#British economy collapse

[britishbusinessonline]

Why The UK Economy Is Now Unbelievably PATHETIC

Discussing The UK Economy This is Great Britain it was once a global superpower that had grown to rule over 400 million people making it the largest Empire in history. Before we get into all this, great news today, about the UK Economy, Wednesday 19th of June 2024. UK inflation hit the Bank of England’s 2% target in May. However, this picture of Britain can now only be seen in history books…

[heritageposts]

Ask an older generation of white South Africans when they first felt the bite of anti-apartheid sanctions, and some point to the moment in 1968 when their prime minister, BJ Vorster, banned a tour by the England cricket team because it included a mixed-race player, Basil D’Oliveira. After that, South Africa was excluded from international cricket until Nelson Mandela walked free from prison 22 years later. The D’Oliveira affair, as it became known, proved a watershed in drumming up popular support for the sporting boycott that eventually saw the country excluded from most international competition including rugby, the great passion of the white Afrikaners who were the base of the ruling Nationalist party and who bitterly resented being cast out. For others, the moment of reckoning came years later, in 1985 when foreign banks called in South Africa’s loans. It was a clear sign that the country’s economy was going to pay an ever higher price for apartheid. Neither of those events was decisive in bringing down South Africa’s regime. Far more credit lies with the black schoolchildren who took to the streets of Soweto in 1976 and kicked off years of unrest and civil disobedience that made the country increasingly ungovernable until changing global politics, and the collapse of communism, played its part. But the rise of the popular anti-apartheid boycott over nearly 30 years made its mark on South Africans who were increasingly confronted by a repudiation of their system. Ordinary Europeans pressured supermarkets to stop selling South African products. British students forced Barclays Bank to pull out of the apartheid state. The refusal of a Dublin shop worker to ring up a Cape grapefruit led to a strike and then a total ban on South African imports by the Irish government. By the mid-1980s, one in four Britons said they were boycotting South African goods – a testament to the reach of the anti-apartheid campaign. . . . The musicians union blocked South African artists from playing on the BBC, and the cultural boycott saw most performers refusing to play in the apartheid state, although some, including Elton John and Queen, infamously put on concerts at Sun City in the Bophuthatswana homeland. The US didn’t have the same sporting or cultural ties, and imported far fewer South African products, but the mobilisation against apartheid in universities, churches and through local coalitions in the 1980s was instrumental in forcing the hand of American politicians and big business in favour of financial sanctions and divestment. By the time President FW de Klerk was ready to release Mandela and negotiate an end to apartheid, a big selling point for part of the white population was an end to boycotts and isolation. Twenty-seven years after the end of white rule, some see the boycott campaign against South Africa as a guide to mobilising popular support against what is increasingly condemned as Israel’s own brand of apartheid.

. . . continues at the guardian (21 May, 2021)

[dostoyevsky-official]

this a view of someone who's ignored european developments since 2007, opting for a rosy, outdated view of european politics, i.e. the exact type of american committing the exact type of mistake i'm warning about.

to address this point by point: not only has inflation been a global issue, but the US has consistently enjoyed the lowest inflation of any developed economy. american CPI has remained below the british, polish, and eurozone average numbers. european economies have to deal with fallout from the russian invasion of ukraine that the us can ignore: notably, in energy prices, as the US became self-sufficient in energy (and never imported any from russia to begin with, something squeezing the german economy). america is also not hosting millions of ukrainian refugees.

when discussing european instutions—and "europe" in general—one has to be more specific. do you mean the overarching institutions of the EU, criticized for a democratic deficit that many have pinpointed as one source for euro-skepticism and the rise of the far right? the EU Council, widely ignored and headed by charles michel, an incompetent, blatant nepobaby appointment whom everyone grinds their teeth over? the EU parliament, recently filled with a fresh batch of far-right hooligans, which functions more or less as a rubber stamp for the commission? the EU commission itself, headed by VdL, the latest in a string of failed local politician commissioners (who remembers the alcoholic swindler juncker?) masquerading as technocrats? the ECB, which smothers the monetary (and through the maastricht criteria, the fiscal) policy of eurozone members, thereby fueling resentment, far-right movements, and economic disparity? and all of this held hostage by the veto of one orban or fico, —or the german supreme court, when it decides it's had enough with public investment. those institutions, which remain so opaque that even educated americans—and europeans—aren't entirely aware of their function?

or do we mean the institutions of individual countries, ranging from undemocratic autocracies like hungary to the fief of the jupiter king, who called elections in june, lost them, refused to nominate a prime minister from the winning coalition, didn't name any for over a month, and then appointed a rightwing politician from a party that scored dead last, sidestepping his own centrist party? the UK, where sir keir is handing out five years in jail time to climate protesters, raising tuition fees, relying on private investment companies, and through rachel reeves' plan to fix the alleged budget hole left by hunt before further investment, again enacting austerity? this is all front-page headline news from the last half year.

european countries indeed have cheaper healthcare costs, better pensions, and other public goods that the united states does not. when considering "quality of life," remember, however, that most european countries have unemployment rates considered astronomic in america, especially for under-35s:

to focus again and again on european social democracy is to ignore that it has been steadily eroded since the end of the cold war and especially since the great recession by neoliberal political forces that crush the left and open the door for the far right. in the most blatant example, beside's macron's legislative politricks, the IMF-ECB-EC troika cut off euro cash liquidity flow to greece when syriza was trying to undo austerity under varoufakis. the greek collapse consigned a generation to economic failure, killed seniors, and curtailed possibilities for the youth. this erosion happened even in the nordic model, long imagined by americans as nothing short of a utopia:

In part due to the scrapping of wealth and inheritance taxes and a lower corporate tax than both the U.S. and European averages, Sweden has one of the most unequal distributions of wealth in the world today: on a level with Bahrain and Oman, and worse than the United States. Perhaps most dispiriting for Sanders, Sweden also now hosts the highest proportion of billionaires per capita in the world. Many of the country’s trademark social services are now provided by private firms. Its private schools even benefit from the same level of state subsidy as public schools—a voucher system far more radical than anything in the United States and that Democratic politicians would be crucified for advocating. Both here and there, right-leaning commentators in 2020 decried Sanders’s portrait as little more than what Johan Norberg, Swedish author of The Capitalist Manifesto, has called a 1970s “pipedream.” On this, Swedish observers on the left gloomily agree: despite official rhetoric, the “Nordic welfare model” is now more nostalgic myth than reality. (x)

to problematize further, there's an unadressed first world perspective: who's getting the good quality of life, why are the main economies of the EU so wealthy, and how does the EU continue to enrich itself? there are certainly many living outdoors today, drowning in the mediterranean, or dying of exposure in białowieża. fortress europe is a crime against humanity—and it doesn't beat back the far right. it weakens civic and human rights, undermines legal oversight, and criminalizes humanitarian engagement, allowing an authoritarian creep.

you shouldn't understand the political and the historical as a snapshot in time, but as a moving train. this is the state of europe today. all of the above is necessarily a simplification and an abbreviation, but there's a trajectory you can begin to trace out: given all of the above, where do you think europe is headed?

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The long, bloody lineage of private equity's looting

Tomorrow (June 3) at 1:30PM, I’m in Edinburgh for the Cymera Festival on a panel with Nina Allen and Ian McDonald.

Monday (June 5) at 7:15PM, I’m in London at the British Library with my novel Red Team Blues, hosted by Baroness Martha Lane Fox.

Fans of the Sopranos will remember the “bust out” as a mob tactic in which a business is taken over, loaded up with debt, and driven into the ground, wrecking the lives of the business’s workers, customers and suppliers. When the mafia does this, we call it a bust out; when Wall Street does it, we call it “private equity.”

It used to be that we rarely heard about private equity, but then, as national chains and iconic companies started to vanish, this mysterious financial arrangement popped up with increasing frequency. When a finance bro’s presentation on why Olive Garden needed to be re-orged when viral, there was a lot off snickering about the decline of a tacky business whose value prop was unlimited carbs. But the bro was working for Starboard Value, a hedge fund that specialized in buhying out and killing off companies, pocketing billions while destroying profitable businesses.

https://www.salon.com/2014/09/17/the_real_olive_garden_scandal_why_greedy_hedge_funders_suddenly_care_so_much_about_breadsticks/

Starboard Value’s game was straightforward: buy a business, load it with debt, sell off its physical plant — the buildings it did business out of — pay itself, and then have the business lease back the buildings, bleeding out money until it collapsed. They pulled it with Red Lobster,and the point of the viral Olive Garden dis track was to soften up the company for its own bust out.

