#Labour budget 2024

[creativemedianews]

PM did not rule out an NI increase for employers

[auadd]

Article transcribed below:

(The front cover of Broadcast Magazine May 2024. An image of Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton wearing black tie suits, looking out at the viewer, their faces lit by a vertical sliver of light as if from an opening door.)

The text reads: After No. 9.

On the bittersweet task of bringing their black comedy anthology series to an end.

Writers and stars Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith are pulling down the shutters on their black comedy anthology Inside No. 9 after nine series. They talk to Robin Parker about the show's sketchy origins, why an old-fashioned weekly drop was key to keeping audiences gripped, and wrestling with the best kind of send-off for their labour of love.

Such are the mind-games played by Inside No. 9 that when Reece Shearsmith says he felt "like a rabbit in the headlights" thinking about how to end the show, it's just possible that he's referring to the hare statue that fans are challenged to find in every episode. But it is the ultimate paradox: after nine series and 55 episodes, how do you wrap up a show that resets each week? They were tempted to replay former glories with sequels to favourite episodes or returning characters, but that wouldn't have felt true to the show, Shearsmith says. "We tussled with the enormity of the fact that it was the last series, but then decided it should be like any other: six new stories. Some we'd had for a while, and some seemed to fit that it was series nine. No ending could put a neat bow on 55 separate worlds." While they've acted in other writers' plays, series and films - and, in Pemberton's case, appeared on Taskmaster - this has been their chief focus for 12 years. How does it feel to be stepping off the treadmill? "We hope it's seen as a fitting send-off," Pemberton says, but he admits it's nice not to have to think about the next series as soon as the current one ends. "While it's been a total privilege, the pressure has never gone away." Whatever comes next will require some recalibration of their writing brains. "We've become so honed into this structure where you get in very quickly, you get a lot of exposition in - or hide it - and then blow it all up within 30 minutes."

Limitless imagination.

The duo have enjoyed unprecedented freedom with the loosest of concepts. From writing an episode entirely in iambic pentameter to experiments in animation and fixed-rig, they've let their imaginations run riot. Inside No. 9's origins are almost laughably sketchy. With enthusiasm waning for a third series of their BBC2 comedy Psychoville, they looked back on an experimental episode - itself a late addition, due to some leftover budget - that was filmed on one set and looked to be shot in one take. "We said we wanted to tell a different story every week," recalls Pemberton. "Sent away to write two, we came back with a domestic comedy and a paranoid, psychological thriller. Everyone enjoyed the contrast, so that idea of doing very different episodes crept up on us. At no stage did we do a pitch document, or hand over a list of ideas for the next series."

While aware of the fortunate position afforded to them by The League Of Gentlemen's pedigree, Pemberton says Inside No 9's success offers general lessons for commissioning. "You can become far more creative by a) putting boundaries on things while b) just being two writers left to come up with whatever you come up with," he says. Having developed their talents through sketch writing, where there are few outlets today, he lays down the gauntlet for commissioners to consider more anthologies. "It's a brilliant way to bring on new writers with either a common theme or sense of tone. It's tough for commissioners - there are fewer singles every year and I think it's a great shame." They feel the limitations imposed by the show have changed them as writers. "Taking on something seemingly undramatic - someone doing a crossword, or four people sitting around at a restaurant table with all the information coming into that room, always feels like an achievement," says Pemberton. Discipline coupled with creative freedom has created a unique contract with the viewer. "It's satisfying to tell a story in 30 minutes and we enjoy exploring how to tell them in different ways," says Shearsmith. "People feel we're a pair of tricksters, so it's partly a game we play in terms of what viewers are going to get each week." Yet Inside No. 9's repeated ability to pull the rug from viewers is arguably wedded to the fading era of scheduled TV viewing. After all, the thrill of a live episode going wrong is hard to replicate on iPlayer. Shearsmith's proud that to the end, the BBC released it weekly. "Each one is its own mini event; you don't want people to binge them and you don't want all the endings and surprises out there. "I like the fact that it's drip-fed in the old- fashioned way - it's an agonising but fun wait for the next one. A lot of fans want to watch it when it goes out, which is a great testimony to its currency." Pemberton extends kudos to the BBC for allowing some of its more outlandish flourishes. "On episodes like 3 By 3 or Dead Line, we were lying to our audience and to journalists, to give that really satisfying moment of surprise and awe where they can't believe what they're watching." Which begs the question: have either of them lied in this interview? Shearsmith quickly says no, though, of course, that's no proof. Maintaining the surprise One last try at gleaning more on Inside No. 9's finale, then. Most series have concluded with an episode that erupts into full-blown horror. In its closing moments, will we be left with a smile on our face or fear in our hearts? Pemberton flashes an enigmatic smile. "We like to do a bit of both. That's the joy: even halfway through an episode, you're not quite sure what direction it might take. So the less we say about it, the better." To understand Inside No. 9's impish heart, he says, look at series five's magicians episode, Misdirection. "Each of our episodes is like our own little magic trick. We don't want you coming behind the cloth and seeing the Wizard of Oz pulling his levers - we want you to enjoy skipping down the yellow brick road." And, of course, if you live at number nine, there's no place like home.

'DEFINING MOMENTS: THREE OF INSIDE NO. 9'S STANDOUT EPISODES.'.

THE BREAKTHROUGH. The 12 Days Of Christine (series two, episode two, 2015). A disorienting series of moments are revealed to be Christine's life flashing before her eyes. Steve Pemberton: We weren't sure what we'd written. We didn't think it was a comedy, and we were a bit scared about the reaction, but it blew us away. Adam Tandy (exec producer): We thought if we could make this ep work, we would have almost reached the zenith of what we hoped to achieve. It was a very big, early win that put us on the map creatively. We haven't sought to repeat it - trying to do the same kind of emotional sucker-punch again wouldn't have come off.

THE LIVE EPISODE. Dead Line (live Halloween special, 2018). With echoes of the BBC's legendary Ghostwatch, sinister things start happening in the studio during the advertised story.

Reece Shearsmith: Keeping a lid on Dead Line going 'wrong' was great. I thought it would get out somehow. We leaned into the overarching notion of a live episode, blindsiding everyone to watch it in case we got our lines wrong - that's why most people watch live episodes of Holby or EastEnders. I was pleased that some people turned off - it meant it worked. SP: We couldn't monitor what was going on, other than we were live, being filmed, looking at our own phones - we didn't want props - and seeing the live Twitter reaction to what we were doing in the moment. It was surreal, exciting and an episode I'll never forget doing.

THE LATE SWAP. 3 By 3 (series eight, episode five, 2023). Viewers expecting an On The Buses spoof featuring Robin Askwith, as teased in publicity shots, get instead what seems to be a gameshow fronted by Lee Mack. AT: Most of the work to suggest a supposed change from the billed episode to the real one happened in the 15 minutes before TX. The broadcast chain being what it is, I was on Zoom calls of more than 30, soothing them and ensuring we made the changes to the EPG and iPlayer. At 9.55pm, we gave the continuity announcer a new script to say, "Unfortunately, we're not able to bring you this episode of Inside No. 9, here's something else." It still surprises on iPlayer, because even though it says it's Inside No. 9, it doesn't look like a regular episode.

Interview with Adam Tandy, Executive producer.

WORKING ON A UNIQUE SERIES.

Inside No 9's final series opens with one of its most ambitious shoots yet. Boo To A Goose is not the first episode set on a train but, unlike 2015's La Couchette, it was filmed not on a set but a genuine Mersey Rail carriage. Along with an episode featuring a full symphony orchestra and a rare period-set episode, it's a demonstration of where the show has been able to scale up in the two years since production moved to Manchester and qualified for the high-end drama tax credit. "In the early days, we'd have about 45 cast and crew - on this series, it's sometimes up to 100," says executive producer Adam Tandy. As ever, the mix allows for more intimate episodes, including the series' only two-hander between Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton. "Because we have a notion of there being no house rules, whatever they deliver, as long as I can achieve it, it's fine by me," says Tandy. While he finds it hard to quantify the working relationship with the show's creators beyond "hard work in a spirit of friendly engagement", he says he will miss the unique trust they've built. After 20 years on comedies from The Thick Of It to Detectorists, this show has made him a "much more complete producer", Tandy says. Effectively, he's learned a new skillset on every episode, from the authentic 1970s studio production of The Devil Of Christmas to this series' Mulberry Close, which is told through a video doorbell. After a slightly "theatrical and traditional" start, he reckons Inside No. 9's ambitions took off with series two. He credits exec John Plowman with quietly championing the show, and then BBC head of comedy Shane Allen for asking not to read scripts so he could avoid spoilers. "For four or five years, we'd have no contact with the commissioner between commission and delivery," he marvels. Endings are bittersweet, but Tandy isn't giving up hope of more from Pemberton and Shearsmith. "I'm not guaranteeing anything, but I think it won't be long before they come back with something else in the same sort of vein. They've been constantly creating the show all this time, which can't have been easy when it's just them doing it. I think they're too good at it to want to leave it alone for long."

