#The rise of absolute poverty in UK

[bpily]

Understanding the UK Economic Crisis: An Economic Case Study

The United Kingdom (UK) was once a global economic powerhouse. But now, it faces a severe economic crisis. This crisis has sent shockwaves throughout its financial and political systems. In 2024, the UK is grappling with a perfect storm of challenges. These have led to a slowdown in growth and soaring inflation. There is also a growing divide between the wealthy and the poor and a shrinking…

[probablyasocialecologist]

“People need to understand that ‘growth’ is not the same as social progress.” Hickel is one of the leading lights in a growing post-growth or degrowth movement. Its proponents argue that economic success cannot be measured through the crude metric of gross domestic product (GDP) and that there needs to be a managed reduction in growth in carbon-intensive countries and industries. “Growth simply means an increase in aggregate production, as measured in market prices,” says Hickel. “So, according to GDP growth, producing £1m worth of teargas is considered exactly the same as producing £1m worth of affordable housing or healthcare.” Hickel says that what matters in terms of social progress is not aggregate production but the production of specific goods and services that are necessary for improving people’s lives and achieving ecological goals – and a reduction in overall growth in high-emitting sectors and countries. “Every time a politician says they want more economic growth, we need to ask: growth of what and for whose benefit?” Opponents of the post-growth movement counter that a shrinking economy would be socially destructive, leading to a rise in unemployment, a reduction in tax revenue and therefore less money available for public services. This, they argue, would lead to increasing levels of hardship and destitution, which is already hitting marginalised communities the hardest. However, economists in the post-growth movement say a planned and purposeful reorganisation of the economy would benefit the vast majority of people. According to their vision, this could entail an organised downsizing in production of things such as mansions, SUVs, industrially produced beef, cruise ships, fast fashion and weapons – all of which are profitable to capital but ecologically destructive. At the same time, there should be a massive increase in investment in what would benefit people the most, from healthcare, public transport and renewable energy to affordable housing, nutritious food and regenerative agriculture, which offer less profit but are also less ecologically destructive. Hickel says: “In high-income countries like the UK, we have absolutely massive aggregate output. But this output is mostly organised around what is profitable to capital – and beneficial to elite consumers – rather than what is necessary for the wellbeing of everyday citizens. So despite high production we still have widespread deprivation … More than 4 million children live in poverty, and you can see the misery on our streets when you walk around. It’s madness.”

27 August 2024

[mariacallous]

This morning, about 300,000 children woke upin households affected by the benefit cap. Lots of these children – enough to fill more than 1,000 primary schools – will be living in cold and damp homes, with food cupboards near empty; in deep poverty that leaves normal childhood activities, such as after-school clubs, swimming lessons and family days out, far out of reach.

Since 2020, I’ve been working with colleagues at the universities of York and Oxford and the London School of Economics to investigate the impact of the benefit cap and the two-child limit (commonly referred to as the two-child benefit cap) on families with three or more children.

In our research with families affected by the benefit cap, we have spoken to parents such as Lucy, who pays £1,375 a month to rent a mould-ridden, rat-infested property. At times, the cap has left her family with as little as £65 a week to survive on once the rent and some of the bills are paid. £65. For five of them. It is simply not possible to get by on that.

We spoke to Lucy four times over four years, and she was always doing all she could to move out of that property. But as our analysis of Zoopla listings shows, the housing just isn’t there. Finding cheaper rents would enable people to escape the cap, because this would reduce their need for financial support with their housing and would bring them under the level of the cap. But there is a complete absence of affordable housing in many areas.

Despite the cap causing real and lasting harm, it garners little attention from politicians or the media. Much more focus is paid to its sister policy, the two-child limit, which denies means-tested financial support of up to £3,455 per child to third and subsequent children born on or after 6 April 2017.

The two-child limit is incredibly punitive; withdrawing support for children purely on the basis of the number of siblings they have. It applies to households in and out of work, and every day that it remains in place, the number affected grows. But the benefit cap, which places an absolute limit on the income that a household can receive in social security benefits, should also demand our attention.

Statistics released today reveal that 123,000 households in England, Scotland and Wales were affected by the benefit cap in May 2024, a rise of about 46,000 in just three months according to government figures. Introduced by George Osborne in 2013, the cap means the most a family without regular work can claim is £25,323 in London and £22,020 in the rest of the country.

A totemic policy of the coalition years, and of the obsession with creating simplistic divisions between “strivers” and “skivers”, the cap is now, absurdly, lower than the original limit that was set in 2013 (when it was £26,000 across the UK). The past decade has seen a rapid rise in the cost of living, driven not just by high inflation, but increased energy costs and unaffordable private rents, squeezing the poorest families only harder still.

Both the benefit cap and the two-child limit sever a foundational principle within our welfare state that people should be entitled to support based on what they need. The architects of these policies were driven by ideology and made a heartless, unforgivable calculation that a “tough” approach to benefits – accompanied by a stigmatising rhetoric on “welfare” – would boost their poll ratings. They were, it seems, prepared to pay the price for this in children and families left without enough to get by. Some families are even hit by both policies at the same time, and both are key drivers of the shameful levels of child poverty in the UK.

Lucy told us how the mould and rats in her expensive rented home affect her and her children, and how the struggle to make ends meet frays her mental health and leaves her almost entirely dependent on food banks and kindness from local churches and charities. The cap punishes Lucy’s family for paying high rent on a property so dilapidated it harms their health. Lucy explained how mould, unchecked by the landlord for months, caused her and one of her twins to get asthma – a potentially lifelong condition.

With no options to escape the cap, families are left living in Victorian-era conditions. Last year, Zauna, who has four children, told us that her children would cry: “Mum, it’s so cold.” She added: “I don’t know what to do … we need to live.”