The bust out tactic wasn’t limited to mocking middlebrow family restaurants. For years, the crooks who ran these ops did a brisk trade in blaming the internet. Why did Sears tank? Everyone knows that the 19th century business was an antique, incapable of mounting a challenge in the age of e-commerce. That was a great smokescreen for an old-fashioned bust out that saw corporate looters make off with hundreds of millions, leaving behind empty storefronts and emptier pension accounts for the workers who built the wealth the looters stole:

https://prospect.org/economy/vulture-capitalism-killed-sears/

Same goes for Toys R Us: it wasn’t Amazon that killed the iconic toy retailer — it was the PE bosses who extracted $200m from the chain, then walked away, hands in pockets and whistling, while the businesses collapsed and the workers got zero severance:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/06/01/how-can-they-walk-away-with-millions-and-leave-workers-with-zero-toys-r-us-workers-say-they-deserve-severance/

It’s a good racket — for the racketeers. Private equity has grown from a finance sideshow to Wall Street’s apex predator, and it’s devouring the real economy through a string of audactious bust outs, each more consequential and depraved than the last.

As PE shows that it can turn profitable businesses gigantic windfalls, sticking the rest of us with the job of sorting out the smoking craters they leave behind, more and more investors are piling in. Today, the PE sector loves a rollup, which is when they buy several related businesses and merge them into one firm. The nominal business-case for a rollup is that the new, bigger firm is more “efficient.” In reality, a rollup’s strength is in eliminating competition. When all the pet groomers, or funeral homes, or urgent care clinics for ten miles share the same owner, they can raise prices, lower wages, and fuck over suppliers.

They can also borrow. A quirk of the credit markets is that a standalone small business is valued at about 3–5x its annual revenues. But if that business is part of a large firm, it is valued at 10–20x annual turnover. That means that when a private equity company rolls up a comedy club, ad agency or water bottler (all businesses presently experiencing PE rollup), with $1m in annual revenues, it shows up on the PE company’s balance sheet as an asset worth $10–20m. That’s $10–20m worth of collateral the PE fund can stake for loans that let it buy and roll up more small businesses.

2.9 million Boomer-owned businesses, employing 32m people, are expected to sell in the next couple years as their owners retire. Most of these businesses will sell to PE firms, who can afford to pay more for them as a prelude to a bust out than anyone intending to operate them as a productive business could ever pay:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/16/schumpeterian-terrorism/#deliberately-broken

PE’s most ghastly impact is felt in the health care sector. Whole towns’ worth of emergency rooms, family practices, labs and other health firms have been scooped up by PE, which has spent more than $1t since 2012 on health acquisitions:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/17/the-doctor-will-fleece-you-now/#pe-in-full-effect

Once a health care company is owned by PE, it is significantly more likely to commit medicare fraud. It also cuts wages and staffing for doctors and nurses. PE-owned facilities do more unnecessary and often dangerous procedures. Appointments get shorter. The companies get embroiled in kickback scandals. PE-backed dentists hack away at children’s mouths, filling them full of root-canals.

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/17/the-doctor-will-fleece-you-now/#pe-in-full-effect

The Healthcare Private Equity Association boasts that its members are poised to spend more than $3t to create “the future of healthcare.”

https://hcpea.org/#!event-list

As bad as PE is for healthcare, it’s worse for long-term care. PE-owned nursing homes are charnel houses, and there’s a particularly nasty PE scam where elderly patients are tricked into signing up for palliative care, which is never delivered (and isn’t needed, because the patients aren’t dying!). These fake “hospices” get huge payouts from medicare — and the patient is made permanently ineligible for future medicare, because they are recorded being in their final decline:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/26/death-panels/#what-the-heck-is-going-on-with-CMS

Every part of the health care sector is being busted out by PE. Another ugly PE trick, the “club deal,” is devouring the medical supply business. Club deals were huge in the 2000s, destroying rent-controlled housing, energy companies, Mervyn’s department stores, Harrah’s, and Old Country Joe. Now it’s doing the same to medical supplies:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/14/billionaire-class-solidarity/#club-deals

Private equity is behind the mass rollup of single-family homes across America. Wall Street landlords are the worst landlords in America, who load up your rent with junk fees, leave your home in a state of dangerous disrepair, and evict you at the drop of a hat:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/16/die-miete-ist-zu-hoch/#assets-v-human-rights

As these houses decay through neglect, private equity makes a bundle from tenants and even more borrowing against the houses. In a few short years, much of America’s desperately undersupplied housing stock will be beyond repair. It’s a bust out.

You know all those exploding trains filled with dangerous chemicals that poison entire towns? Private equity bust outs:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/04/up-your-nose/#rail-barons

Where did PE come from? How can these people look themselves in the mirror? Why do we let them get away with it? How do we stop them?

Today in The American Prospect, Maureen Tkacik reviews two new books that try to answer all four of these questions, but really only manage to answer the first three:

https://prospect.org/culture/books/2023-06-02-days-of-plunder-morgenson-rosner-ballou-review/

The first of these books is These Are the Plunderers: How Private Equity Runs — and Wrecks — America by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner:

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/These-Are-the-Plunderers/Gretchen-Morgenson/9781982191283

The second is Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America, by Brendan Ballou:

https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/brendan-ballou/plunder/9781541702103/

Both books describe the bust out from the inside. For example, PetSmart — looted for $30 billion by RaymondSvider and his PE fund BC Partners — is a slaughterhouse for animals. The company systematically neglects animals — failing to pay workers to come in and feed them, say, or refusing to provide backup power to run during power outages, letting animals freeze or roast to death. Though PetSmart has its own vet clinics, the company doesn’t want to pay its vets to nurse the animals it damages, so it denies them care. But the company is also too cheap to euthanize those animals, so it lets them starve to death. PetSmart is also too cheap to cremate the animals, so its traumatized staff are ordered to smuggle the dead, rotting animals into random dumpsters.

All this happened while PetSmart’s sales increased by 60%, matched by growth in the company’s gross margins. All that money went to the bust out.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2021/09/27/the-30-billion-kitty-meet-the-investor-who-made-a-fortune-on-pet-food/

Tkacik says these books show that we’re finally getting wise to PE. Back in the Clinton years, the PE critique painted the perps as sharp operators who reduced quality and jacked up prices. Today, books like these paint these “investors” as the monsters they are — crooks whose bust ups are crimes, not clever finance hacks.

Take the Carlyle Group, which pioneered nursing home rollups. As Carlyle slashed wages, its workers suffered — but its elderly patients suffered more. Thousands of Carlyle “customers” died of “dehydration, gangrenous bedsores, and preventable falls” in the pre-covid years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/opioid-overdoses-bedsores-and-broken-bones-what-happened-when-a-private-equity-firm-sought-profits-in-caring-for-societys-most-vulnerable/2018/11/25/09089a4a-ed14-11e8-baac-2a674e91502b_story.html

KKR, another PE monster, bought a second-hand chain of homes for mentally disabled adults from another PE company, then squeezed it for the last drops of blood left in the corpse. KKR cut wages to $8/hour and increased shifts to 36 hours, then threatened to have workers who went home early arrested and charged with “patient abandonment.” Many of these homes were often left with no staff at all, with patients left to starve and stew in their own waste.

PE loves to pick on people who can’t fight back: kids, sick people, disabled people, old people. No surprise, then, that PE loves prisons — the ultimate captive audience. HIG Capital is a $55b fund that owns TKC Holdings, who got the contract to feed the prisoners at 400 institutions. They got the contract after the prisons fired Aramark, owned by PE giant Warburg Pincus, whose food was so inedible that it provoked riots. TKC got a million bucks extra to take over the food at Michigan’s Kinross Correctional Facility, then, incredibly, made the food worse. A chef who refused to serve 100 bags of rotten potatoes (“the most disgusting thing I’ve seen in my life”) was fired:

https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/local/michigan/prison-food-worker-i-was-fired-for-refusing-to-serve-rotten-potatoes/69-467297770

TKC doesn’t just operate prison kitchens — it operates prison commissaries, where it gouges prisoners on junk food to replace the inedible slop it serves in the cafeteria. The prisoners buy this food with money they make working in the prison workshops, for $0.10–0.25/hour. Those workshops are also run by TKC.

Tkacic traces private equity back to the “corporate raiders” of the 1950s and 1960s, who “stealthily borrowed money to buy up enough shares in a small or midsized company to control its biggest bloc of votes, then force a stock swap and install himself as CEO.”

The most famous of these raiders was Eli Black, who took over United Fruit with this gambit — a company that had a long association with the CIA, who had obligingly toppled democratically elected governments and installed dictators friendly to United’s interests (this is where the term “banana republic” comes from).

Eli Black’s son is Leon Black, a notorious PE predator. Leon Black got his start working for the junk-bonds kingpin Michael Milken, optimizing Milken’s operation, which was the most terrifying bust out machine of its day, buying, debt-loading and wrecking a string of beloved American businesses. Milken bought 2,000 companies and put 200 of them through bankruptcy, leaving the survivors in a brittle, weakened state.

It got so bad that the Business Roundtable complained about the practice to Congress, calling Milken, Black, et al, “a small group is systematically extracting the equity from corporations and replacing it with debt, and incidentally accumulating major wealth.”

Black stabbed Milken in the back and tanked his business, then set out on his own. Among the businesses he destroyed was Samsonite, “a bankrupt-but-healthy company he subjected to 12 humiliating years of repeated fee extractions, debt-funded dividend payments, brutal plant closings, and hideous schemes to induce employees to buy its worthless stock.”