[anxiousdreamcore]

Did Frontiers of Pandora actually financially succeed? Spoiler: yes, but…

.

To get right to the point: Frontiers of Pandora made a 133 million dollars in January of 2024 and then, presuming half a million or so bought it for DLCs the following year, and even if we assume it never went off sale, it still adds an additional 15-20 million dollars to profits.

So, the game has made a whopping 148-153 MILLION dollars in sales.

That is decent success for a game that isn’t part of an established franchise and relied pretty much entirely on the A2 movie for its promotion, but here’s the kicker. The budget of the game, according to rumours/leaks, is a grossly bloated 120 million.

For comparison, Witcher 3, an open world game with beautiful graphics, ten times the content of Frontiers, a campaign spanning 50 hours and with release date of 2015, had the budget of 81 million. A question arises: where in the hell did a 120 million go? Why did frontiers need such a large budget? I can sadly not afford a definite answer.

Some theories of mine are: the primary chunk has been lent to musicians and concept artists, who made whole new clans, character designs, environments and music to go along with all of it. A clear lack of budget is seen within the latest DLC, as it has nearly no new music compared to the base game score, which perhaps points to the developers at Ubisoft cutting pay on the labour that demanded most of it. Animators and motion capture come in close second as the dlc also severely lacks said scenes with present actors, which was another clear attempt at cutting costs.

Second theory is that, what I think happened, was that the game was severely crunched by a huge team since the executives managed it poorly and it was unable to release in tandem with the movie, hence the budget, as it might have covered salaries for hundreds of people working around the clock to somehow finish the product a year later. Allegedly of course.

In conclusion: the game has made a ton of money but Ubisoft; a company that has lately become infamous for its foolish financial practices, will not be able to enjoy any of it in the wake of their pending projects with equally bloated-out-of-proportion budgets. Allegedly.

But at least the artists managed to create a gorgeous project. Hats off to them.

[sgiandubh]

Civic engagement

This just in, from today's Scotsman edition:

Protesting against planned funding cuts directly affecting (and not 'effecting', like #silly Mordorians like to spell it, always) Creative Scotland's budget by about 10 million pounds, doubled by the complete closure of a 6 million pounds' fund dedicated to Scottish artists:

[Source, LOL: https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/outlander-sam-heughan-scottish-government-creative-scotland-4763140?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAabg05uPexPMg-GrbiGisHktr3GLryXovrgR2YAK2Ly_ova9FXmAg0C9wTo_aem_VwyTh2aetr7WZnOrjaRTUg#disqus-comment-section]

The above come as a response to the Scottish Government's uninspired budget cuts project that was made public during Edinburgh's Fringe theatre festival:

[More about the joint initiative of more than 111 local NGOs and Scottish creative people, here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/22/scottish-arts-sector-appeals-to-ministers-over-devastating-budget-cuts]

While totally committed to the Scottish independence movement and well-connected to many SNP honchos (as I previously showed more than once), S is certainly well aware of the SNP's internal crisis, with several voices questioning the new First Minister's ability to bring a much needed breath of fresh air at Holyrood. Fear of a Scottish Labour landslide at the next Scottish parliamentary elections, in 2026, is very much present:

[Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/27/snp-will-lose-scottish-election-without-complete-rethink-senior-party-figures]

But sure, keep on dissing, discussing crochet and making useless, empty speculations about this weekend's schedule, which definitely did not include Sarah Holden. This particular brand of ridiculousness will never cease to amuse me.

[darkmaga-returns]

By Rodney Atkinson Freenations

December 24, 2024

Britain’s new Labour Government has managed in six short months to reduce an economy growing at the fastest rate in the G7 group of leading economies to falls of -0.1% in both September and October with no growth in the large services sector as fearful consumers reduced spending and business paused investment. With manufacturing and construction declining at a pace of 0.6% and 0.4% respectively in October, annual inflation has risen to 2.6% and the 10 year government bond interest rate has risen from 3.8% to 4.6% – a massive vote of no confidence in Government debt management.

The largesse distributed by Prime Minister Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves to doctors, train drivers and the nationalised sickness service (NHS – £25 billion extra) led to a budget in which the State raised taxes by a staggering £40 billion, increased the minimum wage, increased already crippling business rates and increased employers’ national insurance payments for each worker.

[sourcreammachine]

GREEN PARTY MANIFESTO 2024 SUMMARY

tldr: there's a feeling of tension in this manifesto, between youthful zennial climatic ecosocialism and old-guard hippy-liberal environmentalism. this year the greens may well go from 1 MP to the dizzying heights of 2 (there's whispers on the wind that they may even get 3...), and the green council delegation is at 800-odd now, so this could easily be a changing-of-the-guard moment

with the great Berry and the ok Denyer in parliament the party could have more momentum in battling the starmerite government, and with that, it has the ability, the possibility to pick up more momentum. this is a big opportunity in the party's history - over the next five years it can and could be pushed into a holistic ecosocialist movement by the centrally influential mass party membership, and remove the last dregs of its tunnel vision to provide a lefty movement for everyone, green and pink, a Newfoundland coalition. with votes at 16 on the cards and this potential evolution of the party, 2029 could be a big moment for this country's left. whether or not the greens play the role of keystone is up to them

it is also the only manifesto to use the term 'neurodivergent'

💷ECONOMY

wealth tax of 1% on individuals with assets over §10m and 2% for assets over §1b (an extremely humble proposal), reform capital gains and investment dividend taxation to be at the same rates as income taxation, remove the income-based bands on national insurance contributions, ie raising total income taxation by 8% at §50k/a, – altogether raising government revenues by upwards of §70b/a

stratify VAT to reduce it for consumer stuff and hike it for stuff like financial services

permanent windfall tax on banks for whenever they get windfalls

perform a holistic land survey to get the data needed for a new, effective Land Tax

abolish the tax relief on existing freeports and SEZs

heavy carbon tax to raise a boatload of billions, rising progressively over a decade to allow industrial adaptation, for a ~§80b state windfall for five years that'll be for green investment as this windfall starts to recede

renationalise water and energy

§15 minimum wage, 10:1 pay ratio for all organisations public and private (ie §150 sort-of maximum wage, ~§300k/a), mandatory equal pay audits, 'support' lower hours and four-day weeks [clarification needed]

unambiguously define gig workers as workers with contract rights from day one, repeat offenders of gig-slavery will be banned from operating in the country

every City bank required to produce a strategy with a clear pathway to divestment of all fossil fuels "as soon as possible and at least by 2030", every City non-banking organisation simply to be banned from having fossil fuel in their portfolios, credit to be banned for repeat City climate offenders, mandate the BoE to fulfil the funding of the climate transition and climate leadership of the City, FCA to develop measures to ban fossil fuel share trading in the City and immediately prohibit all new shares in fossil fuels

"we will explore legal ways for companies to be transformed into mutual organisations"😈

develop regional cooperative banks to invest in regional SMEs, coops and community enterprises

diversify crop growth, promote local agricultural cooperatives and peripheral urban horticultural farms, give farmers a sort of collective bargain against grocers

aim towards a circular economy: require ten-year warranties on white goods, rollout of right-to-repair

tighten monopoly laws on media with a hard cap preventing >20% of a media market being owned by one individual or company and implement Leveson 2