And yet, all of this is completely avoidable. Rachel Reeves may talk of the need for fiscal prudence, but just £300m could bring an end to the benefit cap. That is the same amount the last government spent on supporting sports clubs hit by Covid lockdowns.

Lifting the benefit cap would provide immediate relief to hundreds of thousands of families such as Lucy’s and Zauna’s, who are currently facing a long, cold winter. What better way, after all, to start investing in our future than by ensuring children’s basic needs are met?

[mrhaitch]

Living in London, I feel like a lot of incidents are isolated attacks that you dont hear about as opposed to organised riots. Whilst there have been some riots in the more conservative areas (like Walthamstow and Chingford) and more towards Central, in East London especially, I've experienced and heard of isolated anti-immigrant/muslim 'attacks' where it's one or two people that are perpetrators.

East London is the MOST multicultural place you'll find, but my dad's car was kicked in by some white guys literally two days ago. Thank God he was already in the car and was able to drive off, but I've found that it's mostly incidents like these.

In Whitechapel, which is literally full to the brim with Muslims, a young girls hijab was ripped off a month or two ago. Whilst I don't live in Whitechapel, me and my mum have been called nasty names to the point where my mum didn't feel like it was safe wearing her face veil anymore. Islamic private schools have been subjected to attacks as well and generally havent been perceived well, but this is nothing new. It's been happening for years, but you don't really hear about them because it's isolated incidents. I only know because I've been in those spaces and environments and have experienced it personally.

Loads of my friends don't feel like it's safe to go out being women because of the new wave of anti-muslim/poc sentiment and people mainly targeting women. Again, whilst this is nothing new from my experience of being born and raised in London, the anti-muslim/immigrant sentiment has only grown, and certain individuals are feeling braver because of the nationwide riots.

But there's a sense of community in London because of its multiculturalism that other places up North and around the UK don't have. Where you have some people committing hate crimes, you have others that are staunchly outspoken against it and that are really supportive, which I'm forever grateful for. My neighbours are absolutely wonderful, and I know that I'm completely safe with them, I know that if anything was to happen, I'd have people supporting me.

Its weird though because London is one of those places where you'll find there are extremely wealthy areas right next to some of the most destitute places, driving through Bow Road/Mile End Road/Whitechapel Road to Aldgate is a perfect example of that, you can see where it immediately changes and switches up. Same with Hackney and Shoreditch, you walk for 5-10 minutes, and it's like you've entered a whole new realm, likewise with Canary Wharf. It's kind of dystopian, tbh and literally, all the new buildings being built are high-rise 2/3 bedroom flats that obviously aren't for families.

It's like the with the new architecture too is trying to push families out. Alongside the serious underfunding of government facilities like public libraries and gyms. Over the past couple of years, dozens of libraries across have been closed, and public gyms have been sold off to private organisations. Youth facilities are horrendous, too. I've gone completely off on a tangent here, and I do apologise. But I just think it's so crazy that London has some of the poorest areas in the whole UK with poverty being at 25% I think (correct me if I'm wrong) just after the North and West Midlands which is around 28%.

I really shouldn't complain because I know in London we are so fortunate to have such an interconnected train/tube system and that our health care and schools are much more funded than those outside of London. But with more business and wealthier people coming in, the costs in London are increasing so much more disproportionately to wages.

My mum works in the NHS, and what the government did is before increasing the London living wage, they increased the NHS staff wages by 5%, compared to the London living wage by 10%. The NHS HCAS didn't increase, however, and stayed the same. On top of that, NHS staff are subjected to higher national insurances. I think it's just ridiculous. Anyways, I apologise for the long and rambling ask, and I totally lost focus. I hope you have an amazing day, and there's no pressure to answer this whatsoever <33

Nothing further to add here, as I'm not that familiar with London - call it a northerner's suspicion - but will definitely provide further insight to people less familiar with the UK.

[funkyman66]

It's weird how absolutely insane politicians can be. For example, there's a massive economic crisis in the UK, poverty is rising and people are using food banks more than ever, then meanwhile Rishi Sunak is like "trans people exist?! NOOOOOO 😡😡😡😡😡😡"

[eaglesnick]

“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

Malcolm X

I’m no fan of Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves but the deliberate lies and distortions concerning her budget both before and after the event are derisible. For a society to flourish successfully the media must adhere to a certain degree of honesty. Different opinions, backed up by evidence and logical argument, are fine, indeed, welcomed, but the continual peddling of untruths and half-truths by the media is an existential threat to the very democracy many of these media outlets pretend they are defending.

Before the budget the Financial Times, one of the most respected mainstream economic newspapers in the UK had this headline:

“Bankers fear Rachel Reeves is preparing UK Budget tax raid on sector” (11/09/24)

 On the day after the budget we have this headline:

“Reeves spares banks from tax raid after lobbying”  (City AM: 30/10/24)

This glaring headline from the Express is another example of our dishonest media:

“Labour blasted as 'anti-motorist' as Rachel Reeves ‘set to raise fuel duty in budget." (18/10/24)

After the budget we get the true story.

“Rachel Reeves announces fuel duty freeze as motorists spared from Budget tax rises."  (Independent: 30/10/24)

The Financial Times spoke of the “fear” our honest bankers felt concerning Reeves pending budget. Quite why bankers were “afraid” is unclear, especially as Reeves had already promised:

“Banker’ bonuses: No cap under Labour. Says Reeves." (BBC: 31/01/24)

After the budget, when it was clear there would be no tax raid on bankers, it was because she had “spared" them. Spared them from what? She had already promised there was to be no cap on their bonuses. Despite record profits at the six largest British banks (£48bn) Reeves decided not to increase the bank levy introduced by the Coalition government in 2011, or the corporation tax surcharge imposed by a Conservative government in 2016. In short, the banking sector has been left untouched by Reeves budget and this whole notion of “fear" and bankers being “spared" is a non-story.

