Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) were keynote speakers at Progressive Central 2024, which took place on Sunday and Monday just blocks north of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois. Progressive Central 2024 is a conference hosted by Progressive Democrats of America (PDA). Several other progressive organizations partnered with PDA to…
Tax Justice Network has documented that just 0.01% of super rich households relocated after Norway, Sweden, and Denmark introduced increased wealth tax reforms. The evidence challenges corporate media claims that higher taxes on extreme wealth in the UK would lead to an exodus of the super rich.
Only the most fringe, super rich penny pinchers will leave
Tax Justice Network further states:
Research suggests that the majority of wealth holders have strong ties to their countries and a genuine desire to contribute as citizens. Factors such as family and social connections, access to education, and overall economic stability carry more weight than tax levels when it comes to their decision on whether to relocate
It points out:
Our tax proposal ensures that the amount payable by individuals in relation to their net worth remains minimal. For instance, an individual in Spain with a net wealth of 5 million would only pay 34,000 in taxes, which amounts to a mere 0.068 percent of their wealth.
So, the study calls out media claims that most super rich people would leave as “exaggerated and misleading”. When there were marginal increases in the wealth tax in Norway, only 30 out of 236,000 billionaires and millionaires in the country relocated.
Still, the Guardian – reporting on rich people leaving – went with the headline “super-rich abandoning Norway at record rate as wealth tax rises slightly”. One of the people who left Norway was its fourth richest man. But the amount gained from wealth tax increases overwhelmingly dwarfs the amount lost.
Tax Justice Network: solutions and problems
The new study is an in depth look at global inequality and how we can challenge it.
The Tax Justice Network found that globally countries could raise $2.2 trillion annually through following Spain’s wealth tax on the richest 0.5% of households. This is a tax on net wealth above a high threshold. So it’s very modest. It fully preserves peoples’ wealth that does not go over that threshold. Tax Justice Network says that the amount raised would be double what’s needed for developing countries to address climate change.
Such a wealth tax would address runaway economic inequality. Tax Justice Network found that, on average for countries it studied, half the population has just 3% of total wealth. Meanwhile, the richest 0.5% of people own 25.7% of total wealth, a percentage that’s only been increasing.
The organisation notes that a key reason behind this is the disparity between taxes on people working and taxes on people collecting wealth through rent, dividends, and capital gains. While governments tax work-based income progressively, they often apply a flat rate to income collected through owning something. Either that, or it’s not taxed at all.
Such a system results in the super rich in countries such as the UK, the US, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, and France paying proportionately far less tax than low-middle income households. The progressive wealth tax would help solve this.
Tax Justice Network’s head of communications took the study to the BBC:
‘A 2-3% wealth tax on the richest 0.5% like Spain are doing could raise $2tn a year.’pic.twitter.com/qDwiYe3BRg
We get an update from Dhaka, where Bangladesh’s president dissolved Parliament on Tuesday, a day after the long-ruling Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigned and fled the country amid a wave of student protests. The military says an interim government will be formed to lead the country to new elections, but its makeup remains unclear, with many students demanding the installation of Nobel Prize…
Affluent Americans say the economy is just fine — and they’re spending like it is, too. Meanwhile, lower-income consumers are feeling the brunt of a slowdown.
Why it matters: Deteriorating economic sentiment and activity among poorer Americans suggest the economy is at a turning point, even if it doesn’t show up in headline data, since higher-income consumers make up a disproportionate share of aggregate spending.
The share of consumers surveyed by the University of Michigan who volunteered that high prices were eroding their living standards in early July matched a peak first reached two years ago when inflation was at multidecade highs.
What they’re saying: “The lower income consumer is in their own personal recession unfortunately,” Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at the investment firm Bleakley Financial Group, wrote in a note.
Driving the news: The latest University of Michigan report shows that economic concerns are more prominent among poorer consumers than rich ones.
“Despite expecting inflation to ease, consumers remain vociferously frustrated at the persistence of high prices,” the survey’s director Joanne Hsu wrote in a note.
“In recent months, these comments have been much more prevalent among lower-income consumers, who typically have fewer financial resources to help buffer the pain of high prices,” Hsu wrote.
Hsu also noted that lower-income consumers were much more pessimistic about future earnings growth — in nominal and real terms — than higher-income counterparts.
The big picture: Richer consumers may have escaped some of the worst effects of the inflation shock and Fed tightening, particularly as financial assets soar in value.
Lower-income consumers tend to spend a larger share of their earnings on rent, food and gasoline — all categories that have been key sources of inflation in recent years.
Pandemic-era savings have run down; the cost of their debt is getting more expensive. They are less likely to reap benefits from the stock market’s gains.
The bottom half of workers were the sole group to see real wage gains during the peak inflation period. That pattern did not stick: “[T]oday’s growth in real wages is no longer closing the gap between low and high earners,” the Minneapolis Fed found.
The intrigue: Delinquency rates are rising for auto and credit card loans.
“It’s not like millionaires are starting to go delinquent. It’s more like where the rubber hits the road is where delinquencies are going up,” Chicago Fed president Austan Goolsbee told reporters last week.
“So far, like the unemployment rate, delinquencies are trending up, which in the past is a bad sign, but the level is still not especially pronounced,” Goolsbee added.
What to watch: JPMorgan, the nation’s largest bank, sees “a little bit of weakness” among lower-income consumers.
“You see a little bit of rotation of the spend out of discretionary into non-discretionary,” the bank’s CFO Jeremy Barnum told investors Friday during the bank’s quarterly earnings call. Barnum added this wasn’t surprising, given slightly higher unemployment and moderating economic growth.
Citigroup said consumers with lower credit scores are seeing a “sharper drop in payment rates” and more borrowing. Its customers with higher credit scores were driving spending growth, with “continued strong balances in savings,” according to its earnings report, also Friday.