The money to buy Samsonite — and many other businesses — came through a shadowy deal between Black and John Garamendi, then a California insurance commissioner, now a California congressman. Garamendi helped Black buy a $6b portfolio of junk bonds from an insurance company in a wildly shady deal. Garamendi wrote down the bonds by $3.9b, stealing money “from innocent people who needed the money to pay for loved ones’ funerals, irreparable injuries, etc.”

Black ended up getting all kinds of favors from powerful politicians — including former Connecticut governor John Rowland and Donald Trump. He also wired $188m to Jeffrey Epstein for reasons that remain opaque.

Black’s shady deals are a marked contrast with the exalted political circles he travels in. Despite private equity’s obviously shady conduct, it is the preferred partner for cities and states, who buy everything from ambulance services to infrastructure from PE-owned companies, with disastrous results. Federal agencies turn a blind eye to their ripoffs, or even abet them. 38 state houses passed legislation immunizing nursing homes from liability during the start of the covid crisis.

PE barons are shameless about presenting themselves as upstanding cits, unfairly maligned. When Obama made an empty promise to tax billionaires in 2010, Blackstone founder SteveS chwarzman declared, “It’s a war. It’s like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.”

Since we’re on the subject of Hitler, this is a good spot to bring up Monowitz, a private-sector satellite of Auschwitz operated by IG Farben as a slave labor camp to make rubber and other materiel it supplied at a substantial markup to the wermacht. I’d never heard of Monowitz, but Tkacik’s description of the camp is chilling, even in comparison to Auschwitz itself.

Farben used slave laborers from Auschwitz to work at its rubber plant, but was frustrated by the logistics of moving those slaves down the 4.5m stretch of road to the facility. So the company bought 25,000 slaves — preferring children, who were cheaper — and installed them in a co-located death-camp called Monowitz:

https://www.commentary.org/articles/r-tannenbaum/the-devils-chemists-by-josiah-e-dubois-jr/

Monowitz was — incredibly — worse than Auschwitz. It was so bad, the SS guards who worked at it complained to Berlin about the conditions. The SS demanded more hospitals for the workers who dropped from beatings and overwork — Farben refused, citing the cost. The factory never produced a steady supply of rubber, but thanks to its gouging and the brutal treatment of its slaves, the camp was still profitable and returned large dividends to Farben’s investors.

Apologists for slavery sometimes claim that slavers are at least incentivized to maintain the health of their captive workforce. This was definitely not true of Farben. Monowitz slaves died on average after three months in the camp. And Farben’s subsidiary, Degesch, made the special Zyklon B formulation used in Auschwitz’s gas chambers.

Tkacik’s point is that the Nazis killed for ideology and were unimaginably cruel. Farben killed for money — and they were even worse. The banality of evil gets even more banal when it’s done in service to maximizing shareholder value.

As Farben historian Joseph Borkin wrote, the company “reduced slave labor to a consumable raw material, a human ore from which the mineral of life was systematically extracted”:

https://www.scribd.com/document/517797736/The-Crime-and-Punishment-of-I-G-Farben

Farben’s connection to the Nazis was a the subject of Germany’s Master Plan: The Story of Industrial Offensive, a 1943 bestseller by Borkin, who was also an antitrust lawyer. It described how Farben had manipulated global commodities markets in order to create shortages that “guaranteed Hitler’s early victories.”

Master Plan became a rallying point in the movement to shatter corporate power. But large US firms like Dow Chemical and Standard Oil waged war on the book, demanding that it be retracted. Borkin was forced into resignation and obscurity in 1945.

Meanwhile, in Nuremberg, 24 Farben executives were tried for their war crimes, and they cited their obligations to their shareholders in their defense. All but five were acquitted on this basis.

Seen in that light, the plunderers of today’s PE firms are part of a long and dishonorable tradition, one that puts profit ahead of every other priority or consideration. It’s a defense that wowed the judges at Nuremberg, so should we be surprised that it still plays in 2023?

Tkacik is frustrated that neither of these books have much to offer by way of solutions, but she understands why that would be. After all, if we can’t even close the carried interest tax loophole, how can we hope to do anything meaningful?

“Carried interest” comes up in every election cycle. Most of us assume it has something to do with “interest payments,” but that’s not true. The carried interest loophole relates to the “interest” that 16th-century sea captains had in their cargo. It’s a 600-year-old tax loophole that private equity bosses use to pay little or no tax on their billions. The fact that it’s still on the books tells you everything you need to know about whether our political class wants to do anything about PE’s plundering.

Notwithstanding Tkacik’s (entirely justified) skepticism of the weaksauce remedies proposed in these books, there is some hope of meaningful action. Private equity’s rollups are only possible because they skate under the $101m threshold for merger scrutiny. However, there is good — but unenforced — law that allows antitrust enforcers to block these mergers. This is the “incipiency standard” — Sec 7 of the Clayton Act — the idea that a relatively small merger might not be big enough to trigger enforcement action on its own, but regulators can still act to block it if it creates an incipient monopoly.

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/16/schumpeterian-terrorism/#deliberately-broken

The US has a new crop of aggressive — fearless — top antitrust enforcers and they’ve been systematically reviving these old laws to go after monopolies.

That’s long overdue. Markets are machines for eroding our moral values: “In comparison to non-market decisions, moral standards are significantly lower if people participate in markets.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20130607154129/https://www.uni-bonn.de/Press-releases/markets-erode-moral-values

The crimes that monsters commit in the name of ideology pale in comparison to the crimes the wealthy commit for money.

Catch me on tour with Red Team Blues in Edinburgh, London, and Berlin!

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/02/plunderers/#farbenizers

[Image ID: An overgrown graveyard, rendered in silver nitrate monochrome. A green-tinted businessman  with a moneybag in place of a head looms up from behind a gravestone. The right side of the image is spattered in blood.]

[yuri-is-online]

My brain is whirring in the blender right now so here are the things I think twst characters would find interesting/horrifying

Atom bombs. Why would they need atom bombs? Wars were either fought with magic or swords if lilias backstory is standard war procedure. And in endless halloween, leona tells a (fake) story about a terrorist group on a yaht party or something that attacked with a magic cube. Also that whole moment with Oppenheimer where he didn't know if igniting that bomb would set off a chain reaction that would ignite all the other bombs and basically destroy the world. AND HE STILL FUCKING DID IT.

Gun. Same reasons as the atom bombs.

French revolution and the reign of terror. What do you mean 40,000 were executed and over 300,000 locked up in the time span if a few years? Why did the "french" switch between so many governments so fast? Who the hell is napoleon?

Russian revolution and Anastasia. that revolution was MESSY. But imagine telling leona or someone about how everyone thought that princess Anastasia and her brother escaped execution cause they couldn't find their bodies with the rest of the royal family. So all these middle aged women just started coming out being like "I am Anastasia", and one of these women was eventually accepted as Anastasia. Until they found out that thr royal family were submerge in vats of acid after they were killed, and because children's bones aren't quite solid, the just. Melted in the acid.

The whole mystery of those villages getting up one day and dancing themselves to death and we still don't know why.

Medieval torture devices. Like the crowd cage or when you get covered in honey and sent away on a boat to be eaten alive by bugs (jamil throws up)

The black plauge. Just. The black plauge.

Early Industrial revolution working conditions. I think even azul would get uncomfortable with those.

Mansu Musa going on tour and giving away so much gold that he collapsed entire economies.

The cold War. "Yeah so the US and the USSR were in a war-not-war because of paranoia of nuclear atom bombs but they couldn't actually go to war because if they actually went to war that would just be the end of the world so they just had a massive dick messering contest. Oh yeah! That's actually why we got the space race!"

The space race. ("The fucking moon in the sky!" "Yes azul, the moon in the sky. And Mars. And there are satellites that literally went to the cold cold edge of our solar system" "...why are you guys insane?")

American prohibition laws and the outlawing of alcohol that everyone hated so much that the government legalized alcohol again and now we have this thing called moonshine.

Mexican revolution and the solid century where their presidents just kept getting assassinated.

The greatest night in pop "we are the world". Just as a treat for the pop music club.

The entire age of exploration honestly. "What do you mean half your world didn't know the other half of the world was there until a few centuries ago?" "Oh you're gonna shit yourself when you find out what Europeans did next"

What the Europeans did next.

The world wars. Lilia has a fucking stroke while listening to it. But some of it was funny! Not really but yk! A polish bear loading an artillery Canon, an unsinkable cat, that British guy that carried a bow and arrow and played bag pipes when the nazis found him only to be the most unkillable yet unserious guy ever, a US naval captain that literally FLOODED HALF HIS SHIP on D-Day just to tilt that bitch back so they could hit the Germans better, and the US just converting a spare ship into a massive ice cream machine is pretty fucking hilarious.

The coups of the ancient past. I don't really remember who but I think this Indian (?) Prince literally threw his brother out a window, dragged him back upstairs, only to throw him out again for good measure is fucking hilarious.