🏥PUBLIC SERVICES

abolish tuition fees and cancel standing debt

surge nhs funding by §30B, triple labour's spending plans for everything, the entire budget, the entire state, everything

free personal care, with occupational therapy being part of this

35h/w free child care (eg seven hours over five days, or seven days of five hours)

renationalise many academies under local authorities, abolish the "charity" status of private schools and charge VAT

surge funding for smoking-cessation, addiction support and sexual health service

surge funding for public dentistry with free care for children and low-earners

free school breakfasts in primary school and free school lunches for all schools

one-month guarantee of access to mental health therapies

online access to PrEP

let school playing fields be used in the evenings by local sports clubs

greater funding for civic sports facilities and pools

🏠HOUSING

unambiguously-under-the-law nationalise the crown estate for an absolute fuckton of land and assets for housing and for green energy and rewilding for FREE

rent control for local authorities, ban no-fault evictions and introduce long-term leases, create private tenancy boards of tenants

local authorities to have right of first refusal on the purchase of certain properties at aggressive rates, such as unoccupied or uninsulated buildings

all new homes to be Passivhaus standard with mandatory solar panels and heat pumps

§30B across five years to insulate homes, §12B of which is for social homes, and §9B more for heat pumps, and §7B more for summer cooling

planning law reform: council planning mechanisms to priorities little developments all over the place rather than sprawling blobs, demolitions to require as thorough a planning application as erections, new developments required to not be car dependent

planning laws to require large-scale developments feature access to key community infrastructures such as transport, health and education, often mandating the construction of new key infrastructures, support nightlife and local culture in planning regulations

exempt pubs and local cultural events from VAT

building materials to be reusable, builders' waste rates to be surged to encourage use of reuse

750k new social homes in five years

🚄TRANSPORT

'a bus service to every village', restore local authority control and/or ownership of their busses

renationalise rail via franchise-concession lapsing, slowly assume ownership of the rolling stock (currently leased, and would continue to be so under labour's implementation of renationalisation) by buying a new train when the stock needs to be replaced

electrification agenda across the rail network, strategic approach to rail line and station reopenings

bring forward (sorta, the tories suspended it but labour says they'll reinstate it) the new petrol car ban from 2030 to 2027, existing petrol cars targeted to be off the road by 2034, investigate road-price charges as a replacement for petrol tax, hike road tax proportionally to vehicle weight, drop urban speed limits from 50kph to 30kph (or from 30mph to 20mph if you only speak Wrong), mass funding for freightrail and support logistics firms transitioning away from lorries

§2.5b/a for footpaths and cycleways, target of 50% of urban journeys to be extravehicular by 2030

frequent-flyer levy, ban on domestic flights within three-hour rail distance, remove the exemption of airline fuel from fuel tax, prioritise training of airline workers into other transportational jobs

👮FORCE

abolish the home office, transfer its police/security portfolio to the justice ministry and its citizenship/migration portfolio to a new migration ministry separate from the criminal justice system

abolish the kill the bill bill and restore the right to protest

recognise palestine, push for immediate ceasefire and prosecution of war crimes, back the south africa case, "[support] an urgent international effort to end the illegal occupation of palestinian land"

grant asylum-seekers the right to work before their application is granted

end the hostile environment

abolish Prevent

end routine stop-and-search and facial recognition

commission to reform 'counterproductive' drug regime, decriminalise personal possession

amend the Online Safety Act to "[protect] political debate from being manipulated by falsehoods, fakes and half-truths", ie actually protecting 'fReE sPeEcH' and not everything that rightists imply by that phrase

decriminalise sex work

reform laws to give artists IP protections against ai

cancel trident and disarm

push for nato reforms (in its and our interest, they're not russophiles, they're not galloway, it's ok): get it to adopt a no-first-use nuclear policy, get it to prioritise diplomatic action first rather than military reaction, get it to adopt a stronger line on only acting for the defence of its member states

right to roam🚶‍♂️

🌱CLIMATE

zero-carbon by 2040, rather than the ephemeral ostensible government target of 2050

stop all new oil/gas licenses, end all subsidy for oil/gas industries, regulate biofuels to end greenwashing, end subsidies for biomass

decarbonise energy by 2030, minimum threshold of energy infrastructures to be community owned, "end the de facto ban on onshore wind" with planning reform

massively expand the connections between the insular grid and the UCTE continental grid to increase electricity import and export and prevent the need for energy autarky

more targeted bans on single-use plastics

"give nature a legal personhood" ok grandma let’s get you to bed

§2b/a to local authorities for local small-business decarbonisation

"cease development of new nuclear power stations, as nuclear energy is much more expensive and slower to develop than renewables. we are clear that nuclear is a distraction from developing renewable energy and the risk to nuclear power stations from extreme climate events is rising fast. nuclear power stations carry an unacceptable risk for the communities living close to facilities and create unmanageable quantities of radioactive waste. they are also inextricably linked with the production of nuclear weapons. green MPs will campaign to phase out existing nuclear power stations." because some people just can't let go of the seventies. nuclear is good. nuclear is our friend

invest in r&d to find solutions to decarbonise 'residual' carbon in the economy, such as HGVs or mobile machinery

increase unharvested woodland by 50% (no time frame given), grants to farmers for scrub rewilding, rewet Pete Boggs, make 30% of the EEZ protected waters and ban bottom trawling

§4b/a in skills training to stop gas communities getting Thatchered, prioritising shifting these workers into offshore wind

a.. licensing scheme for all pet animals? you guys sure about that one

regulate animal farming with a goal of banning factory farms, ban mass routine antibiotics, ban cages/close confinement and animal mutilation

ban all hunting including coursing and "game", ban snaring, ban hunt-landscaping such as grouse moors, end the badger cull, mandate licensing of all animal workers with lifetime striking off for cruelty convictions, compulsory hedgehog holes in new fencing, 'push' for 'ending' horse and dog racing [clarification needed], new criminal offences for stealing and harming pets, 'work towards' banning animal testing

🗳️DEMOCRACY

proportional representation for parliament and all councils

abolish voter ID

votes at sixteen

votes for all visa'd migrants

restore the electoral commission's prosecutory powers and remove the cap on fines it can impose on parties

increase Short Money, especially for smaller parties

create a manifest legal category of organisation for think tanks, to allow better enforcement of lobbying and funding restrictions

consider fun new measures for political accessibility such as MP jobsharing and allowing public provision of offices for all parliamentary candidates

🎲OTHER STUFF

Self-ID including nonbinary recognition, including with an X passport marker

"work towards rejoining the eu as soon as the domestic political situation is favourable", join the eea now (with restored free movement)

let local authorities invest shares in sports teams, including professional ones, dividends ringfenced for public sports facilities and coaching

right to die

[covid-safer-hotties]

Four years on from the pandemic and long Covid’s inequalities have only worsened - Published Nov 27, 2024

By Mohamed Ali

Fatigue, cognitive difficulties, and breathlessness are still a daily reality for many. It is particularly acute in poorer communities

From as early as 2020, it was clear that the Covid pandemic was not the great equaliser it was initially portrayed to be.

Instead, it exposed and exacerbated entrenched inequalities, with those in poorer communities, frontline workers, and individuals with existing health conditions bearing the brunt of the crisis.

Four years later, as we grapple with the ongoing shadow of long Covid, those same groups continue to suffer disproportionately.

The lingering effects of the pandemic Long Covid, known as post-Covid-19 syndrome, is a condition where people continue to experience symptoms weeks or months after recovering from the initial infection.

While many recover fully from Covid-19, others find themselves facing a wide range of ongoing health problems that can affect their daily life. These symptoms can include extreme fatigue, difficulty thinking clearly or “brain fog”, shortness of breath, chest pain, and muscle or joint aches.

What makes Long Covid particularly challenging is that it doesn’t just affect those who were severely ill; even people with mild or asymptomatic infections can develop it.

Research indicates that approximately 10 per cent of people infected with Covid-19 may experience Long Covid, with estimates suggesting that at least 65 million individuals worldwide are affected, and this continues to increase annually.

Scientists believe Long Covid is linked to the body’s prolonged response to the virus, which can impact multiple organs and systems. As researchers work to understand this complex condition, its effects on millions worldwide highlight the importance of recognising Long Covid as a serious and legitimate health issue.

Despite promises of reform, the Labour government’s plans to tackle long Covid have raised as many questions as answers.

Can their policies repair a healthcare system battered by years of underfunding, or will they fall short for those most in need?

As we examine the government’s response, the urgency of addressing this crisis becomes clear – but so too does the need for bolder action.

The unequal burden of long Covid By March 2023, 1.9 million people in the UK were living with long Covid, with over a million enduring symptoms for more than a year. Fatigue, cognitive difficulties, and shortness of breath have become the daily reality for many.

But this reality is even harsher for poorer communities, where long Covid has reinforced and deepened existing inequalities.