The same non-story concerning her "anti-motorist" policies was also described as the motorist being "spared" when the prediction she would raise fuel duty just didn’t materialise.

Since the budget Reeves has come under repeated attack for raising taxes. Her budget will result in less wage growth, fewer jobs, an exodus of businesses abroad, the closure of care homes and doctors surgeries, higher mortgages and rents, the collapse of British farming, etc, etc.

The sad fact is we all know our public services are on their knees, homelessness is endemic, child poverty is rising, the NHS is on the brink of collapse, and our children’s schools and some of our hospitals are quite literally falling down around us. UK absolute poverty has hit an all-time high, life-expectancy is actually falling and the nation is suffering a mental health crisis.

While her British critics continue to rant against Reeves budget it is  worthwhile, even enlightening, to see how other countries view her plans for the Britain.

“Britain targets the wealthy as it hikes taxes by $52 billion.” (CNN Business: 30/10/24)

And

“Britain’s Reeves targets wealthy and foreign income with big tax rises” Reuters: 31/10/24)

The question British media outlets have to answer is what do they think should happen to our failing public services and the continuing economic plight of so many working people?  Should we continue as we were under the Tories and just let a huge sector of our society  go to the wall as happens in America? Or should we, as a nation, try and repair the damage done to our public services thereby improving the lives of many ordinary citizens?

If the latter answer is the way forward then who is going to pay for the repairs that are so desperately needed to mend our broken society?  The fair and moral answer is, of course, those who can afford to pay a little extra in tax – the already wealthy.

This is what Reeves is attempting to do and this is what is recognised by foreign observers. We can argue who among the already wealthy should be paying the most in additional taxes but it is the rich who have to pay. After all, Statistica inform us “the UK’s rich are getting richer” (23/05/22) so it is only morally right they should pay a little extra towards the welfare of those less well off than themselves.

The blind loathing that the vast majority of the British media display towards the Labour party is truly worrying. Their genuine fear when Jeremy Corbyn was Labour leader is understandable as his policies were truly transformative in nature. But social democrat Reeves budget is a far cry from the socialist plans of the Labour left. Yet the British media has this negative knee jerk reaction to all things Labour. The danger is that the day-after-day invention of “problems” that don’t exist will , over time, have a drip, drip affect on our perceptions, whereby we all buy into the lies being peddled.

[strangelandofbritain]

Funny how that 30 years takes us back to the last years of the Tory governments of Thatcher and Major...

"Vote Tory = Vote For Poverty".

[whimsicaldragonette]

ARC Review: The Unlikely Heir by Jax Calder

Preorder

Add to Goodreads

Publication Date: August 24, 2023

Synopsis:

What happens when the Prince of Wales falls in love with the Prime Minister? My boring life working in an insurance call center in sunny California just took an unexpected turn. Thanks to my misbehaving relatives, I’ve leapt from obscurity to royalty as the new heir to the British throne. But my welcome in England is about as warm as the weather. I arrive to discover a country horrified at the thought of an American version of Prince Charming and ready to revolt against the monarchy. I vow to my grandmother, the Queen, that I will do everything possible to help her save the crown. Unfortunately, royal life isn’t easy. From bewildering traditions, traitorous friends, and malevolent swans, the only thing I’m succeeding in is providing entertainment for the tabloids and social media trolls. And then the broodingly handsome Prime Minister, Oliver Hartwell, bursts into my life. With his meteoric rise from poverty to the most powerful man in the country, Oliver understands my current plight. Innocent messages of support turn into late-night chats—and unexpected feelings. But there’s one major problem. The royal family must remain politically neutral at all times. So how can I keep my promise to save the monarchy when I’m falling in love with the Prime Minister? A forbidden romance filled with humor and drama featuring a bumbling Prince of Wales and a stern yet dashing Prime Minister, with a love that could transform a nation.

My Rating: ★★★★★

*My Review and Favorite Quotes below the cut.

My Review:

I picked this up because the cover and synopsis were cute and because I desperately needed something to fill the void left after finishing the new Red White & Royal Blue movie. And this was absolutely perfect. This a deliciously swoony slow-burn romance, with Callum, unlikely American heir to the British throne, and Oliver, Prime Minister of the UK, sloooooowly falling in love over nightly text messages that evolve into phone calls that evolve into video calls and then more. I loved Callum, with his bumbling but cheerful approach to life, his random facts and obsessions, and always seeing the magic in the small things and trying to make people's days brighter with every conversation. He was so genuine and likeable and good. He occasionally reminded me of a golden retriever lol. I also loved Oliver, with his passion to improve the lives of the common people and his witty comebacks and political savvy. He was so serious all the time - it was nice to see Callum making him laugh and relax. Would this absolutely bonkers political scenario ever happen in real life? Hell no. Did I care? Absolutely not. It worked because the heart of the story is Callum and Oliver falling in love. I was 100% there for them falling for one another and in some sense the political trappings of the story were secondary to that. Yes it was amusing, and it certainly caused plenty of conflict and provided the forbidden relationship angle, but I'm not going to nitpick historical or political details. Why would I? I loved this too much. I flew through it in a day and did absolutely nothing else I had planned to because I couldn't tear myself away from it. To be fair, when presented with an epistolary novel, especially a slow-burn in the form of text messages, I'm almost guaranteed to like it. There have been a few notable exceptions, but only a few. Callum and Oliver, however, are the heart of this novel and their personalities and interactions are what drew me in and kept me hooked. This is absolutely a new favorite and I will be checking out the author's other works asap. *Thanks to Booksirens and NetGalley for providing an early copy for review.

Favorite Quotes:

“You need to cut your toenails,” I say because, you know, that’s an appropriate thing to say to the prime minister. “I’ve been wondering why my socks are suddenly getting holes in them,” he says.