As families across the UK gear up for the upcoming school year, the financial strain of purchasing branded school uniforms looms large for many parents.
School uniform: yearly stress
With the ongoing cost of living crisis, finding ways to save money and cut expenses has become a top priority.
One area where substantial savings can be made is in school uniforms. By lifting the requirement for branded kit, schools could help families see a significant reduction in back-to-school costs – and the stress that comes with them.
Inspired by a conversation between a mother and her child’s headteacher, which successfully led to the removal of branded school uniform requirements at her school, the personal finance experts at latestDeals.co.uk are stepping in to help other parents.
They have launched an innovative web tool, #UniformReform, designed to assist parents in advocating for more affordable and inclusive uniform policies.
How does the #UniformReform tool work?
The #UniformReform tool allows parents to quickly and easily generate a personalised letter to send to their child’s school.
Once generated, the letter is downloadable and printable, meaning that it can be sent via email or handed in physically.
This letter highlights the financial burden of branded uniforms and requests the school to consider adopting a more flexible uniform policy.
The financial impact of branded school uniform
Tom Church, co-founder and personal finance expert at latestDeals.co.uk, explains the significance of this initiative:
The cost of branded uniforms can be a substantial strain for many families, particularly those with multiple school-aged children who may attend different schools and don’t have the opportunity to pass on ‘hand-me-downs’ to their younger offspring.
By allowing non-branded alternatives, schools can lift a heavy burden from parents during these financially challenging times.
Typically, a branded school uniform can cost parents anywhere from 50-100% more than their non-branded counterparts. Aldi’s recent offering of a full primary school uniform for just £5 underscores the potential savings for families when non-branded options are permitted.
The response:
Tom shared that the tool has already seen a significant response from parents just weeks since its launch:
I’ve been amazed by how many people have generated a letter already. The rising cost of living makes it hard to afford branded school uniforms. This tool has made it simple to voice concerns and request a change.
Our goal is to support families and ensure their children can attend school without the added financial worry of expensive uniforms weighing heavy on the minds of parents.
Nottingham University hospitals NHS Trust’s maternity wards are currently under review. Specifically, an inquiry revealed that almost nothing has been done to combat racial bias between patients. This came over two years on from another inquiry on discrimination within the health service
No change at Nottingham University hospitals
Nonprofit Birthrights launched an investigation in March of 2022 on how healthcare professionals treat women of colour in maternity wards. It found that caregivers often dehumanised and subjected them to racism. In some cases, healthcare professionals even coerced women into taking medial treatments:
‘Most of the current policies from Government and NHS England are not explicitly recognising racial bias and discrimination – that is a glaring gap.’
‘A midwife told our inquiry, “one of the things that is embedded in the system is the blame put on black bodies.”‘ @AmyLWGibbspic.twitter.com/Araqoib9iv
After learning about these injustices within the medical space, Birthrights made a series of recommendations for the maternity system to embed. It said that:
We are calling for urgent and immediate action from all parts of the maternity system, including the implementation of our Universal Recommendations
These were to:
Commit to being anti-racist
Decolonise maternity curriculums and guidance
Make Black and Brown women the decision makers in their care and in the wider maternity system
Create safe, inclusive workforce cultures
Dismantle structural barriers to racial equity through national policy change
Nottingham University hospitals has been conducting another inquiry looking into its midwife Services. Despite being years on, it is still seeing the same types of racial prejudice in how services treat pregnant mothers.
Developing investigations
Donna Ockenden – a senior midwife who became concerned about the issue when she initially began interviewing mothers – is leading it. The Ockenden inquiry has been reviewing cases all the way back to 2012. Women have come forward with similar horror stories of bias and disrespect from staff workers, and even other patients, for a separate maternity review focused in the Shrewsbury and Telford areas.
The Nottingham University hospitals investigation into variation in treatment has found that approximately 300 newborns were left brain-damaged or dead. This change in procedure depending on ethnicity is a direct cause of the poorer care provided to Black and brown mothers, with nearly 40 stillbirths recorded between 2022-2024 alone.
The investigation was able to build a better picture of what was happening. The 774 different cases brought forward by families gave a wide range of results.
Despite general improvements to the service’s infant mortality rate and injury reduction, children with Black or brown parents are also still almost double as likely to be at risk of losing their child from pre-term (early) births compared to white parents. Ockenden said:
“Families have told us that they felt dismissed by the trust. They weren’t believed they were in labour. They weren’t believed they were in pain. They were denied admission to the trust” – Donna Ockenden
What’s next?
The Labour government has promised better funding and easier access to health services going into 2025. Labour’s manifesto said that:
With Labour, it will always be publicly owned and publicly funded. But our ambition goes beyond returning the NHS to what it was.
However, many have lost faith in the service through experiences in the past. If the NHS continues to not meet expectations of the public, it will not be successful.
Keir Starmer has suspended seven of his own Labour Party MPs for rebelling over the two-child benefit cap. John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, Ian Byrne, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Imran Hussain, Apsana Begum, and Zarah Sultana were punished after they backed a motion demanding the removal of the two-child limit on benefits introduced by the previous Conservative government.
The benefit cap restricts payments to the first two children born to most families. Why a Labour government would oppose feeding hungry children seems baffling. Until, that is, you consider that this is Starmer’s right-wing Labour government.
Starmer’s first test
MPs voted 363 to 103 to reject a Scottish National Party (SNP) amendment to scrap the cap, giving the government a majority of 260.
However, in addition to the seven who voted with the amendment, more than 40 Labour lawmakers recorded no vote. That shows the level of unease within the party at the measure.
Liverpool MP Kim Johnson said she had voted with the government “for unity” but warned that the strength of feeling within the party was “undeniable”.