The mono Lisa wasn't famous until this Guy™ stole it from a museum. The museum employs didn't even realize it was gone until someone asked where it went 💀

The way we name our countries tbh. Most of them translate to some ancient language (Spain translates to "rabbits" and Columbia is "dove"), but twst really has countries like. "Scolding Sands ✨️ and Queendom of Roses ✨️. So our country names are probably really weird to them. Especially the full country names. Do you know Hong Kongs official name? It's long as shit.

The first chainsaw was invented by two socttish doctors in the early 1800s to help with childbirth

I have many more historically rambling I could go on but this shit is getting long.

If anyone at any point wants to ramble about history they are very welcome to do so in my literal dms and not just my ask box. I love history and I love talking about it!!!

I think out of all of the things you listed the atom bomb, the space race, and the Cold War would probably be the what I think the various twst boys would find most interesting. Even in the history of our own world those things were extremely unusual, the sheer scale of something like a world war is really hard to grasp and I doubt Twisted Wonderland has had a similar event. I think the concept of such a thing would really scare the cast, though I imagine Idia, Leona, and Lilia would be grimly impressed at just how creative people can be when it comes to destroying each other. Magic isn't required to make a mess of things, sure they already knew that but oh wow. Now they're really thinking about it.

Now you know who would want to talk about all of these things? Professor Trein! He'd be really interested in learning anything and everything Yuu can remember about the history of their world. As an educator it allows him better insight into his student, and as a lover of history he gets to learn a lot of new things no one else knows.

[historia-vitae-magistras]

How do you feel about nation jobs or finances in your universe? Like are modern Matt or Alfred on government payroll even if they don’t do anything? I know you’re mentioned that Alfred is better at managing his money than Matt, is he rich??

Sorry I’m not phrasing this very well 😅

This is somewhat esoteric even for me, but I tied their abilities with money to their economic histories.

Alfred was born looking pretty pathetic next to the Spanish possessions in Mexico and South America or even British holdings in the Caribbean but, in short order, made up a significant percentage of the ships, people, and wealth of the British Empire. He became that on what was primarily the efforts of private enterprise. Alfred grows up understanding he is valuable; he represents value, and his choices create value. He's easy to love because he's a goddamn cash cow for Arthur until the Seven Years War when Britain spent a shit ton and wanted the Yanks to pay their share, and we threw a bitch fit and declared independence.

Matt, however, has the French bitching about what a money hole he is from about 20 minutes after he comes into being. The Basque, by far, made the most money initially with their fishing and whaling in the east, following what was reasonably similar to the Viking routes into Newfoundland. The fur trade that drove French settlement faced collapse about a half dozen times in his childhood, and besides a short binge economy for Ginseng and its brief boom in China, his entire existence was just fur. Dead beavers and the black market. That's it.

While the US was building ships, growing cash crops, running a fur trade economy, engaging in fishing, rope making, pitch collection, barrel making and everything and anything else, in the Caribbean, they had 90+ control over sugar production and trade routes. Canada had 10% of the population and thus 10% of the market power. We didn't do shit except freeze, fire at the British, commit war crimes against the New Englanders, ditch the farms and run off to the west to make families with indigenous women and run furs up the rivers to the point that France tried to make it illegal for people to leave the settlements of Quebec City and Montreal without permission.

So from a relatively early point, Alfred is very smart with his investments, and he's been making his investments since the early 19th century, so there's a significant but often catastrophically destroyed habit of investing. When he was younger and incredibly newly independent, he got fleeced a few times, but he's called smart and secure, especially since the 1929 crash. It's not remarkably large amounts of money because he'll never completely trust the government, and he doesn't want to attract attention or pay massive amounts of taxes, so he's very well diversified. But he's certainly not poor. All his more expensive hobbies come from a particular office in the state department that Alfred sometimes cooperates with and sometimes doesn't, depending on how anti-establishment he and the public feel.

As for Matt, having spent a lot longer as a colonial subject, it's not that he's entirely shit with money but what he knew how to do. The heart of the empire was the financial hub and was outside his control long after even the Confederation in the 1860s. The money situation has been a nightmare since the earliest days of the French Regime using playing cards to pay people. Colonial America had some similar issues. The whole concept of the US dollar originated in the 1690 invasion of Quebec when the Massachusetts Bay Colony printed its own money to fund the expedition, but Alexander Hamilton did some flash economic magic for the US in this department in the 1790s, so it got its shit together long before Canada. Matt knows what he needs to know. He was stationed in various Canadian ports, keeping an eye on his father's investments, not his own.

So, in the modern day, Alfred reads his bank statements every month, keeps track of his subscriptions and bills, and probably has an accountant. Matt is more aware of Alfred's money habits than his own. Because he's over here just kind of vaguely wondering if his debit card will work because my man cannot make heads or tails of his economy (no, seriously, Canadian economists have no idea how Canada's own shit works. Sometimes it's pretty fascinating, there's often no real consensus like the US academic economist have.) And international investors in Canada are always freaking out because the Canadian economy is always getting its shit rocked by the US economy. It's hilarious to think of people in Matt's life frustratedly trying to figure out where and what his money's doing. If their health is tied to their economies, Matt's in pretty good shape, thanks to close ties to the US, but he's randomly dying reasonably often because the US economy's tiny little ripples will randomly tear him apart. It's pretty funny (laughs so I don't sob in the Canadian job market.)

And that's pretty fitting, considering that most Canadian economic policy is boiled down to 'hope the Americans are feeling cooperative next time NAFTA comes up for debate.'

[wallisninety-six]

For better *and* worse- 2022 was the year of “I didn’t think it would actually happen” like I didn’t think...

That Russia would actually full-on invade Ukraine

That SCOTUS would be stupid enough to actually fully strike down Roe v. Wade

That after so many false hopes that a Climate Change bill would actually pass in hellhole America

That nuclear fusion would finally be achieved

That Alex Jones would be forced to pay a billion dollars and now potentially go bankrupt after his lawyer accidentally texted out incriminating information to his opposing attorney

That Shinzo Abe would be legit assassinated in broad daylight with a homemade camera gun

That Liz Truss would fucking *tank* the British economy after *days* on the job and then leave as quickly as she destroyed everything

That Russia would be crazy enough to annex territories of Ukraine that they barely control

That Elon Musk, richest person in the world an actual real-life evil cartoon villain, would buy Twitter and absolutely destroy it and his reputation

That FTX would completely collapse in the most stupid fashion worse than Enron

That Artemis 1 actually launched and interplanetary space travel is happening

That Republicans would actually fuck up so badly and lose a midterm election they would have easily won

That Andrew Tate got ratio’d hard by Greta Thunberg an his cringey reply vid may have tipped him off to authorities because of a Romanian pizza box, confirming his location and getting him arrested

[mariacallous]

I am bad at small talk, so I went in big. “You are probably going to be the social democratic leader with the largest parliamentary majority anywhere on Earth. How does it feel?” I said to Keir Starmer during a private meeting with him and a few advisors in late 2022.

Starmer’s aides looked annoyed, while the likely next prime minister of the United Kingdom paused and tried to deflect: “We can’t take anything for granted,” which has become the unofficial motto for Labour’s general election campaign.

Yet despite Starmer’s hesitancy to bank success—he is genuinely a modest man—it is likely that on the morning of July 5, Starmer will wake up as the world’s social democratic superhero: the only center-left leader of a major economy with a parliamentary supermajority and the great hope for progressives all over the world.

The governing Conservative Party, which is historically arguably the most successful political party on Earth, now faces electoral oblivion. In 2019, Boris Johnson demolished Labour’s heartlands, the so-called red wall. Labour had become detached from its base and collapsed in its postindustrial heartlands after then-leader Jeremy Corbyn embraced the siren sounds of political extremism; he refused to sing the national anthem at a memorial for the Battle of Britain and drove the party toward a position of fiscal incontinence that scared anyone with financial assets.

Five years later, Labour is on track not only to regain the red wall but also to achieve a dream of progressives by taking solid Conservative seats in their blue wall of affluent commuter constituencies surrounding London and rural seats that have voted Conservative since time immemorial. (East Worthing and Shoreham, for example, is part of a constituency that first voted Tory in 1780 and has been reliably Tory since. Polls suggest Labour is on track to take the seat.)

What is happening in the U.K. is unusual for center-left parties, to put it mildly. Labour could gain as many as 70 percent of seats in the House of Commons—a victory that could surpass even the electoral landside of former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1997, offering lessons for progressives everywhere. A politically dominant Starmer will attend the G-7 as a leader in total political control, in stark contrast to his counterparts in France and Germany, Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz, who are facing high disapproval ratings and struggling to pursue their governing agendas.

Labour’s victory in the U.K. will be important in three key regards: It will recast how progressives can win national elections and set a high-water mark for what social democrats can achieve; it will reshape British politics in new and unexpected ways that could be more important than the victory itself; and it will flip external perceptions of the U.K., resetting international views of the country and its future.

Despite the pathological obsession Britain’s political class has with America’s, it is perhaps time for Democrats in the United States to look across the pond and glean some lessons from Labour’s success.