These are the same communities that bore the brunt of the initial waves of Covid-19.

Overcrowded housing, limited access to healthcare, and a reliance on public-facing jobs meant higher exposure and worse outcomes.

Now, with long Covid, these structural inequalities have been magnified further.

Many cannot afford to stop working despite debilitating symptoms, leaving them trapped in a cycle of poor health and economic instability.

Are the government’s plans enough? In 2024, the Labour government inherited a healthcare system under strain, with the added weight of long Covid exacerbating the crisis.

While it has pledged to tackle the systemic failures exposed during the pandemic, the effectiveness of its response remains uncertain.

The NHS received a £25.6 billion funding boost in Rachel Reeves’ first budget, but after adjusting for inflation and demographic pressures, real growth is just 1.7 per cent.

This modest increase must cover rising demands, workforce pay pressures, and the productivity challenges of a post-pandemic health service.

While the previous government allocated £314 million to long Covid services, including over 100 specialist clinics, there is no clarity on how Labour intends to sustain or expand these services.

In October 2024, Andrew Gwynne MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care, highlighted the government’s £58 million investment in UK research to better understand long Covid.

This funding aims to improve diagnosis, explore the disease’s mechanisms, and evaluate treatments.

However, these steps, while welcome, fail to fully address the scale of need, especially as existing clinics remain concentrated in urban centres, limiting access for rural and underserved populations.

The absence of earmarked funds for long Covid in the latest budget raises important questions about future priorities.

The government’s focus on immediate wins, such as surgical hubs and diagnostic scanners, may overshadow the need to address systemic issues like equitable access to long Covid services and sustainable funding for chronic illness care.

Labour’s rhetoric about addressing health inequalities is promising, but the lack of concrete details on how these plans will be implemented is troubling. It’s unclear how they intend to ensure that funding reaches the areas most in need or that the clinics will provide consistent, high-quality care.

Economic and workplace realities The proposed Employment Rights Bill, introduced by Labour, aims to strengthen workplace protections with reforms such as day one unfair dismissal rights, universal sick pay, and stricter regulations on zero-hours contracts.

While these measures represent progress, they fail to address the specific challenges faced by workers with long Covid.

For the 1.2 million affected, including 346,000 who are severely limited in their daily lives, symptoms such as fatigue and cognitive impairment make maintaining employment an ongoing struggle.

The bill still lacks provisions to hold employers accountable for providing reasonable accommodations for workers managing long-term health conditions, leaving a critical gap in support.

Without targeted measures, such as explicit protections for those with long Covid or enforcement mechanisms to ensure employers comply, these reforms risk being broad strokes that fail to reach the workers most in need. The success of the bill will ultimately depend on its implementation and whether it can truly deliver meaningful change for vulnerable workers.

The Labour government’s proposals to expand sick pay and enforce flexible working arrangements are steps in the right direction, but they feel half-hearted.

The stark reality is that workers in low-wage sectors, where long Covid is most prevalent, are the least likely to benefit from these reforms. Employers in these industries often resist flexibility, and without stronger enforcement mechanisms, many workers will remain unprotected.

For women, who are slightly more likely than men to experience long Covid, the challenges are even greater.

Women are overrepresented in caregiving roles and part-time work, and the combination of long Covid symptoms and limited workplace support leaves them vulnerable to economic hardship.

The government’s plans fail to adequately account for these gendered impacts, leaving a significant gap in their strategy.

The silent crisis in schools For children and young people, long Covid has disrupted, often leaving them unable to attend school consistently or keep up with their peers.

For students in lower-income families, where access to resources for remote learning is limited, these challenges are even more severe.

Recent research highlights the isolating and stressful impact of school absences for young people with long Covid, who are eager to return to their classrooms and connect with peers.

While the study, which involved a small sample of children, parents, and caregivers, provides valuable insights, it lacked the ability to capture experiences across diverse age groups, ethnicities, and social classes.

Labour has promised to provide additional funding to schools to train teachers in recognising and supporting students with long Covid. While this is a start, it does little to address the structural issues driving educational inequity.

Without targeted investment in schools in deprived areas, the long-term educational consequences for children with long Covid risk widening the attainment gap even further.

A healthcare system on its knees The NHS, already on its knees after years of austerity and the pandemic, has been further weakened by long Covid.

Healthcare workers, many of whom are suffering from long Covid themselves are stretched to breaking point. Staff shortages, burnout, and inadequate mental health support mean that even as the Labour government promises reform, the reality on the ground remains bleak.

Labour’s plans to rebuild the NHS, including addressing staffing shortfalls and improving working conditions, are essential. But the scale of the challenge is daunting. Without a radical shift in how healthcare is funded and managed, the NHS risks being unable to cope with the ongoing demands of long Covid, let alone future crises.

Amidst these shortcomings, advocacy groups like Long Covid SOS and Long Covid Support have filled the gaps left by government inaction. These organisations have not only provided resources and support for those affected but have also been critical in shaping public awareness and policy discussions around long Covid.

The Labour government has pledged to engage with these groups to ensure that lived experiences inform policy decisions. While this is encouraging, the onus remains on the government to turn these conversations into meaningful action. Advocacy groups can only do so much; systemic change requires leadership from the top.

Long Covid is not just a health crisis, it is a crisis of inequality. The Labour government’s promises, while well intentioned, risk falling into the same traps as their predecessors: underfunding, slow implementation, and failure to prioritise the most vulnerable. Words alone will not address the entrenched disparities that have further been exacerbated by the pandemic.

What is needed is bold, decisive action. Long Covid clinics must be expanded to reach rural and underserved areas. Funding for schools and workplaces must reflect the scale of the problem, and enforcement mechanisms must ensure that protections for workers are not merely optional. Above all, the government must deliver on its promise to put equity at the heart of its response.

For now, long Covid remains a stark reminder of how inequality shapes health outcomes in the UK. Addressing it is not just a matter of policy it is a moral imperative. Whether Labour can rise to this challenge remains to be seen, but time is running out for those who can least afford to wait.

[mariacallous]

The New Zealand government has been accused of waging a “war on nature” after it announced sweeping cuts to climate action projects, while making no significant new investments in environmental protection or climate crisis-related policy.

In its 2024/25 budget, handed down on Thursday, the rightwing coalition announced spending on law and order, education, health and a series of tax cuts, as the country struggles with inflation and cost-of-living pressures.

Finance minister Nicola Willis, who delivered the budget against the backdrop of a technical recession and widening government deficits, said it was a “fiscally responsible budget” that was “putting New Zealanders’ money where it can make the biggest difference”.

But absent from the budget documents was any meaningful new spending on the climate crisis. Instead, dozens of climate-related initiatives, including programmes in the Emissions Reductions Plan and funding for data and evidence specialists were subject to sweeping cuts.

In a media release, climate change minister Simon Watts said “responsible and effective climate related initiatives that support New Zealand to reduce emissions, and adapt to the future effects of climate change are a priority.”

He said the government would invest to reach those goals, including funding climate resilience projects such as stop banks and floodwalls through the Regional Infrastructure Fund, a $200m boost for the Rail Network Improvement Programme, and extending the reach of the Waste Disposal Levy to support a wider range of waste-related and environmental activities.

When asked by the Guardian if there was any significant new funding directed towards tackling climate change and environmental protection, Watts pointed to the resilience projects.

Meanwhile, the environment minister, Penny Simmonds, told the Guardian the increases to the waste levy “will mean a broader range of environmental projects can be funded”, including waste disposal in emergencies, cleaning up contaminated sites and freshwater improvement.

But critics said the government’s approach to protecting the environment and tackling climate change was backward looking, while climate resilience projects were the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff without future-facing climate mitigation plans.

Meanwhile, the rail improvement programme was understood to be focused on existing rail lines. It was unclear if it included new rail projects. Changes to the waste disposal levy involved mostly reallocating existing funds.

The Labour opposition called the budget a “catastrophe” that was “taking us backwards”.

The only new investment in the environment section of the budget was a $23m annual commitment to pushing through the government’s resource management changes, including a controversial fast-track bill that could see conservation concerns ignored and projects once rejected for environmental reasons given the green light.

The government says it has found $102m in savings and revenue per year across the environment sector through various cuts, including cutting climate change programmes, reducing spending on specialists that provide evidence and data including updates to environmental standards, monitoring and reporting and scaling back funding for the Climate Change Commission, which advises the government on climate change policy.

