concerns were building in 2018, 2019 and 2020, according to insiders who were working on issues such as dividends at the time. In 2017, the Cayman subsidiaries were ordered to be shut down.

“By the time Macquarie left, it was abundantly clear that it had ransacked Thames,” a former Ofwat board member told the Guardian. “It might have been after that particular horse had bolted, but Ofwat did take steps to try and stem the tide of dividends.”

But it was ultimately only last year that Ofwat gained new powers to stop the payment of dividends to shareholders if they threatened a water company’s financial resilience.

Related: Thames Water to shut Cayman Islands subsidiaries under new chairman

And despite the catastrophic financial position it left Thames Water in, Macquarie made a shock return to the English water industry in 2021, taking control of troubled Southern Water and injecting £1bn to save it from possible renationalisation. Its surprise comeback came with a warning from the then chair of Ofwat, Jonson Cox, who told Macquarie that “very profound changes” would be required at Southern.

Macquarie said that the regulator had welcomed its investment in struggling Southern Water.

Ofwat faced a worsening conundrum. The water monopolies were so heavily indebted that fines risked further undermining their financial resilience.

By 2021, mounting outrage over sewage discharges had reached a climax. In November of that year the Environment Agency and Ofwat announced separate, parallel investigations into “potential widespread non-compliance at wastewater treatment works”.

Meanwhile, financial problems at Thames were starting to mount. Sarah Bentley, the latest chief executive to promise to turn around the struggling utility, abruptly resigned in June 2023. Before the week was out, it emerged that the government had begun contingency planning for the collapse of Thames, and that Montague would become chair.

Accounts differ on the reasons for Bentley’s departure. Industry sources claim she was frustrated with a lack of available funds to turn around Thames more quickly. Montague told MPs she was “feeling the burdens of office were quite considerable”, before hastily apologising. “Sarah Bentley became known as the Scarlet Pimpernel: she was barely seen and only communicated with most staff through emails and bulletins,” recalls Roney.

Across English and Welsh water companies, fraught negotiations with Ofwat were under way over how much they could increase bills by for their next five-year spending cycle, due to run from 2025 to 2030.

But cash was running out. In July 2023, Thames said it had secured £750m of emergency funding from its shareholders to run to March 2025 and indicated that a further £2.5bn would be needed to cover the five years to 2030.

By December, Thames’s complex financial structure was the source of intense examination in Westminster, and had been described by one MP as an “absolute shambles”.Interactive

The arrival in January of Chris Weston, the former British Gas executive who was most recently boss of power generator Aggreko, was a last roll of the dice by its despairing shareholders. The £2.3m-a-year chief executive was “the bolshiest utilities executive they could find,” sources said.

But not everyone is convinced of this: another former colleague says Weston had a reputation for indecision at Centrica, notably when he was running its North American subsidiary Direct Energy. “The joke was Chris was much like the Canadian weather – if you didn’t like his decision, just hang around for half an hour and it will change,” a source recalled.

In March, shareholders dropped a bombshell: they pulled the plug on the first £500m tranche of the £750m committed the prior summer, deeming the company “uninvestable”. Ministers showed little sympathy – Gove called Thames “arrogant”. With no more shareholder cash forthcoming amid the standoff with Ofwat, Thames’s parent company, Kemble, told its creditors in April it would be unable to pay a £190m loan due at the end of that month.

Inside Whitehall, contingency planning for Thames’s failure gathered pace. A team set up inside government to study the Thames situation in 2023, codenamed Project Timber, drafted a blueprint for turning Thames into a publicly owned arm’s-length body. Lenders would be forced to take heavy losses – with the rest of its £15.6bn of debt added to the public purse. Its dire situation was described as a “critical risk” to the country in briefings to the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and chancellor, Rachel Reeves, within days of them taking office.

Related: Thames Water nationalisation plan could move bulk of £15bn debt to state

A Thames Water spokesperson said: “We have set out an ambitious business plan for the next five years, and with consistent leadership and priorities, time and resources, and the appropriate regulatory determination, we will turn around this business and make it perform for all our customers, the environment and our wider stakeholders.”

The special administration regime for water monopolies, hastily drawn up when the industry was privatised in 1989, was updated. The changes now allow companies to enter administration and ultimately be sold as a going concern after their debts are restructured, rather than liquidating the company.

Crucially, the rules have been rewritten to protect taxpayers, ensuring any state support issued would now need to be repaid, before even secured creditors.

The company’s fate now rests on how generous Ofwat is with its first ruling on its spending plans on Thursday. Thames has been lobbying desperately to allow it to pay dividends up to Kemble, increase bills by up to 59% and receive smaller fines, but it is unlikely to receive a warm reception.

A damaging restructuring for investors and lenders – or even temporary renationalisation – looks inevitable. Ofwat’s final view on bills increases will be released in December. Thames, its investors and – quietly – Macquarie will hope it is still in private hands by that point. The 35-year privatisation experiment looks set to culminate in a crisis that the new Labour government will have to clear up.

London stock market rules shaken up in attempt to stop firms moving overseas

Kalyeena Makortoff Banking correspondent
Wed, 10 July 2024 

The owner of Paddy Power moved its main listing to New York this year.Photograph: Gary Calton/The Observer

The City watchdog will trigger the biggest shake-up of London stock market rules in more than 30 years this month, in an attempt to make the UK a more attractive place to list shares.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) confirmed on Thursday it would streamline and loosen rules for listed companies on 29 July, after months of hand-wringing over an exodus of companies from the London Stock Exchange for rival financial hubs.