Part of Starmer’s success has been to take an oath of omertà on culture war issues, much as the Australian Labor Party did. These include transgender rights, Britain’s colonial past, and immigration—all issues that the British right has tried to capitalize on. Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, has committed to scrap the Tories’ controversial Rwanda deportation scheme but on the grounds of practicality rather than as a wider moral statement. More broadly on immigration, the party has been treading very carefully. This is certainly not brave, but it has worked. For all the attempts to fire up the culture wars in this election, Labour has remained focused on the prize.

While the Conservatives have attempted to stoke a culture war, what remains more salient for voters in the U.K. is the perceived corruption and rule-breaking of leading Conservatives, culminating in the current scandal involving elected officials using insider information to bet on the election date.

Scandals including preferential contracts for protective equipment for the National Health Service (NHS) during the COVID-19 pandemic, where an astonishing 4 billion pounds ($5 billion) worth of faulty equipment was procured (some allegedly from companies with links to the ruling party). Then came “Partygate,” in which Johnson and current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak were fined by police for breaking COVID-era laws. A lobbying scandal involving another former prime minister, David Cameron, also caused significant public anger. Elite rule-breaking has cut through with voters in a way that the endless culture wars simply haven’t.

In parallel, Labour has pivoted from a form of identity politics under Corbyn to a very proactive position on class. Starmer has put his humble upbringing center stage in the U.K. election campaign and has spoken authentically about the “class ceiling” in British society. This has particular resonance as Starmer is running against Sunak, whose net wealth of $822 million makes him the richest leader of any democracy.

A typical Starmer set-piece homily is as follows:

“My dad was a toolmaker, he worked in a factory, and my mum was a nurse. We didn’t have a lot when we were growing up. Like millions of working-class children now, I grew up in a cost-of-living crisis. I know what it feels like to be embarrassed to bring your mates home because the carpet is threadbare and the windows cracked. … I was actually responsible for that as I put the football through it.”

This focus on class is unusual in modern British politics. Indeed, recent Labour leaders—from Blair to Gordon Brown to Ed Miliband to Corbyn—were all in different ways outsiders to the British working class: Blair and Corbyn for their relatively affluent (and privately educated) upbringings, Brown and Miliband because of their middle-class backgrounds and partly because Miliband’s father was one of the country’s most notable Marxist academics. As for the Conservatives, the days of a prime minister who was a grocer’s daughter are long gone. Cameron and Johnson didn’t just attend the same elite private school (Eton) two years apart; they went to the same university (Oxford) and were members of the same private dining club (for the most privileged).

Starmer is leaning into class politics—and it is working. The promise to impose the same value-added tax on private school fees that is applied to most goods and services (20 percent) has led to an outpouring of anger from the often very wealthy 6 percent of U.K. parents who send their kids to private schools—usefully, those who are privately educated often tend to vote Conservative. Labour’s pledge to use the private school tax revenues to invest in education for the 94 percent of kids in state schools has, on the other hand, drawn support from ordinary voters.

This focus on class has won back a group of voters who in other countries have now been captured by the right and far right. Labour now leads among working-class voters with 38-42 percent of the vote share, in contrast to Conservatives’ 22-24 percent. For those with the fewest educational qualifications, Labour leads in every age category except the over-50s.

One of the architects of Labour’s reengagement with the British working class is Angela Rayner, who is on track to become deputy prime minister. Rayner is working-class, was a mother at 16, and a grandmother at 37. Opinionated and unfiltered, an unapologetic smoker who enjoys a strong drink, she worked in a care home before rising quickly through the trade union movement and becoming a Labour candidate. Rayner’s story is a masterclass in how to elevate remarkable people into parliamentary politics. Her success is her own, but the unions cultivated her, and the membership backed her as deputy leader. She has real star power—and there is virtually no one like her in the upper echelons of the Democratic establishment in the United States.

Remarkably, the class dimension has not, it seems, alienated middle England. Disillusioned surbubanites and centrist liberals have been turned off by a Conservative Party that seems increasingly radical and dysfunctional. Starmer’s former career as the country’s chief prosecutor, and his knighthood—he is formally referred to as “Sir Keir”—have given him broad appeal, just as the Conservatives’ unapologetic embrace of the populist right’s pet causes has cratered their support.

Part of Labour’s success is due to the systemic clusterfuck that has been the last few years of the Conservative government. The Tories have foisted five prime ministers on the public since 2010—four of them elected by the party’s mostly white, male membership of about 170,000 rather than the public at large. Economic growth is anemic; there are nearly 8 million people on the NHS waiting list in England alone (in a country where the use of private medical care is uncommon); and essential public services including the prison service and local government are on the edge of systemic failure.

Yet signs exist that there may be more fundamental shifts at play. Labour leads in every age group except the over-65s. If you work, you are more likely to vote Labour; 45 percent of voters under 45 are likely to vote Labour, compared with only 1 in 10 backing the Conservative Party. Millennials will become the largest voting bloc in the U.K. in this election. Their key issues include policies to prevent catastrophic climate change (which poll well across the U.K. political spectrum), the building of homes, better transport links (especially for non-car owners, many urban millennials among them), and pro-family policies. All of these have come into play in this election.

Older homeowners across the Western world have been successful in running what is, potentially, the world’s largest cartel—by opposing construction of new homes for millennials. Labour is committed to ending that in the U.K. with a significant loosening of planning regulations that currently thwart sustainable development.

While the party has ruled out taxes on working people, no such commitment has been made on unearned income, leading to widespread speculation that the tax system may be rebalanced with higher capital gains taxes and fewer loopholes for the megarich, including for the landed gentry whose farming estates pass between generations tax-free. Labour has no love for landlords either. After nearly two decades in which London’s property market has been inflated by speculative investments from the world’s kleptocrats, the public appetite for new restrictions on foreign property ownership or new taxes has grown.

Labour has also surrounded itself with a technocratic positivist elite. This group includes Labour Together, an ambitious intellectual think tank closely aligned with Starmer’s inner circle, and the Tony Blair Institute, which has embraced a techno-futurism aligned with the country’s comparative advantage in the life sciences and artificial intelligence. Public sector reform under a Starmer government could be significant if one imagines the potential, for example, of using the NHS’s treasure trove of data (on 70 million people) to drive innovation in health care.

In stark contrast to Labour’s focus on the future, an aging right-wing voter base is now split between the Conservative Party and Reform, a vehicle that is a mix between a private company, a political party, and a personal platform for Nigel Farage—the pro-Brexit politician Donald Trump has trotted out as a posh Anglo stage prop. Conservatives in Parliament are already moving rightward. Tory MPs give statements to the media condemning the European Convention on Human Rights, a document co-drafted by David Maxwell-Fyfe—a Conservative MP and prosecutor of Nazis at Nuremberg—that was inspired by Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s vision for postwar Europe.

Meanwhile, a wing of Conservative MPs are already attempting to cast the almost certain defeat as evidence that the party did not pivot enough to the populist right. The divided right is making the admission of the controversial Farage into the Conservative Party a real possibility, a prospect that fills Labour with glee. Needless to say, the next Conservative leader is unlikely to be a moderate. With the party tacking to the right, it could soon become a vessel for Faragism and a weak British version of the Trump movement.

Finally, there are the vibes. A progressive recasting of British politics will shift narratives around the U.K. National narratives can flip in an instant: Think of foreigners’ perceptions of the United States from Barack Obama to Trump or the assumption of Chinese economic primacy to a sense of retrenchment and decline under Xi Jinping. The U.K. in recent memory was seen as a fairly stable, politically dull island anchored somewhere in the mid-Atlantic. Brexit, Johnson, and Liz Truss put an end to that. With the shift from perceived and actual chaos and an insurgent right to a progressive supermajority, attitudes will likely shift again.

Vibes are important, especially to the economy of the U.K., which may have ceased to be a traditional superpower but remains a cultural one punching significantly above its weight internationally. Six percent of U.K. GDP comes from the creative industries—from the success of British music to the Premier League, a booming film and TV industry, fashion, and the arts. That’s double the level of Germany and larger than the contribution of the German car industry to the country’s output (4.5 percent). For a country that trades on vibes and is reliant on the export of its creativity, Brexit and isolation have caused real damage.

It’s long forgotten now, but during the last Labour government from 1997 until the 2008 financial crisis, the U.K. was the fastest-growing economy in the G-7, faster than that of the Clinton- and Bush-era United States. Given the country’s currently stagnant economy, the next Parliament will be more challenging, but in a highly open society, the role of consumer confidence and investor confidence cannot be underestimated.

In a previous piece in these pages, after Labour’s historic loss in the 2019 general election, I wrote: “Radical leftism is not a drug you can take as a party and return to normal the next morning.” I was right about the election but wrong about the next morning.

No one expected Labour to turn a historic defeat into a historic victory in just five years. The circumstances the Conservative Party faced were extraordinary, but Starmer has shown that tight party management, a focus on voters and not ideology, and a sprinkling of class-based politics can reinvigorate social democratic politics.

What lessons does this hold for other center-left parties?