In conservation, another $33m a year will be cut. There is a $1m annual investment listed in the budget documents, but government officials could not explain where this money would go, citing “commercial sensitivities”.

The programmes and areas related to climate policy that are subject to cuts across government included:

Māori knowledge-based approaches to agricultural emissions reduction

Community-based renewable energy schemes

The Climate Change Commission

External and internal specialists who supply evidence and data on environmental monitoring and science

Freshwater policy initiatives

Native forest planting

Development of a circular economy, relating to recycling and reuse

Jobs for Nature, a programme creating jobs to benefit the environment

Reducing biosecurity monitoring

New Zealand is still rebuilding from massive destruction caused by 2023’s deadly Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, which killed 11 people and laid waste to large swathes of the North Island’s east coast.

Among the spending promises in the budget was $1bn to rebuild the regions hit by these disasters.

Human-caused climate breakdown has increased the occurrence of the most intense and destructive tropical cyclones (though the overall number a year has not changed globally). This is because warming oceans provide more energy, producing stronger storms.

‘Head in the coal’

Green party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick described the government as a “coalition of cowards” that was allowing the climate crisis to “rage on unchallenged” and whose attack on the climate would ripple through future generations.

“The other day, government parties said, ‘drill, baby, drill,’ and today, they may as well have said, ‘burn, baby, burn’,” Swarbrick said, adding that the budget had seen funding from almost every major programme in the Emissions Reduction Plan gutted.

The government was “choosing to bury its head in the coal,” she said. “It has made the choice to put cynical politics ahead of people and planet, serving the short-term interests of wealthy donors over the wellbeing of all of us.”

The first budget from the rightwing coalition – made up of the centre-right National party, libertarian ACT party and populist NZ First – is a sharp departure from the previous Labour government’s commitments to protecting the environment. In 2017, Labour prime minister Jacinda Ardern said climate change was her generation’s nuclear-free moment and put climate policies high on her agenda.

In 2022, her government unveiled the most significant announcement on climate change action in the country’s history – $4.5bn for a climate emergency response fund (CERF) to try to drive a low-emissions economy and prepare the country for the effects of climate collapse.

On Thursday, the government said $2.6bn of climate change initiatives previously funded by CERF would continue, including a public network of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, decarbonising public transport, and public transport concessions for community service card holders.

But the climate change minister also said the government would discontinue the practice of ring-fencing money raised through emissions trading for that climate fund, meaning the previous government’s ambitious fund would be absorbed into the usual budget process.

Environmental group Forest and Bird said the budget signalled another blow in the government’s “war on nature”, and singled out its funding of the fast track bill.

“The government’s biggest new investment in the environment is to implement reforms that are going to cause untold environmental harm through the fast track,” said Richard Capie, the organisation’s general manager for conservation.

“In the middle of a climate emergency, you don’t walk away from investing in climate action – this isn’t business as usual, and to call it such is head-in-the-sand stuff.”

[hjohn3]

Why a Wealth Tax is Essential if Labour are to Deliver

‘Only the little people pay taxes’ - Leona Helmsley

Source: Bright Graeme Murray website

By Honest John

LABOUR ARE in a pickle. A pickle of their own making of course, but a pickle nonetheless . The huge majority that the party won last July, and now apparently under threat from a surging Reform U.K., was predicated on two explicit promises: to restore public services to at least functionality after 14 years of Tory assault, and to improve working class and lower middle class living standards after well over a decade of stagnation at best and retreat at worst. Much is made of Labour’s low share of the vote at the General Election to de-legitimise its actions, but the truth is, in our newish multi-party democracy, whether the public voted Labour, Liberal Democrat, Nationalist or Reform, they were united in a desire to get rid of the Conservatives, and they knew that the Tories would be replaced by Labour: getting on for 80% of those who voted therefore have a stake in a non-Tory future for the country, and that future is defined above all else by a restored public realm.

I believe Keir Starmer’s Labour is schizophrenic at heart, which explains much of its catastrophic messaging since it was elected and some of its more bizarre decisions, seemingly calculated to annoy as many voters as possible. The King’s Speech of July 2024, which receives far too little attention from political commentators and receives very little promotion by the government itself, reveals a social democratic impulse at heart of the Labour administration - whether it is a better funded elective NHS, improved workers’ and renters’ rights, a publicly owned railway and green energy provider, higher pay for public sector workers or a commitment to devolve political and fiscal power from Westminster to a local government defined by Mayoralties, the democratic socialist direction of travel is clear. Yet within the soul of Starmer himself, and a number of his ministers, most clearly represented by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, there is a neoliberal instinct. It is as though the new government can’t quite bring itself to believe that the old orthodoxy is dead, and that its job is to dust off Wilsonian and Keynesian social democracy and to upgrade it for the 2020s. It is this instinct that is behind the witless and repetitive messaging about the “£22bn black hole” in the public finances which Reeves claimed to have “discovered”; the politically suicidal retention of the cut to the Winter Fuel Allowance on the grounds of “affordability” and the head-scratching decision to support a third runway at Heathrow which, outside the Airport itself, no one seems to want. It also explains the constant parroting of the need for “growth”, like Liz Truss on steroids, without ever explaining how this growth will be generated, or even what it is for.

Crucially however, it is the neoliberal instinct of Starmer and Reeves that explains the allegedly “ironclad” fiscal rules the government has saddled itself with and the extraordinary commitments to raise neither income tax, National Insurance, VAT or even Corporation Tax in the run up to an election defined by the public’s wish to see more government spending on public services. Hence the pickle. I argued after October’s Budget that Reeves had produced an artful financial statement that maintains those fiscal promises, but still raised over £60bn through increased taxes on businesses and increased borrowing in an effort to meet those manifesto promises already legislated for. But how much easier would it have been if Reeves had not made commitments more suited to the austerity governments of David Cameron and Theresa May, than one whose stated purpose was to repair the damage inflicted on the country by the Tories and to “restore” Britain? In fact Reeves compounded her dilemma in the autumn by promptly taking to the airwaves to apologise for her Budget and promising never to do it again, which must be a first for a Chancellor and probably one of the most politically stupid promises to make when there were over four years of this Parliament to run.

The Budget, and for that matter, Labour’s legislative programme, only scratches the surface of the rebuilding of society required after probably the worst period of governance this country has seen since before the Second World War. Social care, criminal justice, the corporate con that is the British water industry, the green agenda, and now, of course, defence, are just some of the underfunded, neglected and yet crucial areas of public policy barely touched by the Budget. Therefore, of course a Labour Chancellor (probably not Reeves) will have to find a way to raise more revenue in order to deliver the change the public voted for. If reneging on the income tax, NI and VAT promises is out of the question, at least for now, then where does the government go? The answer, advocated for many years by left wing economists and, more recently by some not necessarily on the left, is for the U.K. to introduce a wealth tax.

The American businesswoman Leona Roberts Helmsley notoriously remarked, when being prosecuted by the US federal government for tax avoidance in 1989: “We don’t pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes,” and so summed up an entire social creed on the part of the wealthy. The long-deceased Helmsley was in fact ahead of her time: over the last 20 years, the net financial worth of the hyper wealthy either resident, or domiciled in, the U.K. has rocketed, particularly since the 2008 crash and the period of Tory rule since 2010. Aided by the side effects of the quantitative easing introduced by the Bank of England during the 2010s to keep inflation low, the rich shifted their wealth primarily from taxable cash, cash-realisable possessions, stock investments and shares dividends into assets - land, property and digital assets held in offshore accounts, most safely beyond the half-hearted reach of HMRC. Whereas tax on work (income tax) increased by nearly 3.5% between 2019 and 2024, the tax on business transactions, assets, land ownership and capital transfers remained static or, in the case of Corporation Tax, was actually reduced until May 2024 when Rishi Sunak belatedly increased the CT rate to 25% from its historically low rate of 19% which pertained for most of the Tory years. This flight of the hyper rich from income earned through salaries or dividends and into speculative assets has turbo charged wealth inequality in the U.K. in an almost unprecedented way: the wealthiest citizens are no longer millionaires but billionaires. According to the Equality Trust, the richest top fifth of the citizens and domiciles of the U.K. own 63% of the country’s wealth compared to 0.8% owned by the bottom fifth. The United Kingdom is believed to to be the most unequal country in Europe in terms of wealth distribution.