---

“There is no magic to be found in the EU agricultural trade negotiations, trust me,” I say.

---

Herbert’s my usual go-to person for dress etiquette, but I’m not sure if even he would know how to dress when you’re meeting the prime minister for a suspiciously vague mission.

---

Maybe that’s what the prime minister actually is. School principal to the entire nation.

---

I never knew a kiss could feel like the truth.

[honorarycassowary]

As of today I have read all 55 issues of Bob Budiansky’s run on Transformers, plus the Headmasters mini and the UK-only issues up to [checks the wiki] UK issue #182, which means I have 20-odd UK-sized comics before I’m at the same place in the US and UK chronologies. Oh, and the UK Annuals through 1987. Oh, and Transformers: Secrets and Lies, but that only kind of counts since it published as a continuity-fixing prequel in the past ten years.

The first lesson you should take from this is that Transformers continuity has always been a pain in the ass. The second is that despite that, these comics are entertaining enough for me to read the way through them. Since I already like Transformers, part of the entertainment value is just seeing the mythos take form, but there are several stories I’d put down as genuinely good.

Miscenalleous thoughts:

The quality of the series rises sharply after the 4-issue miniseries that starts it, then declines again around #30 of the US comics, probably because of the sheer number of characters who have to be introduced all at once. (All the Headmasters, Targetmasters, Powermasters, and Pretenders, and that’s just for starters.)

That first post-miniseries arc of Shockwave taking over the Decepticons + Buster Witwicky getting the Creation Matrix is really fun. The Transformers ... ARE ALL DEAD and the Autobots hanging from the ceiling truly deserve their iconic status!

The Smelting Pool!/The Bridge to Nowhere two-parter is probably my favorite single story. It’s not the dead Cybertron of the cartoon, but instead a very living hell. Spanner’s fate (being rebuilt into the space bridge while still alive and conscious) is horrifying, especially as we know he’s still alive at the end of the arc, he’s just never mentioned again. Every time you see the space bridge after this, know that Spanner is still screaming inside of it.

Similarly, seeing Cybertron’s day-to-day fucked-up normal in the Flame’s zombie army arc in the UK comics was nice. I still don’t understand how the “zombie army” part of his plan and the “make Cybertron travel through space” part were connected, but I’m always a fan of villains who are supposed to be on the main characters’ side.

The early UK art when it was fully hand-painted is gorgeous. Decepticon Dam-Busters (issue #29) is not my favorite story, but the coloring really takes the whole thing to the next level. The US comics and later UK comics never looked this good.

The infamous issue where Optimus Prime kills himself over cheating in a video game does suck, which only makes it more striking how much I like the next issue, where Megatron’s inability to accept Prime’s death drives him into paranoid violence.

Furious, impetuous Blaster is a much more interesting character than the chill Blaster of the cartoon. He’s ready to disobey orders if it means saving someone he cares about AND he’s willing to turn on a dime and kill a friend if he thinks that friend has betrayed him.

Some concepts that I would love to have come back:

Megatron and Optimus are only the leaders of their factions on Cybertron for a hundred to a thousand-ish years before they’re gone for four million years. This isn’t explored in the comics, but everyone on Cybertron has known someone else’s leadership for exponentially longer than they have known Optimus and Megatron. It’d be interesting to have a series that goes back to the 4-million-year hiatus - I don’t think we’ve had one of those in a while - and had the two factions face a third side in the form of an unrecognizably changed Cybertron.

Deadly Games from the UK continuity has alien tourists visiting Decepticon-run Cybertron to view brutal bloodsport executions of Autobot prisoners in a joint alien-Decepticon venture. The exploitation of the Autobot-Decepticon war for moneymaking purposes via poverty/war tourism is something I don’t think any other TF media goes into, but it’s

Surprising absolutely no one, I was super into the Headmaster binary bonding process. Yes, the reasoning for why it happened and how it works is wonky! Yes, the Nebulans to a man have very stupid names and very generic appearances! Yes, the Headmasters start an era of truly relentless character introductions! But the blending of minds described in text is truly fascinating. When Zarak and Scorponok bond, Zarak nearly forgets he has a daughter, and over time Zarak stops wanting to be called anything but Scorponok even when they’re separate. On the flip slide, because of his bond with Spike, Fortress Maximus forgets that Buster isn’t his brother.

Unicron and Primus are part of pantheons of dark and light gods respectively. None of the other gods are ever seen, and this is admittedly a niche that is mostly filled by the Thirteen in present fiction, but I like the idea that these other gods are the gods of other species.

The Ark has a cache of copied Autobot minds that can be given new bodies ... implying that Skids, Grapple, Hoist, Smokescreen and Tracks exist in both original and copy format. This is an extremely fun use of the Transformers’ computer-based physiology at this point in canon and I’d love more blase cloning stories.

The Matrix being a live-giving program that can be transmitted to and from ANY mind, including an organic one would honestly pair quite well with the themes of Earthspark.

Two quotes to add to the compilation of “Transformers quotes that go harder than they had to”:

Omega Supreme, to Megatron: “I am the guardian of the gates... the junction of your destruction... the laser lighting the way to your doom... the planner of your obsolescence... the furnace that fires your demise... I am the number you cannot compute, Decepticon.”

Scorponok, to Zarak: “Yes, perhaps I will share my power with you—it is in my best interest—but beware—when possessed of such power all other concerns fade.  Compassion. Mercy. Perhaps even daughters.”

[luuurien]

Little Simz - NO THANK YOU

(UK Hip Hop, Neo-Soul, Jazz Rap)

Stripping her sound to its barest and centering the music around loss both personal and economic, Little Simz's surprise release is a confident - if intentionally understated - dive into the core of her artistry and what she wishes to embody.