The revamped rules will scrap the UK’s two-tier system of standard and premium listings. The premium listing heaped extra requirements on companies in exchange for a more prestigious label and entry into FTSE-branded indices.


Ditching the premium label means companies will no longer have to hold shareholder votes before approving large mergers or takeovers. While current rules have been criticised by some for delaying or increasing the cost of standard deals meant to help companies grow, the change has raised concerns about eroding shareholder democracy.

Companies will soon operate under one set of rules, simplifying what some industry bodies have claimed was a “complex” and costly listing regime.

“Our aim is to encourage a wider range of companies to choose to list, raise capital and grow in the UK, while maintaining high standards of market integrity and consumer protection,” said the FCA’s chief executive, Nikhil Rathi.

The changes are a result of recommendations put forward in 2021 by Jonathan Hill, a former EU commissioner for finance. The FCA has already slashed the proportion of shares that must be offered to outside investors from 25% to 10%, and allows companies to issue dual-class shares that give founders more control of listed firms, in response to Lord Hill’s report. Both sets of rules came into force in December 2021.

It is also hoped that the latest changes reduce the number of companies leaving or snubbing London for overseas rivals, including the US.

“The need for change is clear and widely acknowledged,” Rathi said. “The risk otherwise is that our regime falls increasingly out of step with those of other jurisdictions, making it less likely that companies eager to grow choose the UK as a place to list their shares.”

The investment platform AJ Bell said the overhaul came with “some serious potential negatives”.

“The government is clearly desperate to bolster UK listings as part of efforts to revitalise the City of London,” said Dan Coatsworth, an investment analyst at AJ Bell.

“The FCA’s reforms risk diluting the quality of the UK stock market to a house made out of balsa wood. This includes giving shareholders less of a voice on matters like acquisitions, even though they are a company’s owners.”

In May, the owner of Paddy Power, Flutter, announced it would switch its primary listing to New York, while the UK chip designer Arm opted to list on Wall Street last August after the government failed to convince it to float in London. The British fund supermarket Hargreaves Lansdown said in June it would accept a proposed offer from private equity investors, which would leave another hole in the FTSE 100 index.

 

CNN plans to launch paid streaming service, cut 100 jobs

By

 AFP   JULY 11, 2024

CNN, which has struggled amid the decline of the US cable broadcasting industry, plans to launch a new paid streaming service and to cut about 100 jobs, the company’s CEO said Wednesday.

The network, which once set the pace in cable news, aims for its new $1 billion-plus subscription news product to launch before the end of 2024, Chief Executive Mark Thompson said in a memo to staff.

“We are creating best-in-class, subscriber-first products that provide need-to-know news, analysis and context in compelling formats and experiences,” Thompson said.

“This starts with our first subscription product launching before the end of 2024.”

CNN had unveiled a short-lived for-pay streaming service in 2022 before quickly pulling the plug due to the merger between CNN parent company WarnerMedia and Discovery. 

About a year later, Chris Licht was replaced as CEO by Thompson, formerly of the BBC and the New York Times, following criticism of the network’s editorial direction.

Under the new plan, CNN aims for its initial “need-to-know” subscription product to be followed by “want-to-use” paid offerings centered on lifestyle journalism, Thompson said.

CNN also plans to merge three separate newsrooms for US newsgathering, international newsgathering and global digital news into a single organization.

As a result, the company expects to eliminate about 100 jobs out of the 3,500-person global workforce, Thompson said.

Ratings for CNN in the United States have lately lagged those of rivals Fox News and MSNBC. CNN hosted the first US presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump on June 27.

Fijian LGBTQIA+ advocate found dead after alleged 'intense' social media bullying

Thursday, 11 July 2024, 
Article: RNZ


A popular Fijian LGBTQIA+ activist and social media influencer was reportedly found dead in their home in Suva on Monday.

Reports have emerged that Esala Lewamama, who goes by the name Ranadi Kei Viti (Queen of Fiji), died by suspected suicide after allegations of cyberbullying.

A Facebook video is being circulated online showing police carrying a body in a body bag and loading it onto a police vehicle.

"A 37-year-old man has been found dead in his home in Nabua Settlement this morning," fjivillage.com reported.

"Police confirm the incident occurred at around 7.30am. They allege it is a suicide case."

Assistant Commissioner of Police Mesake Waqa said they cannot speculate on the circumstances surrounding the victims death as that will be part of the investigation process, according to The Fiji Times report.

RNZ Pacific has contacted Fiji Police for comment.

Tributes are pouring in across social media following the report of the death.

Prominent Fijian lawyer and media personality, Jon Apted, wrote on his Facebook: "Fiji social media has been out of control for a while now with flagrant personal bullying and nasty exposés being the daily norm on many accounts and on the large Fiji group sites."

"Unfortunately the Online Safety Act has been forgotten and the Online Safety Commission has disappeared from the public stage.


"Now sadly a prominent social media personality, who was herself the subject of intense bullying over the last couple of days, has reportedly ended her own life."

Apted said people needed to be mindful of what they post and share about others online.

He is also calling for the Online Safety Commission to "stand up and do your work" and for the government to ensure the Commission has the resources to carry out its functions.

© Scoop Media