Social justice is an extremely good argument for the introduction of a wealth tax, but the urgent need for the taxation of wealth and assets is derives from the requirements for the government to increase its revenues in order to re-fund public services to the level it promised and to stimulate real growth and inward investment to improve the prospects of higher paid employment and improved living standards. Growth at the scale needed to refloat a British economy and its degraded public infrastructure outside the frictionless open markets of the EU, requires far more assertive and interventionist fiscal policy than anything thus far proposed by Reeves, with her increasingly desperate chatter about her growth mission which, it is now abundantly clear, is underwritten by precisely nothing.

The options for wealth taxes were set out most persuasively by the LSE report A Wealth Tax For The U.K. published in 2022. Put simply, the main different models of wealth tax which could be introduced in the U.K. according to the report’s authors include:-

a recurrent tax on personal wealth per individual;

a recurrent tax on assets (e.g. property, land, shareholding);

a one-off tax on the basis of wealth and asset value at a point in time (this would be to obviate tax avoidance behaviours).

The LSE report recommended a one-off tax on the grounds of acceptability to the public and because to the precedent of windfall taxes on the utilities which had attracted general public support. The authors estimate at a taxable rate of 1% on cash holdings and open market value of other assets, commencing at a wealth total of £500,000 per individual, up to £240bn could be raised as exchequer revenue. This figure would dwarf the sums raised by the Chancellor so far and provide major flexibility for the government to invest productively and end the tediously repeated assertion by commentators that “there is no money”. Personally, I would favour raising the wealth tax threshold to £2m worth of cash or assets, but levy the tax at 1% of calculated wealth over two years, raising close to £150bn each of the years concerned, which would affect less than 4m citizens out of a total U.K. population of 66m people. £300bn over two years would give the government a huge contribution to restoring in year budgets (including the notorious “black hole”). It could also provide the necessary stimulus to capital projects, businesses, the Green Prosperity Plan and inward investment that would boost the growth the country needs to make good the vandalism of the the Tory years.

Naturally there would be scepticism on the part of the public as to whether this additional government revenue would be spent wisely and on the priorities that the voters want. To mitigate this distrust I would hypothecate the wealth tax to be spent on social care, criminal justice, improving water industry standards leading to progressive nationalisation, and defence. The expenditure of the revenue raised through the wealth tax could be made publicly available to any citizen on request and would be subject to annual audits to ensure value for money. In time I would make a wealth tax on cash and assets over £2m an annual tax, but at a rate of 0.5% - reducing revenue to £75bn a year, but making the funds available to recurrent public sector budgets to help rebuild austerity-ravaged public services across the board.

The rich would find this mild intrusion on their fortunes intolerable and there would be ferocious attacks on the policy from the Right, claiming that a wealth tax would force “wealth creators” out of the country, destroy jobs and kill aspiration. All self-serving nonsense of course because the one thing the hyper wealthy are very good at is gaslighting their fellow-citizens as to their essential worth and value to the economy, when in fact private sector investment in the U.K. is the lowest in the G7 and has been for years. A Labour government who last summer proudly proclaimed that those with the widest shoulders should bear the greatest burden should have nothing to do with such “arguments” and dispense with the verities of neoliberalism once and for all.

In reality, Labour have little choice. Discernible improvement to living standards, pay and public services are essential if the government is to be re-elected four years’ time. I accept that significant increases to income tax are not politically possible; increases to NI contributions and VAT are also insufficiently progressive to be a long term solution. But, in conjunction with other recurrent revenue-raising measures such as increasing Corporation Tax to the same level as much of the EU and revaluation of Council Tax (which currently disproportionately favours the better off and has not been revalued since 1991), a one-off wealth tax over two years, followed by its annual continuance at a reduced rate could provide the billions needed to deliver the government’s King’s Speech and the raft of other measures needed to make the U.K. , once again, a more prosperous, fair and contented country with a public realm to be proud of.

A wealth tax could enable the real social transformation Labour says it wants and be emblematic of the end of a worldview, in the U.K. at least, so arrogantly articulated by Leona Helmsley all those years ago.

11th February 2025

Source: The LSE report A Wealth Tax For The U.K. by Arun Advani, Emma Chamberlain and Andy Summers.

[beardedmrbean]

Conservative Bart De Wever was sworn in Monday as Belgium's new prime minister, after striking a hard-fought coalition deal that moves the country to the right.

Reached after seven months of tortuous negotiations, the agreement makes De Wever the first nationalist from Dutch-speaking Flanders to be named Belgian premier.

A law-and-order candidate whose coalition has already promised to crack down on irregular migration, De Wever's rise to power reinforces a marked right-wing shift in European politics.

The 54-year-old, who in recent years has backed off on calls for Flanders to become an independent country, took the oath of office before King Philippe at the royal palace in Brussels.

From there, he headed straight to a gathering of EU leaders a few blocks away, for talks on defence and transatlantic relations -- quipping to reporters that he was "jumping right in".

On the day's headline topic, De Wever said Belgium was committed to meeting NATO's longstanding defence spending target of two percent of GDP, up from 1.3 percent at present.

"Europe has been a bit lazy on the topic of defence," he said -- arguing that Russian President Vladimir "Putin has woken us up."

Faced with a twin challenge from President Donald Trump -- threatening trade tariffs as well as pressuring allies to ramp up defence spending -- De Wever said the EU needed to preserve its "relationship with the United States."

De Wever's N-VA party is part of the hard-right ECR group in the European Parliament, which also includes lawmakers from the parties of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Czech leader Petr Fiala. 

"Our ECR group now has three prime ministers at the European Council table and participates in the government of seven countries," French hard-right lawmaker Marion Marechal rejoiced on X.

Hard-right parties, often riding anti-immigrant sentiment, performed strongly in European Parliament elections last year, and have topped recent national and regional votes in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands.

60-hour marathon

Split between French- and Dutch-speaking communities and with a highly complex political system, Belgium has an unenviable record of painfully protracted coalition discussions -- reaching 541 days back in 2010-2011.

This time around, five groups sought to forge a coalition after June elections that failed to produce a clear majority -- with talks led by De Wever's N-VA which claimed the most seats. 

The new government brings together three parties from Dutch-speaking Flanders: the N-VA, the centrist Christian-Democrats and the leftist Vooruit (Onward).

And it includes two from French-speaking Wallonia: the centrist Les Engages and the centre-right Reformist Movement.

Together, they hold an 81-seat majority in Belgium's 150-seat parliament.

Coalition talks hit a wall during the summer over the issue of plugging the country's budget deficit -- estimated at 4.6 percent of gross domestic product in 2024, one of the highest in the European Union.

Belgium is one of seven EU countries facing disciplinary action for running a deficit above three percent of GDP, in violation of the bloc's fiscal rules.

De Wever, the mayor of Antwerp since 2013, has pushed for cuts in social benefits and pension reforms that have already sparked opposition from labour unions. 

He had threatened to throw in the towel if no coalition deal was reached Friday. 

An agreement was struck with just hours to go after a 60-hour marathon session to iron out differences over an 800-page programme.  

But the gender makeup of the new government has raised some eyebrows, with 11 men and just four women. 

De Wever's N-VA was already part of a right-leaning ruling coalition between 2014 and 2018.

He takes over from outgoing prime minister Alexander De Croo, whose seven-party coalition took an arduous 493 days to emerge back in 2019-2020. 

De Croo had stayed on as caretaker leader after the June elections.

[acnewsworld]

Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves have introduced a budget that significantly increases public spending and taxation, purportedly to spur economic growth.

The measures include £25 billion in additional funding for the NHS, higher taxes totaling £40 billion, increased business rates, and raised employer national insurance contributions. Despite these steps, the Office for Budget Responsibility has projected weaker business investment, and the Bank of England now forecasts zero growth for the fourth quarter of 2024......

Read More

[eaglesnick]

“We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” - Peter Mandelson

The other day I made the assertion that when the people of Britain voted for Keir Starmer, what they were really getting was Tony Blaire. To be fair this was partly tongue-in-cheek but having read the Kings Speech setting out the Labour Party's plans to change Britain it is closer to the truth than is comfortable.

The Tony Blaire Institute for Global Change has a paper entitled: The Economic Case for Reimagining the State that was published July 9th, 2024, just five days after the UK elections. Some of the wording in this report is almost identical to some of the wording in the Kings Speech.

Tony Blaire Institute:  “reforming the UK’s antiquated planning system is a high priority that could unlock much needed infrastructure investment and help un-gum the UK’s housing market.”