The SNP’s Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said Labour had “failed its first major test in government” by choosing not to “deliver meaningful change from years of Tory misrule”. He continued:
This is now the Labour government’s two-child cap — and it must take ownership of the damage it is causing, including the appalling levels of poverty in the UK.
Sir Kid Starver
The popular nickname for Starmer, Sir Kid Starver, is once again making the rounds on social media:
Right for Labour to continue punishing *children* for having parents whose circumstances led them into relying on benefits usually through no fault of their own. Shame on you, shame on Dear Leader Starmer for punishing MPs who put country before party #SirKidStarverhttps://t.co/IANaeHc09apic.twitter.com/246nL0Lr9b
— Mrs Gee #WeAreCollective (@earthygirl011) July 24, 2024
The BBC’s political editor Chris Mason summarised Starmer’s actions:
A prime minister with a narrower majority, a less emphatic win, would perhaps not have dared act so boldly. But with a colossal majority, he has the scope to act ruthlessly, and put down a marker for the months ahead.
Embedding poverty
But, what’s the actual impact of keeping the policy in place?
Charity Barnardo’s chief executive Lynn Perry said:
The two-child limit on benefits is one of the biggest policy drivers of child poverty.
The majority of families receiving universal credit are in work, and many are struggling for reasons beyond their control – such as a family break-up, the death of a partner, or someone losing a job amid the cost-of-living crisis.
The Resolution Foundation found that two in five large families – families with three or more children – are affected by the benefit cap. They also found that in 2018, 70,000 families were affected by the two child limit. However, by April 2024 450,000 families were affected by the benefit cap. They continued:
The Foundation’s analysis shows that if the policy were abolished today, it would lift around 490,000 children out of poverty.
Let’s not mince words, here. When families are affected by the two-child benefit cap that means children are going hungry. It means families can’t afford to feed themselves. It’s as simple as that. And, either the prime minister cares about that or he doesn’t – and clearly he doesn’t.
Dissent
The suspension of MPs who believe children shouldn’t be forced into poverty has, of course, not gone down well with other MPs. Nadia Whittome said:
The government’s approach to party discipline has been appalling. No MP should have lost the whip for their vote this evening, especially on a policy that almost everyone in Labour opposes.
If “almost everyone” does actually oppose the policy, then clearly they’re putting politics before people. Whittome continued:
Our party has a huge majority. If it is to govern from a position of strength, it should be able to tolerate disagreement without making threats and employing the most severe punishments.
This does not breed a healthy culture. If MPs are unable to stand up to the frontbench when they think they’re wrong, the government is more likely to make poor decisions.
A healthy culture is something Starmer has long abandoned during his leadership with the purging of left-wing members.
Joke country
Meanwhile, because Britain is a joke of a country, the King will be receiving a near-50% pay increase. That means Charlie will have an extra £45 million income. Money is not the problem. Politics is the problem. We have a political system full of politicians that take their turn in the hot seat to facilitate the sinking of thousands of people around the country into avoidable poverty. There’s a new nasty party in town, it appears.
A new benchmark – like the Living Wage Employer standard – is needed to enable businesses to tackle the scale and depth of in-work poverty, think tank the Social Market Foundation says.
Social Market Foundation: in-work poverty a “major issue”
The Social Market Foundation (SMF) has launched a proposal for an in-work poverty benchmark. It is designed to enable employers to tackle in-work poverty among their staff, supply chain and the communities they operate in.
Over three years, the SMF has been exploring in-work poverty in the capital, businesses’ desire and barriers to addressing it, and has proposed a tool that could help them in doing so.
In-work poverty is a major issue in the UK, and has increased over the last two decades. It is most acute in the capital, with around a third (32%) of households where at least one adult is employed were in poverty in 2022/23.
Private sector and public sector employees that spoke to SMF as part of its in-work poverty project expressed a clear need for better provisions for sick pay, flexibility, in-work progression and upskilling, sufficient hours and subsidies to cover the high cost of living in the capital.
The SMF’s proposals come at a time when Keir Starmer and the Labour government have put employment reforms front and centre of legislative changes at the King’s Speech.
A new benchmark for employers
Its proposed benchmark – similar to the Living Wage Employer scheme, where businesses commit to paying their employees a wage that meets the basic cost of living – is designed with relatively low barriers to entry and providing clear “pathway” for firms to follow to improve their anti-poverty offer, and could play a key part in helping the Labour government achieve it’s ‘Plan to Make Work Pay’ ambitions.
Previous Social Market Foundation (SMF) research found that an overwhelming majority (84%) of London’s businesses viewed in-work poverty among their workers as a concern, and that 70% of them are motived to help tackle it by taking voluntary measures above and beyond legal minimums – such as paying the National Living Wage.
While the benchmark has been developed with Londoners and London employers in mind, it is just as relevant for and applicable to businesses in the other parts of the UK, the SMF said.
The proposed benchmark is unique in that it covers a wide variety of drivers of in-work poverty, encouraging businesses to help employees with cost of living pressures, financial resilience, and pay and conditions.
The SMF’s proposed benchmark has been taken on by the Living Wage Foundation, who will be leading on a new phase of the benchmark development process, with continued SMF involvement, and exploring how to transform the benchmark into a practical business tool, trusted by employers, investors, consumers and workers:
Making a “big difference” to in-work poverty
Richard Hyde, senior researcher at Social Market Foundation, said:
In-work poverty is a huge problem in London. The contrast between the wealth of the UK’s capital on the one hand, and the high rates of poverty of those in work on the other, is stark. It poses a real challenge to politicians and we need feasible ways of dealing with it.
The SMF spent three years developing the outline of a potentially practical remedy. Building on the available evidence base about the causes of in-work poverty and following extensive engagement with stakeholders from the business community as well as trade unions, poverty charities, the public sector and with relevant academics, we have proposed a comprehensive in-work poverty benchmark for employers that could help encourage businesses to take the kinds of steps that will make a big difference to those workers in London that are stuck in in-work poverty.