☆☆☆☆

The detour NO THANK YOU takes Little Simz in the aftermath of her enchanting 2021 opus Sometimes I Might Be Introvert isn't a surprise, but what she decides to do in this quieter space surely is. Diving into these introspective spaces after bold and heavy statement albums isn't all too rare in the hip hip space - Kendrick Lamar's done it with untitled unmastered; De La Soul dropped the satirical and lowkey De La Soul Is Dead after the paradigm shift that was 3 Feet High and Rising - but it often comes with a shift in intention as well, something that is absolutely not the case for Simz, continuing down the road of industry exploitation and artistic freedom SIMBI's grandness had her defiantly rejecting but now with a darker, more intimate feel to it all. NO THANK YOU has her clinging onto independence even as the entire industry seems to continue pushing back against her - her AWAL distributor was just bought by Sony for 430 million dollars and the cost of touring has only become more and more destructive for musicians - but it's this clear and close-up view of all that stress and anger NO THANK YOU pushes forward with some of her most commanding and passionate songs to date. Again produced by close collaborator Inflo, NO THANK YOU pulls SImz into the stripped-back and soulful sound of her 2010's projects while tweaking it with hints of the orchestral and gospel sound Inflo's been refining the past few years under his SAULT moniker. There's her usual jazz rap fare with a punchier feel to it like Angel and Silhouette, but she brings back grime and trap with a surprise lushness on early highlights Gorilla and No Merci, Inflo sneaking bright horns and crisp orchestration into themrespectively while the core beat is thick and sturdy. It's this gray area between elegant songcraft and a defiant exposé of industry games NO THANK YOU adores, Heart on Fire's drama spurred on by both its dramatic choral backings and Simz's newfound opportunities and fears with wealth and fame while the watery back end cut Who Even Cares sees her in a warmer melodic space where anxiety is submerged in hopes for the future as well as Simz's acknowledgement of the fight for her artistry ahead. The album lacks the broad strokes of social and personal commentary SIMBI used for its expansive yet insular storytelling style, but the focused energy she brings to NO THANK YOU results in a tighter tracklist that leaves no chance for her message to be missed. It can, at times, lead to a strangely understated message that doesn't always land with the impact SIMBI was able to support, the seven-minute Broken a beautiful narrative tale of immigrant poverty and social struggles yet its grooveless, airy orchestration seems to never shape Simz's lyrics in a supportive fashion, and even strong cuts like No Merci and X can have their intricate production take away from Simz's rapping at points. Her disillusionment with the wider music world is found more in her words than the music itself, often complementing one another with the plush landing pad Inflo provides for her harsh stories of broken communities and mental crises of Angel or X, but the minimalist stylings of Gorilla and gospel finale Control hit higher highs with even less instrumentation surrounding Simz, NO THANK YOU a strong album where the extravagance isn't always the most beneficial. It's never a big enough issue to cause tears in the album's experience and she has more than enough memorable lines and beautiful performances to carry her to the end, but for an album where much of its weight is found in Simz's writing thanks to Inflo's slimmer production, a little less decoration could've helped keep the storytelling at the forefront. As exhausting as the past few years have been for Simz, NO THANK YOU is a reassurance that she's not straying from her mission a bit, as direct a response to the modern music industry and the troubles within the community she grew up in as any of her previous releases but dropping much of the embellishments for an even more direct route to those answers. You can hear her frustration through her words no matter how smoothly she's floating on the beat, able to mix cool-headed raps and the issues plaguing her most better than nearly anyone else around her, NO THANK YOU is quintessential Simz during one of the most important parts of her career, refusing to let the staggering peaks of her previous album startle her and instead release a project where intimacy and expression take center stage. She knows exactly what she wants, and nothing will get in the way of her pursuit.

[aurianneor]

Restricting individual wealth

The Gracchi brothers brothers, Gaius and Tiberius, were tribunes, the equivalent of our deputies, and they wanted to tackle the problems of the time. The rich were few in number but owned almost all the land. As they produced all the cereals, they agreed among themselves to set a high price and brought in foreigners to work for very low wages that Roman citizens would not accept. By 133 B.C., Rome was plunged into widespread poverty, which tormented the city. The Gracchus brothers passed a law called property, which stated that property had a limit in quantity, beyond which it was toxic for society, and a limit in use, according to which just because it’s mine doesn’t mean I can do what I want with it. The Gracchi brothers were seized by the rich and their henchmen and thrown into the Tribe. What followed was 100 years of civil war between the plebs and the rich, before Emperor Augustus established the laws of the Gracchus brothers, taking advantage of the turmoil caused by the death of Julius Caesar (who had won the civil war by fighting the ultra-rich). Four hundred years of peace and prosperity followed.

In 1930, in France, judges created the public water utility, nationalizing the sources. This showed that private property is not sacred. They expropriated the owners, and that was normal. Léon Blum was harassed and left office.

Labour’s 1945 victory in the UK led to the expropriation of mine owners. Ownership is not absolute. Owners became less wealthy and this drove them below the toxic limit.

Franklin D. Roosevelt led major campaigns to nationalize energy, raw materials, armaments and roads, and introduced public granaries (the state buys food to guarantee prices). The group prevailed over private property. If ownership went against the group’s interests, nationalization could be considered. He took the assets appropriated by the ultra-rich and redistributed the gains for the general good. The New Deal brought prosperity to America for 40 years. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the only American president to have been elected four times, and he died in office. He had strong public support. The United States is reputed to be capitalist by nature, but this is a myth. When presented with a very socialist program, the people embrace it. Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 11/9 used polls to prove that Americans’ aspirations are not capitalist. 70% are for health insurance, 62% are for unions, 58% are against supporting banks, 61% for raising the minimum wage, etc. (cf. American people’s choice).

Franklin D. Roosevelt – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

New Deal – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

On November 24, 2013, a law was passed in Switzerland limiting wages to 250 times the minimum wage. This means that for the highest wages to rise, the lowest wages must be increased. The rich are very happy in Switzerland. By way of comparison, in France in 2019, CAC40 bosses earned 1128 times the salary of their most modest employees.