First, culture war issues aren’t a central motivation for most voters. On all the major culture war issues, Labour holds a less popular position than the Conservative Party. Yet when mortgage rates have risen from 2 to 5 percent, “it’s the economy, stupid.” Progressives don’t need to fear the charge of the populist right; they need smarter answers.

Second, rule-breaking or perceived corruption is a powerful motivator for voters, and global polling proves this. Progressives need a stronger line on conflicts of interest, corporate lobbying, the kleptocratic buy-up of the finest properties in the world’s global cities, and tackling emerging monopolies that exist due to political capture. Doing so counters the populist right head-on.

Third, the dominance of identity politics in left-wing online spaces is not matched by public understanding of or interest in this form of politics. Class is understood, whereas intersectionality isn’t. Class may, or may not, be the most relevant dividing line for progressives in different places—but for progressives to win, they need messengers who are from outside the upper middle class and have lived experience that resonates with people who feel disenchanted and left behind. In other words, Democrats in the United States need an Angela Rayner.

Most critically, once in power, social democrats do not have the luxury of time. Crumbling infrastructure, failing public services, falling living standards, and a lack of housing all point to direct state intervention on a scale not seen since the late 1960s Great Society programs in the United States and similar policies during that era in the U.K. Unless progressives can deliver, it will be challenged further by a populist right that is gaining momentum.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act has been the talk of London and Brussels for progressives, and Biden deserves more credit for his boldness. With a supermajority, Starmer has the scope for even bolder programs. A progressive U.K. government will not only reset Europeans’ views of the country, but if successful, it can aid progressive arguments within Europe that austerity and fiscalization do not generate economic growth or social stability.

Starmer’s victory will give global social democrats a high-water mark for electoral success in a wealthy democracy. The challenge for Starmer is the incredible weight of hope in an era of polycrisis. If Labour succeeds in delivering growth, building homes, and raising wages, then it will provide a blueprint that can—and should—be copied elsewhere.

[dramioneasks]

Author Profile: SaffronGin aka Miso

Fics can be found: ffnet | ao3 | @saffrongin

Popular Fics:

Title: Magic and Minds Author: SaffronGin Rating: E Genre(s): Romance, Drama Chapters: 45 Word Count: 119,607 Summary: In the world following the defeat of Voldemort, the economy has come to a near-complete collapse in the British Ministry for Magic as other countries have cut off trading to distance themselves from the Dark Wizard's stain and reputation. Hermione watches as her former classmates and friends all rush to make matches in an attempt to secure Pureblood inheritances back into the economy to stop a Great Depression from happening. Hermione was never going to partake, and she couldn't understand what was so appealing about Draco Malfoy.

Title: I will rise like a fucking phoenix Author: SaffronGin Rating: E Genre(s): Romance, Drama Chapters: 73 Word Count: 75,160 Summary: Hermione Granger returns to Hogwarts for her Eight Year in an attempt to complete her NEWTs. She immediately pegs Draco Malfoy as her biggest rival.

Title: The Corruption of Hermione Granger Author: SaffronGin Rating: E Genre(s): Romance Chapters: 1 Word Count: 6,160 Summary: Hermione wants to get over Ron. What better way than to proposition three men in an attempt at testing the phrase "The best way to get over someone, is to get under someone else." She thought she would be turned down, but in the end, she had her wildest fantasy come to fruition.

[averycanadianfilm]

This election will unfold in the shadows of the American supernova. But BC’s outcome will set a global precedent. Collapsing ecosystems threaten economies and democracies everywhere, and Indigenous communities are on the frontlines in much of the world. In British Columbia, a political map to navigate the crisis is being drawn before our eyes.

[hjohn3]

Lest We Forget…

Lord Darzi’s NHS Report and the Damage the Tories Did

Source: The Telegraph

By Honest John

LABOUR WON the 2024 General Election for a variety of reasons, but one of the most significant was the state of the NHS after fourteen years of Tory mismanagement. In recognition of this, Keir Starmer’s government commissioned former Labour Minister, eminent surgeon and academic, Professor Lord Ari Darzi, to carry out a review of the state of the health service the new government had inherited and to make recommendations to form the basis of a ten year plan to restore the NHS’ capacity, effectiveness and public reputation. Lord Darzi turned his report around extraordinarily quickly. Wes Streeting commissioned the review just one week after the General Election; the Darzi report was submitted to the Secretary of State just two months later. The conclusions, if somewhat broad, are hard to argue with: Darzi confirms the wisdom of Labour’s stated prevention strategy and a renewed role for public health; he points out the dramatic fall in NHS productivity since the Covid pandemic and the urgent need to address this if Labour’s waiting list commitments are to be met; he recommends improved and focused management and less regulation and recommends significant structural reform, building on the more integrative principles of the 2022 NHS Act.

However the most enlightening and stark passages of Darzi’s review are those that analyse how far the NHS has fallen in terms of hitting performance standards it met relatively comprehensively during Labour’s last period in office and how public satisfaction in the service has collapsed from over 70% in 2010 to less than 30% by 2023. These passages lay bare what health commentators and those who work in the NHS have known for years: that the Conservative stewardship of the NHS since 2010 was an unmitigated disaster both in terms of preserving the resilience of the health service itself, but also with regard to maintaining the overall health of the nation. What makes this brief but forensic summary of Tory failure so powerful is that it appears in a document commissioned by the Department of Health itself, and that its prose is as objective as it is considered; as insightful as it is accurate. No longer is the despair at the clumsy restructuring, needless austerity, thoughtless neglect and systemic incompetence at the heart of Tory health “strategy” the province of think tanks, concerned journalists, NHS bodies and the poor benighted staff and patients themselves, but it is now “official”: a depressing account of insouciant policy failure at every level during the Tory years.

The assault began almost as soon as the Cameron Conservatives slid into power, their minority party supported in government by the useful idiots of the Clegg-led Liberal Democrats. Possessed of the conviction that only major public spending cuts could “save” the British economy, the Coalition inflicted on the U.K. the decade and more fiscal trauma known as “austerity”. Cameron himself was an ideological lightweight and easily bored, but he was surrounded by ideologues, principally his Chancellor George Osborne, but also by the uber-Thatcherite, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, convinced that more competition, extended internal market mechanisms and the opening up of clinical services to the private sector was the “reform” the NHS needed. His NHS Act of 2010 broke up commissioning bodies into geographically tiny replacements (thereby rendering them effectively useless); required NHS Foundation Trusts to compete for the provision of all services, including cancer care, mental health services and much urgent care, and encouraged commissioners to sell off community health services and diagnostic services to private sector providers, such as Virgin Health under an invidious policy known as “Any Willing Provider”. Along the way, Public Health was transferred to local authorities, fatally divorcing it from the wider health service, small hospitals privatised, and savings targets hiked up.

The NHS had been working within a simulated market for nearly a decade when the Tories took over. It was Labour’s Alan Milburn who believed internal competition and a target culture was key to increasing NHS efficiency and productivity. However, Milburn drew the line at outright privatisation and genuinely sought to turn commissioning into a lever to secure comprehensive health provision sensitive to local needs rather than simply a means to manage the health market. Crucially the Labour government had also pumped significant amounts of new funding into the NHS which enabled Milburn to state credibly that there was enough money in the system for all NHS providers to make a surplus, and that only those slow or uncompetitive would struggle. The Conservative government however turned off the funding taps at the very point at which Lansley was marketising every aspect of the service. This manifested as a decade of below-inflation financial settlements for services for which demand was growing due to demographic factors and whose costs were inexorably rising due to the ever-rising expense of drugs and equipment. All markets - simulated or otherwise- require injections of cash at regular intervals in order to expand and invest and to meet unavoidable costs. Austerity was always an unnecessary and witless strategy for the economy as a whole, but for a health model predicated on growth, the simultaneous marketisation of care with a radical downturn in funding, was catastrophic. The NHS entered a fiscal doom spiral from which it has yet to recover.

The damage inflicted on the NHS by the twin ideological impulses to commercialise public services while at the same reduce public spending was bad enough, but the imposition of a 40% budget reduction on social care over the period of austerity economics, effectively - in the words of Wes Streeting - also “broke” NHS emergency care. With social services defunded to the extent they were barely able to fulfil their statutory duties, the resultant inability of social workers to discharge elderly patients with long term conditions from hospital into other supported accommodation, resulted in over 30% of acute hospital beds being unavailable for patient admission from A&E. With so many beds out of action, waits in Emergency Departments spiralled. Last year, just 58% of patients met the ED waiting time standard of 4 hours; in 2010, 98% of patients had been seen, admitted or discharged from ED within four hours. The crowding in A&E Departments that resulted from this collapse in performance, has led to long ambulance queues outside hospitals and the subsequent terrifying failure of ambulances to respond to so-called “Category 1 and 2” emergencies within fifteen minutes in the community - in fact delays are now counted in hours.