We are very excited to see this idea being taken forward by the highly respected Living Wage Foundation, who have been leading the fight in the UK against in-work poverty for many years with their ground-breaking use of employer accreditations to tackle this problem.
Katherine Chapman, director of the Living Wage Foundation, said:
More than 15,000 UK employers have committed to paying the real Living Wage, including 3,900 in the capital. It’s clear that many employers want to play their part in tackling poverty. With nearly a million adults in London living in poverty despite living in a working household, this commitment is crucial.
This benchmark sets out how employers can go even further by boosting pay and conditions, supporting workers with the rising cost of living, and fostering long-term economic resilience among their workforce.
We’re thrilled to be launching a project to translate this benchmark into something that will work in practice, aiming to develop an accreditation for responsible employers and change the face of in-work poverty in London and across the UK.
“Work should be a way out of poverty” – but it’s not
Klara Skrivankova, director of grants at Trust for London said:
Work should be a way out of poverty. But more than half of Londoners in poverty are working.
Businesses can help change this and do more to support workers. We know that many employers want to, but often don’t know how.
This benchmark puts forward an actionable, measurable approach that will help businesses to play their part in addressing in-work poverty in London.
The death toll in Bangladesh from a crackdown on massive student protests has risen to at least 174, with more than 2,500 people arrested, after police and soldiers were granted “shoot-on-sight” orders amid the unrest. The protests were in response to a highly contested quota system for civil service jobs, with 30% of government positions reserved for relatives of veterans who fought in the…
Content warning: this article continues descriptions of physical and emotional abuse that some readers may find upsetting.
With the police’s announcement that there is a “national emergency” over a rise in violent crime against women and girls – with a record number of nearly 3,000 crimes reported daily – you would automatically assume that this crime is happening on the streets. Or maybe you would think that these crimes are happening in poorer areas of the country – you know, the really run down places that you wouldn’t want to be in on a cold, dark night.
But what if I told you that this is happening to women and girls in loving, well-cared-for homes with the crimes being carried out by medical professionals and social services? Because it is.
It is happening right now, as I type, to Megan McIntyre.
On Tuesday 23 July a protest took place to raise awareness of an 18 year-old woman called Megan McIntyre who is allegedly being mistreated, physically and verbally abused, and held against her will in an NHS facility after being violently taken from her home:
But this wasn’t by criminal thugs or gang members – well, not officially anyway.
This was by the police, social services, and medical professionals.
Megan McIntyre’s voice
Megan is a Scottish and English national disabled gymnast and athlete:
She lives in Scotland with her mother Shona McIntyre who is also her legal guardian:
Megan’s ARFID was triggered after an incident at her gym. For the last seven months she has begun losing weight – although she was eating three meals a day with snacks. As a concerned mother would, Shona took her daughter to see a dietitian who simply offered Megan “health shakes”.
When the shakes arrived, Megan – noticing the difference in packaging and texture – refused to take them. Living with ARFID, she would only take her usual protein drinks. This was a clear sign of the illness that medical professionals completely disregarded.
Megan continued to lose weight, with medical professionals and authorities accusing Shona of “not cooperating” and “not trying different things”.
With Megan now losing 2kg every week and with no offer of a home IV drip, Shona asked her GP if Megan could be given nasogastric (NG) tube feeding at home. Shona believed this would be a solution to her daughter’s serious weight loss due to the ARFID.
Sadly this was again refused. And the situation then got seriously worse.
Ripped from her home
On Monday 15 July whilst Megan and Shona were at home, three police vans, a doctor, a social worker, and nurses arrived at their property. As Shona wrote on a petition for Megan:
They demanded to be let in or they would use force to break the door down.
I let them in as they had a warrant. They found my daughter hiding under the bed.
The fear in her eyes was awful, she ran and tried to get out the front door it was locked, down she ran into my bedroom in to the bathroom.
By this point I couldn’t count how many people where swarming our home. I asked them to back off from the bathroom as she was getting so distressed, they refused, so I attempted to close the door a bit more for her privacy.
The policeman was in the way, in my distress I hadn’t realised, he grabbed me and pinned me on the bed and put handcuffs on me, they held my ankles and pushed my face into the bed and told me I had assaulted an officer. My neighbour was here so witnessed it all and said I most definitely didn’t assault anyone.
Then the screaming began. Screams that will haunt me for the rest of my life.
Taken from her life
As Shona was being handcuffed and held down by cops:
Four police officers dragged [Megan] out of bathroom… she was trying to grab onto anything, I couldn’t see properly as they kept pressing my head into bed.
When she saw me she yelled let go of her, Megan doesn’t speak much so this shows level of distress too. I didn’t see what happened after as they tore my vulnerable girl away from her safe space. My neighbour said she’s glad I didn’t see.
They took her to an unknown place and for hours no one knew where she was. Eventually we were told. She had been taken to a locked adult Learning Disability Psych ward. I asked to see her they refused saying she was too distressed. I said I hope you haven’t pinned her and drugged her, they said they hadn’t.
I called in the morning they said she had slept well….the reason for that was they had drugged her and pinned her without telling me so she was totally sedated so no wonder she slept!
When Shona was finally told where her daughter was being held she was informed that she “will be safer at a hospital – not in the community”.
The William Fraser Centre – accused of mistreatment
Megan had been taken to the William Fraser Centre at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital, which is a unit for the provision of psychiatric care and treatment for learning disabled people. Clearly not a medical ward, Shona goes on to describe the horrors that she then found her daughter in:
I visited the next morning at 10am, I was asked to leave at 11am after no explanation or answers to any of my questions were given! Megan clung to me and for the next two hours they tried to prise her arm and hands off me using force and restraint but she didn’t let go she held on through the pain.