Kings Speech: “My Ministers will get Britain building, including through planning reform, as they seek to accelerate the delivery of high quality infrastructure and housing."

Tony Blaire: "Normalization of relations with the EU: A full reversal of these losses may be politically unattainable during this Parliament, but there is a path to a better post-Brexit relationship in the coming years"

Kings Speech: My Government will seek to reset the relationship with European partners and work to improve the United Kingdom's trade and investment relationship with the European Union

Tony Blaire: "The new government will need to lean in to support the diffusion of AI-era tech across the economy by adopting a pro-innovation, pro-technology stance, as advocated by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.”

Kings Speech: "It will seek to establish the appropriate legislation to place requirements on those working to develop the most powerful artificial intelligence models.”

The Kings Speech is, by necessity, very brief and gives virtually no detail how the government’s aims are to be achieved. We will have to wait and see how much more of Keir Starmer’s vision for the future of Britain mirrors that of Tony Blaire. If Starmer is as closely aligned to Blaire as these comparisons suggest then public sector workers beware.

Blaire places great reliance on the introduction of artificial intelligence to ALL sectors of the economy, but  especially within the public sector. Once introduced Blaire predicts a productivity gain of “one-fifth workforce time”

 Public sector workers, having adopted the new AI and having increased productivity by 20% can then expect the sack.

“If the government chooses to bank these time savings and reduce the size of the workforce, this could result in annual net savings of £10 billion per year by the end of this Parliament and £34 billion per year by the end of the next – enough to pay for the entire defence budget.”

This is the true Blairite mindset. Nothing about sharing the productivity gains made by workers in the form of higher wages, nothing about the redistribution of wealth or tackling income inequality. In Blaire’s Case for Reimagining the State poverty is not mentioned once. Inequality gets one mention but only as a statistic relating to workers forced to use food banks. 

What Blaire and Starmer – like the Conservative Party - appear to have forgotten is that  public services are exactly that –  services.  Yes they need to be efficient and cost effective but NOT to the extent that the service element is lost. The rich can afford to buy service, ordinary working people have to rely upon government for basic services and over the last few years they have been badly let down.  Poor pay, increasing workloads, job insecurity and private sector creep have all contributed to bringing Britain’s public services to the verge of collapse. Let us all hope Starmer and Blaire don’t push them completely over the edge.

[aurianneor]

2024 UK general election: choosing the Right or the Left.

The Left and the Right are two ideologies that recognise the importance of having elites. For the Right, some people are considered to have fewer rights than others: women, black people, workers, etc. The elite is composed of Oxbridge. The people have to sacrifice on their housing, health and education to give to the elites. The Right take advice from the richest. For the Left, elites are appreciated but the people are not asked to sacrifice for the elites. The elites are there to inform the people and help them to do better.

For the Right, everyone has to support their leader and repeat their ideas. That’s Rishi Sunak’s or Nigel Farage’s programme. For the Left, a plurality of opinions and strong debate are expressed.

Poverty in the UK has escalated since 2011 to reach 19% of the population. The cost of leaving has increased exponentially up to 12% per year. Energy has increased by 19% since 2022, rent 69% and food 40%.

Cost of living statistics UK: 2024 – Finder: https://www.finder.com/uk/banking/cost-of-living-statistics

Meanwhile, since 2017, tax havens have increased (to avoid paying tax). The UK rich people are getting richer. The top 10 billionaires in the UK are three times richer than 15 years ago. With the Tories in power during Brexit, work standards have been lowered (security, social and environmental measures) to the profit of the owners who became even richer. The Tories signed free trade agreements with developing countries with low security social an environmental standards creating an unfair competition with the UK workers. The British producers can hardly sell in those countries. Those free trades only benefit the owners of the factory there.

The UK’S Rich Are Getting Richer – Statista: https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/27505/uks-richest-are-getting-richer/

Deregulation and standards after Brexit – what Naomi Klein’s ‘disaster capitalism’ can tell us – City University of London: https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2019/10/deregulation-and-standards-after-brexit-what-naomi-kleins-disaster-capitalism-can-tell-us

Trade deals: What has the UK done since Brexit? – BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47213842

In the past, when the left has rallied, it has benefited the country: the population has increased its standard of living without sacrificing public spending or the performance of its economy. Let’s remember the spirit of 1945 and the New Labour in 1997. In 1945 was created public service of steal, health (NHS), rail and energy. In 1997 the left multiplied by four the budget for public health, reduced youth unemployment by 75%, they doubled the budget of public education, they introduced the minimum wage, 2 million people have been helped out of poverty. From 1997 to 2007, there were ten years of consecutive growth. The Labour of 2024 has the same ambition as the one in 1945 when they want to restore public services of energy and rail.

The Spirit of ’45 – Ken Loach – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_%2745

Labour governments’ achievements – Shrewsbury Labour Party: https://www.shrewsburylabour.org.uk/labours-top-50-achievements/

What’s more, the stock market did better when the Left was in power. The ones who suffered were the ultra-rich who had ill-gotten gains (tax breaks, tax reductions, etc). The ultra-rich don’t need the poor to struggle to benefit from their wealth. The Left isn’t milking them for all they’re worth, it’s just asking them to contribute their fair share. The economic crises have occurred when the Right was in charge : 1982 (Margaret Thatcher), 2019 (Boris Johnson). The Right didn’t deal with Covid very well: they didn’t stop economy soon enough and had many death. They gave the money borrowed to support the economy to the ultra-rich.

Early 1980s recession – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession

UK swiftly exits its third recession in 16 years – Resolution Foundation: https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/press-releases/uk-swiftly-exits-its-third-recession-in-16-years/

Labour is right: billions were lost to Covid fraud, and the public deserve a reckoning – The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/11/labour-billions-covid-fraud-pandemic

COVID, CONTRACTS, AND CONFLICT: THE YEAR CORRUPTION TOOK CENTRE STAGE – Transparency International UK: https://transparency.org.uk/COVID-contracts-conflict-2020-2021-year-corruption-took-centre-stage

The neo-liberals and the identitarians point to the bad guys; they target the foreigners, the “lazy” or the misfits. They give priority to the ultra-rich, who have more rights than others.

A very strong and very democratic state is needed to protect the workers against unfair competition from badly-treated foreigners and against the social and environmental dumping of foreign products. The people need to be richer so that they can buy quality goods and have quality public services (health, pensions, education, etc.). This wealth has been captured by the ultra-rich, not by immigrants or ‘idlers’. Britain is rich but inequalities are high.

Believing that the solution to the problem is to attack the poor, the disabled, the people of colour, etc. by treating them badly (inadequate pay, fewer rights) hurts the whole system: old diseases like cholera re-emerge, poorer working conditions are accepted, and so on.

Many people are angry and worried about their livelihoods, their health, their children’s education and so on. Providing public services for everyone everywhere will be very expensive. Neoliberals are asking the poor to have less (by cutting pensions and public services) because they think they don’t deserve enough. The identitarian right-wing is calling for the poor to be made to pay. The right is diverting people’s anger away from the bourgeoisie. The Left is calling for the ultra-rich to pay the price of these reforms, but they will still be very rich. To restore prosperity to the people, taxing capital and controlling prices is the way to go.

Even then, the laws passed by the House of Commons must not be blocked by the House of Lords, which is not elected by the people and is not a power check serving the people.

It’s a shame that the Brits don’t have the right to a referendum on popular initiative and that the only way to express themselves is by electing representatives!