Elective services have fared little better. When Labour left office in 2010, the standard of 92% of patients being seen and treated in secondary care within 18 weeks of a referral by a GP, was broadly being met. That standard has not been met since 2015, and by 2020 had tumbled to less than 75% of patients. Then came Covid - a pandemic for which the NHS was hopelessly ill-prepared thanks to systemic underfunding, a complete absence of planning and a reduction and detachment of Public Health from the core NHS. The panicky and chaotic response to Covid by the Johnson regime saw wholesale cancellation of elective procedures and cancer care to maintain acute and critical care capacity for the anticipated surge in emergency demand. Waiting list numbers have, as a result of this service shut-down, spiralled to 7m patients and waiting time is resembling the ghastly Tory legacy the Blair government addressed over 20 years ago. The fact that the hapless Sunak regime needlessly kept the junior doctors’ dispute running in the belief that being “tough” with medical care givers would somehow increase Tory popularity, only exacerbated patient waits, rubbing salt in the wounds.

These are just the headlines: Darzi could have written whole separate reports about the scandal of under-provisioned and demoralised mental health services trying to keep up with unsustainable demand; the dangers to our children created by a wilful neglect of the ever-increasing needs for paediatric intensive and high dependency care; the attested failures across the country in maternity services and the shambles of a privatised nursing and residential care home sector. The NHS was not perfect in 2010, but the damage wrought upon it over fourteen years of senseless fiscal squeeze, ludicrous ideological experimentation, catastrophic and corrupt responses to a pandemic and, most crippling of all, systematic neglect of British healthcare by the Tories, must rank as one of the worst examples policy failure in recent British history.

The Tory client media immediately accused Darzi of writing a biased and political report aimed at discrediting the Conservatives rather than describing the true state of the last government’s legacy. The real truth is that Darzi only scratched the surface in his description of a service brought to its knees by a cavalcade of ideologues, incompetents and unserious clowns who knew little and cared less about services on which the British people depend. Labour will justifiably be judged on the progress they have made in fixing the “broken” NHS in four years’ time, but let us never forget who broke it so comprehensively in the first place. There is barely an area of British public policy that the procession of ghoulish Tory regimes did not vandalise, degrade or take backwards, but for the crimes they inflicted on our health and social care services alone, for so long a source of collective pride and reassurance, the Conservatives must never, ever, be forgiven.

26th September 2024

[thatcrazycrowgirl]

I saw your post and wanted to share a thought i had about older! Jacob ...

I think he obviously matured over the years and definetly got more serious as well

Sooo i can imagen him and his kid just sitting on a roof somewhere after a finished training or smt and him just dropping his dad lore out of nowhere, about how he derailed a train one time and how he was kindaa at fault that the british economy almost collapsed.....

His kids probably wouldnt believe him 😭

Or maybe they would but i can imagen that the wild side of Jacob died down after he got his kids

Not everything but it would definitely be less wild

Thank you for sharing! I can actually see that! Perhaps Jacob sometimes pulls out some of that "dad lore" to try and make his kids feel better when they've screwed up something and feel bad about it; make them smile and give them some needed encouragement to try again.

And if they don't believe his stories about his younger days, well, all they really need to do is ask Aunt Evie about it. hehe

Also, yes, I definitely can see some of Jacob's "wildness" calm down as he gets older, or he just finds better ways to channel it - perhaps reserving it mainly for fight clubs and such like that. I mean, we do see that he still can be aggressive when he needs to be, so I could see him finding a more "controlled" outlet for it as he ages.

[raincitygirl76]

We need to talk about the Bambi situation. Specifically, Wilhelm shooting Bambi. It was raised recently in a different post that Wilhelm has no apparent hobbies, hence fic writers latching onto the frog stuff. But I suspect there are hobbies.

We see from the shooting range scenes that Wilhelm knows how to handle a gun. He’s not especially brillant at clay pigeon shooting, but he’s clearly not a beginner, either. And in 2.06, he threatens August with the shotgun, but keeps his finger BEHIND the trigger at all times. The only time his finger is on the trigger is when he fires into the air.

I suspect the Swedish upper classes like to hunt, shoot, and fish just like the British upper classes. And someone, maybe Erik, Ludvig, or a gamekeeper, drilled into Wilhelm as a child how to handle a gun without accidentally shooting anyone with it.

As far as I know (although I don’t know much about it), fox hunting is an exclusively British pastime. Or was, since I think it’s banned now. But all other types of “country sports” seem to be mostly Europe wide. There’s lots of forest in Sweden: I suspect salmon fishing, game bird shooting, and deer stalking are probably big things for people who can afford it. I don’t mind about the salmon or the game birds, but I cringe at the thought of poor Bambi. I suspect Wilhelm was not brought up to cringe at poor Bambi, though.

A quick google search confirmed that yes, the real life Swedish royal family shoot deer.

And there are lots of other animals you can legally hunt in Sweden. Including moose, which are enormous.

Pulling back to the macro-European level, in 2012 there was a huge fuss when King Juan Carlos of Spain (since abdicated in favour of his son, partly because of this scandal) broke his hip while secretly on an elephant hunting safari in Botswana. Not a photo safari, a safari where the elephants die. Massive ructions, since nobody knew where he was, and it looked really bad when Spain’s economy was still reeling from the worldwide financial collapse of 2008.

It had already been known than Juan Carlos liked to fish, hunt, and shoot. And ordinary Spaniards were generally OK with that. They were significantly less OK with their king shooting an adorable endangered species while on a lavish top-secret trip to another continent.

Because evidently the Spanish royal family or their courtiers realized the king couldn’t be perceived as massacring elephants for fun. But rather than saying, “No, your majesty, it’s bad PR to go to Botswana and shoot Babar,” they apparently said instead, “Your maiesty, please don’t get CAUGHT shooting Babar.”

But when he broke his hip and had to be airlifted out, the secret stopped being a secret and became a scandal. Shades of Kristina of Sweden there. “Do whatever stupid shit you want, just don’t ever get caught by anyone who hasn’t already signed an NDA.”

I sincerely hope Wilhelm wouldn’t want to shoot Babar. I’m already cringing at the idea of him shooting Bambi. It’s only the longstanding connection of the upper classes with blood sports that forces me to realize it’s a distinct possibility.

I don’t much like the large land mammal idea myself. I have much less emotional attachment to pheasants and geese, so will make it my personal headcanon that Wilhelm is accustomed to shooting clay pigeons and game birds. But his nanny let him watch Bambi at a formative age.

Whenever Wilhelm was subsequently taken deer-stalking as a slightly older child, he devolved into hysterics at the idea of ANYBODY shooting the poor deer. And eventually his family gave up trying to toughen him up on the subject. Especially because him making a ruckus kept scaring off the damn deer and ruining their sport. That’s my headcanon, and I’m sticking to it. It’s probably false, but I’m happy with it.

I don’t have a problem with hunting provided it’s not an endangered species, the rules are followed, and it’s not just trophy-hunting. If the meat gets eaten, then it’s useful. If don’t want to hunt myself, but I’m not against it.

But I watched Bambi at a formative age, and the thought of a character I love getting Bambi in his sights, pulling the trigger, and killing Bambi makes me freak out. Even though I realize my headcanon about Wilhelm being too squeamish to shoot Bambi is most likely bullshit, and he probably has killed deer.

Edited to add:

@sflow-er confirms in replies that hunting is a very big thing in the Nordics. Although it’s not just an upper class thing, plenty of working class people hunt too. They just probably don’t hire an expert tracker (like the one in the People article who gets paid to help the real Swedish royal family hunt deer). Note also that in Marcus’s Instagram feed, it shows he hunts.

Consistent with Canada. Plenty of working class Canadians hunt. Mostly (but not all) people who either live in rural areas now or grew up in rural areas. But Canada also has the very expensive guided hunting expeditions available for people with more money than sense. Which sounds like the guy in the first article linked above, who has been leading the real Swedish royal family on guided hunts for 30 years.

[eaglesnick]

The Lower Classes

George Osborne, former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, and architect of Tory austerity cuts, was recently summoned to the Covid inquiry to discuss the impact of his cruel and heartless policies on the preparedness of the NHS to deal with the pandemic. Needless to say, he accepted NO responsibility what-so-ever.

“He denied that austerity depleted health and social care capacity. He denied that the state of the social care system became worse in his time in office. And he denied that austerity has any connection to worse health outcomes for the most disadvantaged in UK society.”  (TUC: 20/06/23)

It wasn’t as if he didn’t know what would happen to our health and social services. There were plenty of warning signs and advice being given, advice he deliberately chose to ignore.

“A strong warning that austerity policies can do more harm than good has been delivered by economists from the International Monetary Fund, in a critique of the neoliberal doctrine that has dominated economics for the past three decades.” (Guardian: 27/05/16)

Why did Osborne ignore the warnings of economic groups like the IMF and other reputable forecasters? He did it to save the Tory Party’s rich friends in banking, business and commerce. Osborne himself admitted as much when he told the Covid inquiry:

“If we had not had a clear plan to put public finances on a sustainable path then Britain might have experienced a fiscal crisis…” (LBC: 20/06/23

So, “protecting" the economy and the rich was more important than protecting public services and the most vulnerable in society. The irony here is that borrowing rates were at an ALL TIME low during Tory austerity cuts so borrowing money to help essential public services could have been done very cheaply. What is even more ironic is that Osborne’s austerity programme was based on a false premise.