In Ukraine in 2022, President Zelensky took advantage of exceptional war powers to nationalize the banks, TV channels and industries owned by the oligarchs. The oligarchs were so wealthy that they decided everything in the country, while the Ukrainian coffers were empty.

When Elon Musk intervenes in the war in Ukraine, it’s too much. When Mark Zuckerberg promotes Trump’s election to enrich himself, it’s too much. When someone is rich enough to have their own space program or has more money than a country, it’s too much. When your decisions can ruin the lives of millions of people even though you weren’t elected, it’s too much. When the richest 1% of humanity emit 100 times more greenhouse gases than the other 99%, it’s too much.

These people deserve to be rich, but not that rich. They have never given back to society what society gave them in the first place. They offer philanthropy in return, but it’s selective solidarity because they decide how much and to whom they give the money. The society has trained their employees with schools and universities; they are healthy thanks to hospitals, there are roads, railroads and airports to transport their goods. There is a police force and an army to protect them, and a justice system to enforce their rights. There are natural resources to feed their industries, and so on.

What’s more, they influence politicians to pay less tax and inheritance tax. Most of the richest people inherited. They have done nothing for society. They don’t pay their fair share of taxes.

Les 1 % les plus riches ont empoché plus de 40 000 milliards de dollars au cours des 10 dernières années, alors que le niveau d’imposition des plus riches atteint des niveaux historiquement bas – Oxfam: https://www.oxfam.org/fr/communiques-presse/les-1-les-plus-riches-ont-empoche-plus-de-40-000-milliards-de-dollars-au-cours

Les riches menacent-ils la démocratie – Arte: https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/109816-010-A/les-riches-menacent-ils-la-democratie/

Columbia University believes that $100 million is the limit. It’s more than enough for the individual and not enough to be toxic.

Limit On Wealth – Stephen H. Unger: http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/wealthLimit.html)

What, if Anything, is Wrong with Extreme wealth – Ingrid Robeyns: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/19452829.2019.1633734?needAccess=true&role=button

Having too Much – Ingrid Robeyns: https://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0338

Capitalisme américain, le culte de la richesse (1/3) | ARTE: https://youtu.be/0j1UDBqR-oM?feature=shared

Faire casquer les riches | Capitalisme américain, le culte de la richesse (2/3) | ARTE: https://youtu.be/uccQqNg2tF8?si=3hep4x297rSSZ7Bu

Elon Musk: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO): https://youtu.be/Eo3zORUGCbM?si=TUxpdymb6rV3Xd2x

Noir Désir – L’homme pressé: https://youtu.be/by1RRP9wa_Y?si=mK5wb4sZn3YnRsB8

World’s five richest men double their money as poorest get poorer – The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2024/jan/15/worlds-five-richest-men-double-their-money-as-poorest-get-poorer

The cost of extrême wealth: https://costofextremewealth.com

La ploutocratie, les riches au pouvoir ? – France Inter: https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/podcasts/zoom-zoom-zen/zoom-zoom-zen-du-jeudi-04-avril-2024-8390390

Épisode 1/4 : Rends les terres ! Réforme à Rome, va te faire voir chez les Gracques – France culture: https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/le-cours-de-l-histoire/rends-les-terres-reforme-a-rome-va-te-faire-voir-chez-les-gracques-1597994

Super-héritages : le jackpot fiscal des ultra-riches – Oxfam France: https://www.oxfamfrance.org/rapports/super-heritages-le-jackpot-fiscal-des-ultra-riches/

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

Limiter la richesse individuelle: https://www.aurianneor.org/limiter-la-richesse-individuelle/

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

The richest 1% are at war with the rest of the world: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-richest-1-are-at-war-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

Working class racism: https://www.aurianneor.org/working-class-racism/

Solidarité Hélvétique: https://www.aurianneor.org/solidarite-helvetique-democratie-semi-directe/

Wall Street (1987): https://www.aurianneor.org/wall-street-1987/

Freedom and coexistence: https://www.aurianneor.org/freedom-and-coexistence/

Tomorrow – Chap 4: La démocratie: https://www.aurianneor.org/tomorrow-chap-4-la-democratie-the-panama/

Qui se cache derrière le drapeau?: https://www.aurianneor.org/qui-se-cache-derriere-le-drapeau/

Quelle époque!: https://www.aurianneor.org/quelle-epoque-soyons-daccord-emmanuel-macron/

Illegitimate authorities: https://www.aurianneor.org/illegitimate-authorities/

Ecoterrorism: https://www.aurianneor.org/ecoterrorism/

You can’t get enough… Enough!: https://www.aurianneor.org/you-cant-get-enough-enough-the-same-companies/

“The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed”: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-world-has-enough-for-everyones-need-but-not/

Cut out the middleman: https://www.aurianneor.org/cut-out-the-middleman/

Housing: https://www.aurianneor.org/housing/

Retirement pensions: https://www.aurianneor.org/retirement-pensions/

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

The Rust Belt: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-rust-belt-2/

Representation of capitalism trying to take all the resources and trying to make workers live nothing but work: https://www.aurianneor.org/representation-of-capitalism-trying-to-take-all-the-resources-and-trying-to-make-workers-live-nothing-but-work/

“Capitalism will eat democracy; unless we speak up”: https://www.aurianneor.org/yanis-varoufakis-capitalism-will-eat-democracy/

Simon Sinek – Start with why: https://www.aurianneor.org/simon-sinek-start-with-why-bonuses/

When you have a hammer in your hand everything looks like a nail.: https://www.aurianneor.org/when-you-have-a-hammer-in-your-hand-everything/

The Red and the Yellow: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-red-and-the-yellow-red-scarves-against-yellow/