10 Labour policies to change Britain Under the Tories, the NHS waiting list has tripled, and drastic action needs to be taken to get patients seen and receiving the care they need. 10 Labour policies to change Britain: https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/10-labour-policies-to-change-britain/

WATCH LIVE: Keir Starmer launches Labour’s manifesto. – Labour Party: https://youtu.be/gyna0dYUUSI?t=2061

Labour’s fiscal plan – Labour Party: https://labour.org.uk/change/labours-fiscal-plan/

Kickstart economic growth – Labour Party: https://labour.org.uk/change/kickstart-economic-growth/

Expert economists back Labour’s plan to end economic stagnation in UK – The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/19/labour-plan-end-economic-stagnation-uk-economists

Woman who pulled out 12 teeth with pliers says government failing on NHS dentistry – ITV News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdWonwyrNiY

Genesis – Selling England By The Pound (Full Album Remastered) With Lyrics: https://youtu.be/GEE3T35C7Y8?si=fCicsBgsqtLVm850

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Législatives 2024: choisir la gauche ou la droite.: https://www.aurianneor.org/legislatives-2024-choisir-la-gauche-ou-la-droite/

Restricting personal wealth: https://www.aurianneor.org/restricting-personal-wealth/

A slice of the cake: https://www.aurianneor.org/a-slice-of-the-cake/

Oui au Référendum d’initiative populaire: https://www.aurianneor.org/oui-au-referendum-dinitiative-populaire-petition/

Immigration: https://www.aurianneor.org/immigration-2/

Living with dignity: https://www.aurianneor.org/living-with-dignity/

Rob the poor to feed the rich: https://www.aurianneor.org/rob-the-poor-to-feed-the-rich/

Le RIC – Référendum d’initiative citoyenne: https://www.aurianneor.org/via-httpswwwyoutubecomwatchv-e2lnzwuy4ks/

Price ceilings and price floors: https://www.aurianneor.org/price-ceilings-and-price-floors/

The Senate, the power to piss people off: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-senate-the-power-to-piss-people-off/

Humiliated by the Republic: https://www.aurianneor.org/humiliated-by-the-republic/

Nos ancêtres les marrons: https://www.aurianneor.org/nos-ancetres-les-marrons-il-nexiste-quune-seule/

[probablyasocialecologist]

To build public consent for increased spending on the military industrial base, politicians often lean on economic arguments. The Defence Secretary John Healey has suggested that jobs in the military industry produce greater economic benefits than in other sectors while outlining his intention to make the Ministry of Defence (MOD) an “economic department”. On the contrary, the military industry is not of inherent economic value, as asserted by Healey, but the beneficiary of an active industrial strategy that has been less available to civilian manufacturing sectors since the early 1980s. The UK’s leading military contractor BAE Systems, for instance, only paid 14 per cent of its £2 billion research and development (R&D) budget in 2022 with the rest of the bill covered on its behalf by government customers. As explored in detail below, the state subsidy and support provided to military companies operates to the benefit of the private investors that own them. Rather than a set of national or publicly-owned companies, the Ministry of Defence procures equipment from an “asset manager arsenal” — a landscape of multinational contractors, many of which are owned by the same few global investment firms. The level of public investment and resource afforded to military firms is politically pertinent in the context of climate crisis, in which the coordinated deployment of existing capital stocks, productive equipment and skilled labour towards the energy transition is of planetary importance. Given the state’s role in steering industrial capacity towards the military industry, there is an opportunity to repurpose production in the context of a wider economic transition, one that has long term benefits for the sector’s workers, communities and the national economy. 

18 October 2024

[darkmaga-returns]

In the video below, Matt Cullen, an organiser for Fairness for Farmers, announced the protest on 11 December.  “Farmers are going back to London on the 11th of December. But this time with tractors.  That’s right, with tractors,” he said.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Oo0K4rth9wU?feature=oembedGareth Wyn Jones: Please share far and wide. Farmers on route to London 11th Dec, 28 November 2024 (2 mins)

Last month a convoy of tractors rolled through Dover and thousands of farmers gathered in London to protest against changes to inheritance tax rules as announced in the Labour government’s recent Budget.

Related:

UK government’s tax plans will destroy family farming; farmers to gather in London to protest

Police are blocking the massive farmers’ protest planned for 19 November in London

London Farmers Protest 19 November 2024 Live

Law firm reveals the truth behind the UK’s inheritance tax on farmers: It will free up land for “renewable energy”

The protests were sparked by the proposed 20% inheritance tax on farm assets worth £1 million or more, set to take effect from April 2026.

British farmers argue that the policy, combined with the fast-track withdrawal of the Basic Payment Scheme, increasing farm employer costs and a carbon tax on fertiliser, among other policies, could force families to sell land to cover tax bills, breaking up livelihoods and generations of UK farming businesses, Farmers Weekly reported.

There are also worries within the industry over the impact of future trade deals, substandard food imports and the recent removal of farming grants.

[warningsine]

Democracies are no better than other forms of government at avoiding catastrophic mistakes. But they are much more effective at rectifying them. While the 2024 British general election might have seemed a long time coming, as the country meandered from one failure to the next, the utter scale of defeat for the Conservatives is testament to the ability of a democratic system to reject, reverse and renew.

It also places a singular challenge on the desk of the new prime minister, Keir Starmer. He will be judged by his ability to restore probity to government and address the damage suffered by the country.

It is easy to see this election in the tradition of other big defeats like 1997 or 1979 or 1964. A powerful theme of “time for a change” was at play and the governing party seemed to have run out of steam. It can even be interpreted as sending a powerful message to Rishi Sunak’s Conservative party that voters wanted to inflict punishment for incompetence, economic mismanagement and sleaze.

But this one is more than that.

The now former governing party, returned with a majority of 80 in 2019, has been beaten to within an inch of its life. A generation of politicians long criticised for treating public life with contempt, have been ejected from office and parliament.

Step back, and this election can be seen as democracy rectifying the catalogue of its own glaring mistakes. Since the calamitous Brexit referendum eight years ago, Britain has suffered economic decay and a cost of living crisis (briefly exacerbated by Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s disastrous so-called “mini-budget”).

It has endured a government with a lengthy record of rule breaking reflected in the UK falling to its lowest ever ranking in the Global Corruption Index. It has seen dodgy pandemic procurement contracts handed out, party donors appointed to the House of Lords and a sustained attack on its constitution, institutions, and rule of law. Tiresome culture war crusades have divided communities and polluted public life.

Denigration of public services from education to the NHS to the armed forces, crises in housing, the climate and inequality have been left unchallenged. Damage has been done to the country’s international reputation and relations strained with the UK’s closest allies in Europe.

What these errors have in common is that each one sits firmly at the door of 10 Downing Street and its four most recent inhabitants. This election emphatically draws a line under them.

Parties can fall

For so long in opposition and even during this campaign, Starmer’s party has danced to the populist tune of the government and its media cheerleaders. The challenge for his new administration as it takes power is to recognise that this election is a watershed, a rejection of this catalogue of mistakes, and an expectation of political renewal.

The more existential question is whether this election is also a watershed moment that will permanently change the shape of British politics. Could we be witnessing the demise of the Conservative party and the end of its hegemonic position at the centre of public life?

It happened to the previously dominant Liberal party a century ago when it split down the middle and was replaced by a new emerging Labour party. Such a shift is rare, of course, and requires some sort of major disruption.

In the years following the fist world war, Labour’s rise was fuelled by an extension in the franchise so significant that it makes the proposed votes for today’s 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds appear trifling. Indeed the Representation of the People acts more than doubled the electorate by giving the vote to women and the 40% of (working-class) men who were also previously disenfranchised.

There is nothing quite so seismic heading Westminster’s way today (though plans for automatic registration could add millions of voters). But the potential for comparison should not be dismissed.

Post-Brexit realignment, realigned

Party identification in the electorate, which has been in decline since the 1960s was turned on its head in 2019 when Boris Johnson’s Tories won a swathe of red wall seats in the Midlands and the north of England. For the first time, Labour voters were wealthier than Conservative. Labour, of course, went down to its worst defeat since 1935. There was talk of a new political cleavage, where class divisions had been replaced by leavers and remainers.

That this has all been reversed in the space of one parliament demonstrates the incredible fluidity in the electorate today. The more than 70 seats that have gone to the Liberal Democrats show the determination of the electorate to vote tactically to remove Conservatives in spite of an electoral system that has historically kept them in office.

And then there is Reform. Nigel Farage’s rag bag of a party has proved to be the ultimate protest vote for disenchanted Tory voters, attracted to the open acknowledgement that few if any seats could be won but the higher the vote, the harder the beating for the Conservatives.

As it happens, millions more voted Reform than was reflected in their seat share. While there are some leading Tories who would still welcome him into the fold, Farage perhaps overplayed his hand during the campaign making the Conservatives defensive of a rival, hell bent on their destruction. Time will tell if the Conservatives can resist the onslaught but for now the psychodrama of the right will be a political sideshow to the main event: an innocent new government and a refreshed parliament.

Britain’s parliamentary democracy facilitated this catalogue of mistakes which have proved so damaging to the country over recent years. But in this election it has also proved highly effective at beginning the work to rectification. If Starmer gets a moment to catch his breath, he might reflect upon this as the key reason he has been handed such a decisive majority.