This went on for almost two and half hours.
She had told me they lay on the back of her knees crushing them into the floor and she could hardly walk when she got up. She has hypermobility and is recovering from an knee injury.
Shona has not been accused of neglect and is Megan’s legal guardian. Yet she has not received any paperwork, documents, or emails over the decision to remove Megan from her care.
Whilst Megan has been under the care of the William Fraser Clinic she has continued to lose weight – 2kgs in just five days. Staff have allegedly forcibly manhandled and physically assaulted her, and even called her a “spoiled brat”.
The hospital has also decided that Shona is not allowed on the premises to even see Megan. All of this has led Shona to having to set up a petition for legal support.
Time to protest for Megan McIntyre
Crucially, with a lack of ARFID specialists to help Shona managed to get in touch with an organisation called Autistic Inclusive Meets UK. Its CEO, activist and author Emma Dalmayne, told the Canary:
When we heard about the unconscionable abuse Megan is suffering at the hands of mental health staff in The William Frasier Centre Centre, we knew we had to act; and act quickly. The staff responsible should be charged with assault.
Megan should not be there, she is not mentally ill. Tragically, we have see many cases of autistic people being taken by force and placed into unsuitable settings, this won’t be the last person repeatedly assaulted and discriminated against. More education is desperately needed.
So, along with Shona, friends, and allies they took direct action outside of the facility holding Megan. Using #MegansVoice and #FreeMegan they desperately tried to raise awareness of Megan’s situation:
As Shona told the Canary:
My beautiful and vulnerable daughter is dying
As the protest from 11am-3pm continued outside of the William Fraser Centre the Canary was given footage showing Megan trying to hold Shona’s hand through the window of the facility and desperately seen trying to take “safe” food from her:
The upsetting footage also shows Megan explaining that staff are hurting her, and that she just wants to go home with her mum:
The Canary contacted NHS Lothian, which runs the William Fraser Centre, for comment but it had not responded at the time of publication.
Violence against women and girls: a systemic emergency – in the system
Shona will continue to protest in the hope of getting the right support for Megan – and to make sure that this doesn’t happen to anyone else. Yet we are as chronically ill and disabled people constantly left in this position.
From people living with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS) to people living with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), from #MaeveInquiry to #SaveCarlasLife and #BringMillieHome, there is a clear, systemic issue that needs to be addressed here.
Why are so many of these women’s medical needs dismissed, leaving them at risk of violence against them?
Just why are so many mothers disbelieved and not taken seriously when they know their child better than anyone else?
And why are so many women’s serious conditions completely disregarded by our NHS – from ARFID to instabilities of the neck like craniocervical and atlantoaxial?
And why does it seem that this mentality is spreading within our society and also within practiced medicine?
What more can chronically ill and disabled people do? What more can Shona do?
We have protested, we have blocked roads, we have made documentaries, and we have gone to parliament. Shona and so many of us are shouting as loud as we can. Yet still, no one seems to hear us.
You can sign the petition in support of Megan here.
Featured image and additional images and videos supplied
On Tuesday 23 July, campaigners, politicians, and trade unions gathered at parliament to call on the new Labour Party government to provide #FreeSchoolMealsForAll. You’d think, given the evidence, that giving all primary and secondary children free school meals would be a sure-fire move from Keir Starmer’s government.
‘Free School Meals For All’: campaigning at parliament
It shouldn’t need saying, but providing free school meals to all primary and secondary school children in England is a crucial measure that can significantly improve the health, well-being, and educational outcomes of millions of students.
Currently, the entitlement to free school meals is limited, leaving many children from low-income families without access to this essential support. Expanding this program to include all students would address food insecurity, promote equality, and enhance academic performance.
So, the National Education Union (NEU)-powered campaign No Child Left Behind organised a rally outside parliament on 23 July:
Today 200+ people are in Parliament Square to demand that the new Government end child hunger in schools.
Of course, these people were right to call on Labour to act – as the situation and the evidence shows just why the government needs to.
Entrenched poverty and inequality
As of 2022, approximately 4.3 million children in the UK live in poverty, accounting for around 31% of all children. In England, about 1.9 million children are eligible for free school meals, but this leaves a substantial number of children who are still in need but do not meet the eligibility criteria. This is because of Universal Credit’s tight rules around free school meals.
The current system fails to cover children from working-poor families who earn just above the threshold, resulting in many children missing out on the benefits of free meals.
Food insecurity is a pressing issue that also affects children’s ability to learn and thrive.
According to a report by the Food Foundation, 14% of households with children experienced food insecurity in 2021. Children who are hungry or malnourished are less likely to concentrate in class. This in turn leads to poorer educational outcomes.
By providing free school meals to all children, England can ensure that every child receives at least one nutritious meal a day. This is fundamental for their physical and cognitive development.
Promoting equality, enhancing performance
Free school meals for all would also promote equality among students.
The current system creates a visible divide between those who receive free meals and those who do not. This potentially leads to stigma and social exclusion. By offering free meals to every child regardless of their background, schools can foster a more inclusive environment where all students are treated equally.
This universal approach would help eliminate the shame and embarrassment that some children might feel. It would encourage better social integration and a sense of belonging.
Research has consistently shown that well-nourished children perform better academically. A study by the Institute for Social and Economic Research found that children who received free school meals made more progress in school than those who did not.
Proper nutrition is linked to improved concentration, better behavior, and higher attendance rates. All of these contribute to better educational outcomes. By ensuring that all children have access to nutritious meals, schools can create a more level playing field and help close the achievement gap.
‘An investment in all our futures’
Experts in nutrition and education advocate strongly for the expansion of free school meals.
Dr Mary Bousted, former joint general secretary of the NEU, argues that:
a universal free school meals program would be a game-changer for education in England. It would remove the barriers that hunger creates and allow all children to engage fully in their learning.