Le référendum est une arme qui tue la violence: https://www.aurianneor.org/le-referendum-est-une-arme-qui-tue-la-violence-oui/

Le levier économique: https://www.aurianneor.org/le-levier-economique-charles-stewart-parnell/

Fed up with strikes? Ask for referendums!: https://www.aurianneor.org/fed-up-with-strikes-ask-for-referendums/

The Modern “chiffon rouge”: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-modern-chiffon-rouge/

Rich: https://www.aurianneor.org/rich-it-was-a-beautiful-day-and-the-scenery-was/

What I am worth depends neither on market nor on race: https://www.aurianneor.org/what-i-am-worth-depends-neither-on-market-nor-on-race/

My hormones want admiration: https://www.aurianneor.org/my-hormones-want-admiration-i-want-to-shine-im/

Dans les territoires ultramarins, une population en colère exclue du progrès: https://www.aurianneor.org/dans-les-territoires-ultramarins-une-population-en-colere-exclue-du-progres/

Work, it’s an all-or-nothing option: https://www.aurianneor.org/work-its-an-all-or-nothing-option/

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

2024 UK general election: choosing the Right or the Left.: https://www.aurianneor.org/2024-uk-general-election-choosing-the-right-or-the-left/

[head-post]

UK Treasury chief Reeves pledges to manage economy with “iron discipline” amid demands for higher wages

Britain’s new Treasury chief Rachel Reeves suggested she would give public sector workers above-inflation pay rises to help end strikes, according to AP News.

The Labour Party government is under pressure from supporters and unions to spend more on wages and welfare benefits, two weeks after it was elected on promises not to raise personal taxes or increase government borrowing.

I think people know that things are a mess. I’m going to level with people about the scale of the challenge and then begin to fix the foundations. I am going to run our economy with iron discipline, bringing stability back.

The Labour Party won a convincing victory in the July 4 election, promising to boost Britain’s sluggish economy, unleash a wave of housing and green energy projects, and fix the country’s battered public services.

Inflation dropped back to 2 per cent and Prime Minister Keir Starmer‘s government wanted to settle strikes by thousands of hospital doctors who placed additional burdens on the publicly-funded National Health Service. Nurses, teachers, railway workers and other public sector workers also went on strike last year demanding pay rises.

Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank, stated that it could cost the government 3 billion pounds ($3.9 billion) more than budgeted. Meanwhile, Reeves said the government was studying the recommendations and would find a way to give workers a pay rise and “make the sums add up.”

There is a cost to not settling, a cost of further industrial action, a cost in terms of the challenge that we face in recruiting, retaining doctors, nurses and teachers.

The government is also under pressure from anti-poverty groups and many Labour Party lawmakers to scrap policies introduced by the Conservatives. The old policy limits widely paid welfare benefits and tax credits to the first two children in a family. The new government also says it cannot afford to abolish the two-child cap.

However Conservative lawmaker Jeremy Hunt claimed accusations that the party had left the economy in a worse state were “absolute nonsense.”

She [Rachel Reeves] wants to lay the ground for tax rises. She should have been honest about that before the election.

Read more HERE

[totallyhussein-blog]

Manchester united against child poverty

MORE than 120,000 children across Britain are living in the most extreme form of poverty, according to a charity survey which reveals the situation is worsening. The devastating rise in levels of destitution was branded “stark and worrying” by Buttle UK, which works with young people in crisis.

The London-based charity published its annual State of Child Poverty report this week, said: “The families our front-line workers are supporting includes approximately 122,000 children living in destitution. The organization described the term “destitution” as referring to the absolute lowest standard of living any adult, child or young person can experience, leading to a “lived reality which is degrading and unsustainable.”

Specifically, its study said someone is considered destitute if they have gone a month without at least two of the following — shelter, food, lighting, heating, clothing or basic toiletries. The research also comes as more front-line workers are reporting children going to school hungry and being unable to concentrate or participate in classes, with some refusing to attend as a result.

Baby banks provide essential items for babies and young children whose parents are living in poverty – including nappies, wipes, clothing, bedding, Moses baskets, cots, blankets, toys and books. It has been reported, there are now over 200 baby banks in the UK, which operate out of shops, community centres, warehouse units and even people’s living rooms and garages.

As Save The Children state; last year 4.2 million children in the UK were living in poverty and 800,000 children lived in a household that used a food or baby bank. Here in Manchester, the Wood Street Mission run a scheme called “family basics”, which provides low income families with day to day essentials that every family needs for their children.

Through Wood Street Mission’s ‘family basics’, items provided include: children’s clothing, bedding and towels, toys, baby equipment, toiletries and books. If you, your workplace, Trade Union or organization are able to contribute, please send your donation to Wood Street Mission, 26 Wood Street, Manchester, M3 3EF, The UK.

[tallmantall]

#JamesDonaldson On #MentalHealth - Cost-Of-Living: An Open Letter To The #PrimeMinister