“George Osborne plunged the UK into austerity “all for nothing” due to an error on an Excel spreadsheet... The whole reason that George Osborne and David Cameron launched austerity was because of a Harvard paper that did a whole bunch of calculations – which showed that if your debt was exceeding 90 per cent of GDP then the economy would shrink… Actually it had been done on a spreadsheet and a bunch of rows of data had been missed out, which if they had been included it would have shown that the economy wouldn’t shrink.”

(The London Economic: 22/09/22)

In other words, if Osborne had done his job correctly and checked the data he would have discovered there was absolutely no need for austerity cuts and the resulting catastrophic consequences.

I use the term “catastrophic consequences” advisedly. Not only have ALL of our public services been starved of funding under Tory austerity cuts, to the point they are all on the verge of collapse, but worse still our children and grandchildren have suffered physically from Tory austerity.

“Children raised under UK austerity shorter than European peers, study finds. Average height of boys and girls aged five has slipped due to poor diet and NHS cuts, experts say”  (Guardian: 21/06/23)

Children's height is a very good indicator of general living conditions, such as poverty, illness, stress, infections and sleep quality. Studies show that between 2010 and 2020,UK children who grew up during this period have fallen 30 places behind there European peers in height. Even more frightening is the fact that  British children are now displaying alarming rates of increasing poor health, 700 children a year being admitted to hospital with malnutrition, rickets or scurvy.

Under Osborne’s austerity cuts the rich have grown richer. In 2018, the Equality Trust reported that the rich had increased their wealth by £274 billion over a five-year period.  Meanwhile, as the rich continue to see their wealth increase many ordinary families are seeing the average height of their children shrink. Put brutally, the Tory Party has been, and continues to, deliberately sacrifice the health of the nations children for their own personal gain and that of their rich friends.

The term “lower class" was never more poignant.

[historia-vitae-magistras]

How much would you, based in your head canon, say is nurture as versus nature? I know you don't mean actual "blood relations" with family like Rat Dad and kids, but in general, how much of their relationships with each other is tied to the circumstances of how they were nurtured for as versus how they may be under other circumstances. That is, how much of their family is perception and choice?

Just for example, if Alfred had been raised by Antonio, would his relationship with Maria and Matthew be reversed? As in, would he be the younger sibling to Maria, while Matthew could be a friend but wasn't a sibling?

Oooh, good question. So in my mind, there are at least three major things for nations rather than two. Culture, geography, and privilege.

Privilege is the one that defines their relationship to a 'parent' most. Maria, for example, added so much to the Spanish economy that it collapsed the global economy. She's beautiful and intelligent, and Antonio, with his history as Hispania under Rome, used the word he knew from Lucius and set the precedent. That was a choice on the European part. And it was often a long period of that being unchallenged by those dubbed their offspring because of the respectability that could give.

But the second would be culture. The Anglosphere is a very weird concept. As adults, Zee and Jack have a strange time calling Matt or Alfred 'family,' but they and Matt usually don't outright deny it because they have yet to chuck the limey off the money and still look to Britain in some ways as the mother country. 100 year ago, Matt was extremely culturally British; calling him their elder brother was no problem. Alfred was never a part of their lives in childhood. But now Canada is largely French or Americanized and largely irrelevant in their affairs, and the word 'sibling' doesn't quite sit right, but they've perhaps yet to find a better word. Jack and Zee, however, would have a lot longer to go to break that definition between themselves, being both of British cultural background and geographically close. It's much the same in the Atlantic Archipelago. Rhys and Alasdair are both locked into Arthur with their borders in Britain. And they're locked into Brighid culturally due to their Celtic backgrounds.

So, geography often makes them close regardless of culture. Maria and Alfred will be in close proximity, regardless of their backgrounds. He and Maria shared much the same sense of closeness that he and Matt shared from the get-go, but they're translating nebulous dirt fuck feelings onto much more defined human concepts.

There are also the social mores of the time when these relationships were happening. In Matt's earliest days, there wasn't much English influence at all, and he's mostly a very mixed culture of French-Indigenous. So the cultural aspect of siblings isn't present yet. He's also male presenting. Alfred was trying to use human language to describe a relationship that is only partially human itself. When he was very little, the word others used was 'brother' and at that age it was the most appropriate. But when he was independent, he re-evaluated and wanted to find a word for his intense bond with his northern neighbor. But independent or not, he's taking into account what is acceptable, what is appropriate, and what feels right, and that hasn't changed much despite the revolution. The closest word he could find was the existing one. 'Brother.' Matt has always found it accurate enough to reciprocate, so their relationship remained familial, which was later reinforced by Canada's transformation into a largely Anglo culture and country.

Maria, presenting as female and coming to Alfred's point in life where he's a hormonal, self-righteous teenager, sent absolutely careening from any female attention, and Maria was no exception whatsoever. She was the best read and educated of any New World country then. She was in the throws of the enlightenment before Alfred was in many ways, and he was dumbstruck by her perspectives and knowledge at that age. There's this pull between them, the closeness of the future and their geography, and the best way in both their cultural contexts of the time to view and indulge that feeling was through a romantic and intellectual lens.

All that probably reads like a pretentious way of saying, 'Well, it depends,' but that's the thought process.

[fatehbaz]

On 6 July 1860, a British consul by the name of George Whittingham Caine arrived at the nondescript port of Swatow, today’s modern Shantou. He “disembarked from a warship to the cacophony of a seven-gun salute” and, following the obligatory hoisting of the Union Jack [...], “triumphantly declared the treaty port of Chaozhou ‘open’.” Yet unlike other treaty ports scattered along the maritime fringes of the tottering Qing empire, the British found themselves from the outset outflanked by established Chaozhouese (otherwise known as Chiuchow or Teochew) trading communities and failed to gain a foothold in the profitable local commodity trade in rice, sugar, beancake [...].

[T]he Chaozhouese emerged from a[n] [...] ungovernable corner of Guangdong and joined the ranks of the Fujianese and Cantonese as major players in commerce and commodity production, not only along China’s southeastern littoral but across the different territories washed by the South China Sea. The story of the rise of maritime Chaozhou is set against the backdrop of state attempts to subdue and pacify [the region] [...], the emergence of colonial states in Southeast Asia, and the booms and busts of the commodity trade. [...]

[F]rom 1869 to 1948, around six million laborers departed from the port of Swatow and fanned out across the Nanyang (or “Southern Ocean”) [...]. They worked in Chaozhouese-owned gambier, pepper, rice, sugar, rubber, and fruit plantations, toiled in the gold mines of West Borneo, and served as sailors in the intra-Asian junk trade. These overseas sojourners provided a steady trickle of remittances and in the process transformed the local economy [...] [and] brought Siam, Malaya, Borneo, French Indochina, Hong Kong and Shanghai within the orbit of maritime Chaozhou.

---

The story of the heyday of maritime Chaozhou [...] is bookended by two defining moments; the ascent, following the collapse of Ayutthaya in 1767, of the half-Chaozhouese king of Siam, Taksin, and the catastrophic collapse of the global economy in the 1930s. [...] Ming and Qing [authorities] attempt[ed] to subjugate China’s unruly southeastern littoral. A series of interdictions and measures, ranging from the forced depopulation of complete coastal areas in the second half of the seventeenth century to Fang Yao’s [...] “pacification campaigns” in the 1860s, wreaked havoc but also buttressed anti-dynastic sentiments and reinforced Chaozhou’s maritime orientation. [...] These [...] campaigns triggered [...] migration of several generations of Chaozhouese men [... ]. Singapore's authorities were overwhelmed [...] [and this] worked as a catalyst for the British colonial project in the Straits Settlements. [...]

"Mexican dollars, Hong Kong dollars, French Indochinese piasters, Philippine pesos, Straits dollars and Japanese yen inundated local markets” and sustained a remittance-dependent Chaozhou economy that was always oriented towards the Nanyang and [...] removed from Beijing.

---

But the steady influx of foreign-earned capital also had its shadows. Remittances exacerbated social divides [...]. Furthermore, the success stories of some protagonists, [...] whose fabulous wealth derived from their near-monopoly on gutta-percha during Malaya’s rubber boom, are matched by uncountable, and often irretrievable, stories of suffering and hardship.

Thousands of migrants embarked penniless as “credit ticket coolies” and were shipped under trying conditions to far-flung places where they then toiled for months to earn their passage fare back. [...]

Its leading merchants and brotherhoods competed as well as cooperated with colonial actors across Southeast Asia [...] and Chaozhou-controlled business ventures were crucial to the evolution of industrial capitalism both at home and overseas.

---

Text by: Yorim Spoelder. '"Distant Shores: Colonial Encounters on China's Maritime Frontier" by Melissa Macauley'. Asian Review of Books. 5 October 2021. [A book review published online in the Non-Fiction section of Asian Review of Books. Some paragraph breaks/contractions in this post added by me.]