Similarly, Dr Megan Blake, a food security expert at the University of Sheffield, emphasises the long-term benefits:
Investing in free school meals for all is an investment in the future of our country. Well-fed children are healthier, more focused, and better equipped to succeed academically and socially.
Overall, as the No Child Left Behind campaign says:
We are living through the greatest cost of living crisis in a generation, and too many families with young children are being pulled into poverty.
Free school meals for every child will put money back in parents’ pockets. That’s money they can use to pay for other essentials for their children, from heating and food at home to hobbies and after-school clubs.
Free school meals: do it now, Labour
Implementing free school meals for all primary and secondary school children in England is a necessary step toward addressing child poverty, promoting equality, and enhancing educational outcomes.
With a significant number of children living in poverty and many more experiencing food insecurity, a universal free school meals program would ensure that every child has access to the nutrition they need to thrive.
By investing in the health and well-being of our children, we invest in the future prosperity of our society.
You can support the No Child Left Behind campaign. Use its template to write to your MP here. Also, sign its open letter here.
The death toll in Bangladesh from a crackdown on massive student protests has risen to at least 174, with more than 2,500 people arrested, after police and soldiers were granted “shoot-on-sight” orders amid the unrest. The protests were in response to a highly contested quota system for civil service jobs, with 30% of government positions reserved for relatives of veterans who fought in the country’s independence war against Pakistan in 1971. The country’s high court rolled that back Sunday to only 5%, but students are still demanding that a curfew be fully lifted, schools reopened, and detained students and protest leaders released. “The collective anger that you’re seeing is over inequality, lack of opportunity, and a perception that those who are close to the ruling class and ruling elite are getting all the benefits,” says journalist Salil Tripathi, author of a book on the Bangladeshi war of independence.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
The king’s speech on Wednesday 17 July was nothing if a direct play to the Labour Party’s now-target audience: the middle classes and middle England. Because within the 39 bills, there was nothing that would directly support the poorest and most marginalised people in the UK.
Labour: the party of Gordon Brittases
Keir Starmer’s ‘landslide’ victory was mainly thanks to politicians and those in power spending decades disenfranchising the poorest people from democracy – so, on 4 July they didn’t even bother voting. Labour, rather than ‘sweeping’ to power, cuckolded in off the back of a hatred of the Tories and an equal disdain for politicians of all stripes.
Based on preliminary analysis, Labour’s voter base consisted of the middle classes and middle England. There was a smattering of working-class people who voted for them. But overall, the poorest people abandoned all political parties; a theme since 2015.
So, New-New Labour has a mandate – but only if that mandate is a government of middle managers tasked with overseeing the dregs of colonial Britain. Ergo, the king’s speech on 17 July was a fitting agenda for this party of Gordon Brittases.
Mealy-mouthed measures dressed up as radicality
For example, snivelling trade unions have been making an almighty fuss about Labour’s New Deal for Working People. In reality, it’s a mealy-mouthed piece of corporate servility dressed up as something radical. For the avoidance of any doubt, Labour is:
NOT giving all workers rights from day one. There is a loophole which will let bosses “operate probationary periods to assess new hires”. Cue said bosses making one-year probationary period.
NOT making flexible working mandatory. Bosses only have to implement this “as far as is reasonable”.
In other words, Starmer’s band of David Lloyd area managers have promised a load of shit with their fingers crossed behind their backs.
Elsewhere in the king’s speech, there was the predictable anti-immigrant laws, an improvement on conversion therapy nullified by Wes ‘twunk on a ship‘ Streeting’s ban on treatments for trans teenagers, and the renationalisation of the railways which isn’t really full renationalisation at all.
A lot for the few, nothing for me and you
However, the glaring omission from Labour’s plan to *insert PR firm-created buzz phrase here* was anything – literally ANYTHING – for poor people.
For example, outlets like the Big Issue – which present themselves as somehow radical, LOL – have trumpeted Labour’s Renter’s Rights Bill because of the banning of no-fault evictions and laws around safety in properties. But this is window-dressing when parasitic landlords (i.e. all of them) can still charge whatever the hell they want.
Moreover, this particular bill is the prime example of Labour playing to its new voter base. Most of the poorest people in the UK do NOT privately rent. They live in social housing. It’s the middle classes who have the largest proportion of private renters.
But why would Labour do anything for any of these people? In the hollowed-out husk of the already splintered remnants of what politicians repeatedly told us was a democracy, their voices don’t matter – and never really have.
The king’s speech from Charlie outlined the Labour Party’s first programme for government in 15 years. Wearing the diamond-studded Imperial State Crown, his Admiral of the Fleet uniform and the crimson Robe of State – whatever the hell that all is – he delivered Labour’s proposals from a golden throne in the House of Lords upper chamber after a carriage procession from Buckingham Palace.
Prime minister and professional wet wipe Keir Starmer said:
We will unlock growth and take the brakes off Britain.
Whatever that means also.
The details of the speech promised a new border security command with beefed-up “counter-terror powers” to curb “immigration crime.” Starmer pledged to “smash the gangs” behind migrant crossings of the Channel from northern France.
Great, the starving kids will be ecstatic to hear it.
King’s Speech: read the room
Commenters on X also took a dim view of the proceedings:
Just a reminder that as King Charles travels across London in his golden chariot, wearing the crown jewels worth 4 billion pounds to sit on his gold throne…
Green MP Sian Berry pointed out what Starmer missed out from the king’s speech:
Listened intently but what was clearly missing from the #KingsSpeech was INVESTMENT. NHS Council homes Green New Deal And powers for councils to run buses are but little use without INVESTMENT! Green MPs will keep making the case that our country deserves better. https://t.co/gMnx33TYA4
And, it’s hard to get away from the cost of the whole palaver:
Britain today:
Record numbers turning to food banks while a million-pound-hat gets a private escort in its own fancy Royal carriage. And we’re made to pay for it all too.