Samaritans are one of 19 charities who have written to the #PrimeMinister about the disproportionate impact the cost of living is having on people's #mentalhealth In the UK the cost-of-living crisis runs deep in every community and is having a significant impact on #mentalhealth. High levels of inflation affect everyone as the price of necessities including food and energy increase. However, the impact is not felt equally. We know those already experiencing inequality, poverty and hardship are being hardest hit. And poverty is the single biggest driver of poor #mentalhealth in #children. We also know that people living in the most deprived 10% of areas in the UK are more than twice as likely to die from #suicide than those living in the wealthiest 10% of areas. In 2022 the Trussell Trust who provide emergency support to people in crisis issued 1.3 million food parcels between April and September. 94% of people accessing emergency food parcels are experiencing destitution. That means they are well below the poverty line and cannot afford the essentials to eat, stay warm and dry, and keep clean. This should worry us all. It is a shameful and unnecessary situation in the UK. As leaders of #mentalhealthorganizations, there is a growing demand for our services. We will, of course, continue to do our absolute best to provide the necessary support. But we want to be crystal clear: the first intervention to reduce #mental ill health and prevent #suicide is to ensure every household has the means to be safe and warm with enough to eat. We urge the #PrimeMinister to act with speed and compassion to tackle the root causes of destitution and in doing so prevent #suicide and an inevitable rise in #mental ill health. #James Donaldson notes:Welcome to the “next chapter” of my life… being a voice and an advocate for #mentalhealthawarenessandsuicideprevention, especially pertaining to our younger generation of students and student-athletes.Getting men to speak up and reach out for help and assistance is one of my passions. Us men need to not suffer in silence or drown our sorrows in alcohol, hang out at bars and strip joints, or get involved with drug use.Having gone through a recent bout of #depression and #suicidalthoughts myself, I realize now, that I can make a huge difference in the lives of so many by sharing my story, and by sharing various resources I come across as I work in this space.  #http://bit.ly/JamesMentalHealthArticleOrder your copy of James Donaldson's latest book,#CelebratingYourGiftofLife:From The Verge of Suicide to a Life of Purpose and Joy www.celebratingyourgiftoflife.com Read the full article

[obiternihili]

Geschichte

Capitalism happened, immediately tulip mania

The rest of Europe went "that's a lot of money, but we gotta regulate that disaster before we all starve"

Some people just don't like being told what to do, others don't like being micromanaged, these form early liberals.

Adam Smith wrote his thing and identified economic rent as the worst thing ever that drives inequity and poverty through all time. He mainly identifies that rent in taxation.

In the US in the same year, decades of little things, like ordering us to stop killing native americans we could use in the wars against France, and including parliament undercutting grey and black market trade, inspired the overwhelmingly liberal bourgeois grey market trade holders, and the southerners afraid the crown would liberate their slaves, to rebel.

In general we see coalitions of people who want fewer regulations and lower taxes against the people who want tighter controls and generally wanted absolute monarchies.

The french sat the monarchists to the right and the liberals to the left.

Other people follow suit and start identifying forms of economic rent besides just taxation. Karl Marx working off of Ricardo's work identifies it in the pay of upper management. Henry George in the US identifies a form in inherited land. Etc.

Rent extraction caused the Irish Famine.

Liberals tended to support abolitionism.

By the early twentieth century the overton window shifted so that everyone was a liberal, really, but some were conservative and some were more radical. US sees the rise of progressivism overwhelmingly on the more liberal ends, creating a new Liberal/Conservative subfactions in the North/South parties. We also see the rise of goldbuggery and a ton of economic hooplah in the states.

JS Mill and the like working from Smith kinda came to the conclusion that we need welfare in general if we want a fair society. He even called that "socialism" in a different world than Karl Marx lived. So early redistributionist policies got associated with liberalism as a position and the whigs as a party.

UK had an initially whiggish (liberal, slightly progressive) Victoria famously at odds with Disraeli, the father of British conservatism. Albert successfully gets her to back out of politics on fear of the public coming for their heads, while Disraeli shines as her majesty's loyal opposition.

Marx happened on a different current from JS Mill and his socialism coming from a history involving the french revolution and shit. It's an extremely specific and loaded term meant to differentiate itself from mere redistributionism, which is the sense JS Mill used for his socialism and one of the senses in common parlance.

But Marxist socialism placed itself on the other side from liberalism, as an explicit vision of the future. In Marx's view Feudalism gave way to mercantilism gave way to liberal capitalism will give way to socialism which will eventually capitulate if we choose to take charge of our own history into an end of history, communism.

Come the red scares and people on both sides do these shell games equating redistribution and welfare with marxian socialism. That's part of how it ends up in the name of the nazi party, they promised to redistribute wealth to the german middle class by killing jews, poors, minorities, communists, and others.

The Roosevelts were both on the progressive, "liberal" ends of their parties despite being in separate parties.

The civil rights act kind of accidentally happens when relatively progressive LBJ is president and Nixon uses his southern strategy to realign the conservatives with the republicans and the liberals with the democrats.

The goldnuts from earlier come into history as the libertarian movement who identify themselves as classical liberals on even more badly misunderstood out of date economics than Marxists. This movement spreads abroad usually calling itself something like The Liberals because they're strawmen of Adam Smith and see themselves as the original and only real liberals.

The British never stopped championing themselves as proponents of liberalism and democracy as they justify colonialism to themselves.

Then the 70s oil shit happened and the Keynesian consensus broke. Milton Friedman and the US's Chicago school lead the next, extremely conservative, anti government and anti tax consensus (which breaks in the 90s) that's close to "classical liberalism" and Reagan doesn't mind standing next to Thatcher as she contrasts liberal democracy against communism or whatever.

A bunch of disaffected USSR defectors also put together an ideology that basically was marxism only replace marx and everything internationalist with extreme american jingoism and replaced the economics with basically the new economic consensus, the stuff HW called voodoo economics. That was neoconservatism.

Without the America Jingoism the economic program alone was neoliberalism, and was the policy of people like thatcher but also new labour and the democrats despite their social progressivism.

So depending on which thread of history you're on, liberal means

- moderate/generic capitalist (historically, but also in contexts like post Soviet countries before they started identifying progressives and socialists with the term as if they're Americans; the sense Lenin and such used in their writings when advocating purges or shit. note also that most democrats are capitalists)

- laissez faire capitalist, especially anti-communist (especially in the neoliberal sense)

- human rights advocate (historically more accurate, now most accurate when people use it to mean progressives or socialists)

and everyone shell games around which definition they're using to make it make sense to them. Because no one really wants to be against human rights and people have differing views on capitalism.

everyone’s too liberal with the word ‘liberal’