Hospitals in England are being hit with disruptions to patients’ care more than 100 times every week because of fires, leaks and problems created by outdated buildings.
And Charles has the audacity to sit in front of a gold wall, wearing stolen jewels, to read out Starmer’s burbling about brakes?
Corrupt
More people couldn’t believe the sheer wealth on display during the king’s speech:
– 14.5m people living in poverty, including almost one in three children
– 30.6m Britons unable to afford the cost of essentials
And, that wealth made its way round to the jokers not covered in furs and jewels. openDemocracy’s Adam Ramsey wrote in 2023:
In total, openDemocracy estimates that Labour shadow cabinet members and their staff accepted luxury gifts from Google worth nearly £10,000 over the months before they announced their policy U-turn. By contrast, the value to the British public of the policy Labour appears to have ditched is estimated at around £3bn.
Former leader of the Green party, Caroline Lucas, said:
Plenty to welcome in new #KingsSpeech but lots of gaps too – eg no commitment to taking water sector out of grip of profiteers & putting into public hands, no plan to address poverty including lifting brutal 2 child benefit cap, and a big hole where nature restoration should be
The two-child benefit cap is a shocking omission. The SNP are joining with Labour rebels to force the government to scrap the cap. The SNP’s Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said:
The two-child cap is pushing thousands of Scottish children into poverty – and scrapping it is the bare minimum the Labour Party government must do if it is serious about tackling poverty.
Howard Beckett made the link that often has to be made:
1.6ml children are impacted by the Tories two child benefit cap
For all Starmer’s barely disguised dogwhistles about immigration, his actual policies laid out in the speech don’t seem to do much to tackle child poverty, a broken benefits system, or a crumbling NHS. No matter which monarch it is, and no matter which prime minister it is, this country is broken because our political system is broken.
It’s outrageous that we even have these rich scroungers as figureheads of the country reading out a speech from a government that has dragged the labour movement further and further to the right.
As usual, Britain has no idea how much of a joke it looks to the rest of the world.
On 15 July, news emerged from Glasgow that 3,000 children are currently homeless. While this is a particularly harrowing statistic for Scotland’s largest city, this homelessness crisis is not confined to Glasgow or Scotland. It is a reflection of a broader, more pervasive issue that plagues the entire UK. The responsibility for this crisis does not lie squarely with the SNP. Because it’s the Conservative Party which has failed to address the systemic issues that underpin child homelessness.
Glasgow: a microcosm on UK homelessness
The stark reality in Glasgow is a microcosm of the UK-wide homelessness crisis. Across the nation, hundreds of thousands of children are without a stable home, a situation that has profound implications for their health, education, and future prospects. The Conservative Party, which was in power at Westminster for 14 years, bears sole responsibility for this dire state of affairs. Austerity measures, cuts to social services, and a failure to invest adequately in social housing have all contributed to the rising tide of homelessness.
For Scotland in particular, successive Tory governments also cut block grant funding – meaning by 2021 it was worth around 2% less per person. However, the news about Glasgow’s homelessness crisis came at the same time the Herald revealed the Scottish government had cut its affordable housing budget.
However, thanks to botched devolution, Scotland is still tied to the rest of the UK. Decisions politicians and others make at Westminster, in the Bank of England, and the Treasury and other departments still impact north of the border.
Meanwhile, under Tory leadership local authorities across England have seen their budgets slashed, leading to a reduction in support services that are crucial for vulnerable families. The Bedroom Tax, Benefit Cap, and Universal Credit system have disproportionately affected low-income households, pushing many into precarious housing situations. These policies have created a perfect storm, leaving hundreds of thousands of children without a safe place to call home.
Labour: more of the same?
The recent change in Westminster government, with the Labour Party now at the helm, has brought renewed hope for tackling homelessness. However, its plans will not go far enough. Broadly, the party has pledged to do very little different to the Conservatives – and has made only vague statements around social housing.
Another key criticism of Labour’s approach is that it does not address the root causes of homelessness.
While building more social housing is undoubtedly necessary, it must be accompanied by broader reforms to the welfare system, healthcare, and education. Homelessness is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted response. Without addressing the underlying economic and social factors that contribute to homelessness, Labour’s plans risk being little more than a sticking plaster on a broken leg.
Moreover, Labour’s plans must contend with the legacy of austerity and cuts that have left local authorities struggling to provide basic services. Reversing these cuts and restoring funding to essential support services will be critical in providing the safety net that vulnerable families need. This includes mental health services, addiction support, and employment programs that can help families break the cycle of homelessness.
A Starmer government will not end homelessness
The homelessness crisis among children in Glasgow is a national disgrace that demands urgent action. It is a stark reminder of the failures of both the Conservative Party and the SNP to protect the most vulnerable members of society.
The new Labour government must rise to the challenge and implement bold, comprehensive measures to address the root causes of homelessness. This includes not only building more social housing but also reforming the welfare system, investing in support services, and tackling the broader social and economic inequalities that drive homelessness.
Sadly, it is unlikely it will do this.
The plight of 3,000 homeless children in Glasgow is a tragic reflection of a much larger problem that affects the entire UK. It is imperative that all levels of government work together to create a society where no child has to experience the trauma and instability of homelessness.
Over two-thirds of Welsh billpayers (70%) are calling for energy suppliers to automatically return any customer credit in their account after winter following the success of a mass protest which saw 20,000 demand their cash back. It comes after a campaign group revealed energy companies are hoarding £3bn in customer credit.
Energy suppliers sitting on £3bn of customer credit
Over 20,000 customers joined the Big Energy Credit Claim Back launched in May, which urged supporters to reclaim unused customer credit. The protest was launched after a Warm This Winter investigation revealed UK energy suppliers are sitting on over £3 BILLION worth of customer credit, with nearly a third of UK households (32%) in the black to their energy supplier all year.
Further analysis found that the combined bank interest energy suppliers have made through customer credit balances was at least £159m in 2023.
Billpayers have claimed back an average of £330 from energy suppliers in the mass protest organised by the Warm This Winter coalition which is now calling on the next government and Ofgem to introduce an automatic credit return of people’s cash after each winter.
Hailed as a huge success for people power, Warm This Winter spokesperson Fiona Waters said:
People are fed up with energy suppliers keeping hold of their cash, making millions in interest on it and then customers often struggle to get their money back from reluctant suppliers. It’s common sense that after winter, if they have credit on their account it should automatically be returned to them and that’s why so many people joined the Big Energy Credit Claim Back.
The campaign proves that by a simple measure, bill payers can slash on average over £300 from their annual energy bills which is much needed and there is no real reason why an automatic cash back isn’t implemented.
Get your customer credit back
Customers who pay their energy bills by direct debit are incentivised with better deals to spread payments over 12 months, building up a pot of credit from July onwards to cover the winter months when they will be using more energy on heating.
In May, if their account is in credit, then experts including Martin Lewis have pinpointed this as the time to reset their balance and get back credit before they start saving again in July.
But under the current system, this is not automatic and instead, the onus is on consumers to claim back their credit which can be complex and in some cases, suppliers do not return the excess credit.
New research by Warm This Winter on how easy it is to claim back credit revealed nearly a third of Welsh billpayers (28%) found it difficult to get credit back.
Nearly a quarter (24%) felt their direct debit payments had been set too high and of those who got their credit back 13% were paid after a fortnight or more, 6% are still waiting for their money to be returned at the time of polling and 14% were refused their money even though they were in credit.
Simon Francis coordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition commented:
Credit hoarding by energy suppliers must become a thing of the past.
Over a third of people in permanent credit to their energy firms live in households with low incomes and may have cut back on energy use or other essentials because the direct debits set by energy firms are far too high.
Let’s hope that once general election fever is over the regulator wakes up and introduces a new licence condition on suppliers that credit balances are refunded after each winter on an opt-out basis.
A ‘disgrace’
The Warm This Winter research conducted by Opinium this month which surveyed over 2,000 people across the UK also revealed a quarter of Welsh people (23%) who paid by direct debit found understanding how their direct debits were calculated was difficult and a similar number (22%) of UK adults felt it was also hard to understand how much energy they use.
Groups that also backed the Big Energy Credit Claim Back include 38 Degrees, National Pensioners Convention, and Fuel Poverty Action. They have also called for Ofgem and the next government to close this loophole.
Jonathan Bean from Fuel Poverty Action said:
It’s disgraceful that Ofgem has allowed energy firms to hoard our money during the cost of living crisis. Our money should be refunded automatically, with interest. Energy firms are deliberately overcharging and making it hard to get the refunds we are due. This exploitation must stop.
Economic growth allows the few to grow ever-wealthier. Ending poverty and environmental catastrophe demands fresh thinking
Economic growth will bring prosperity to all. This is the mantra that guides the decision-making of the vast majority of politicians, economists and even human rights bodies.
Yet the reality – as detailed in a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council this month – shows that while poverty eradication has historically been promised through the “trickling down” or “redistribution” of wealth, economic growth largely “gushes up” to a privileged few.
While the Conservative Party is crowing about GDP and the fact the UK has technically come out of a recession, buried in the figures was some news they probably didn’t want you to hear: your disposable income has actually fallen since 2019. In fact, it has been the worst period for income growth since at least the 1950s.
The UK: out of recession… technically…
Britain’s economy emerged from a short-lived recession in the first quarter with stronger-than-anticipated growth, upwardly revised data showed Friday, lifting embattled Prime Minister Rishi Sunak before next week’s general election.
GDP grew 0.7% in the first three months of this year, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said, upgrading the prior growth estimate of 0.6%. Market expectations had been for no change.
The surprise modest improvement was driven by the services sector, with slightly stronger activity in the professional services, transport and storage.
However, the ONS had revealed earlier this month that the UK economy had stagnated in April with zero growth, but the performance was hit by wet weather.
The economy contracted slightly for two quarters in a row in the second half of 2023, meeting the technical definition of a recession that was caused by elevated inflation that has prolonged a cost-of-living crisis.
But behind these figures was bad news for the rest of us.
Tories: presiding over a fall in your disposable income
Real household disposable income (RHDI) was one per cent lower in Q4 2023 (the latest data at the time of the last General Election) than it was in Q4 2019. Although there is still more data to be released before we can conclusively assess progress up to the 2024 election, it is likely that the 2019-2024 Parliament will have been the worst for income growth since at least the 1950s.
Moreover, it also found that:
Taking a longer view, typical non-pensioner incomes have grown since 2009-10, by £1,900, or 7 per cent. But again, this level of income growth – equivalent to an average annual real-terms change of 0.5 per cent, or £140 a year – is unusually low by historical standards.
And had we experienced the same level of growth in median incomes between 2007 and 2022 as the Netherlands, France and Germany, the UK’s median income in 2022-23 would be £2,700 higher than actually observed.
The economy is a top issue for many voters ahead of the 2024 presidential election. In a lengthy interview ahead of the first presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, world-renowned progressive economist Robert Pollin offers a detailed and thorough assessment of the actual state of the U.S. economy and the effects of Biden’s economic policies. Pollin is a distinguished university…
Poverty should be the headline general election issue
CAP’s director of external affairs, Gareth McNab, said:
Poverty in the UK is a matter of public urgency. It’s vital that any candidate standing in this general election appreciates this is an emergency situation. National polling that CAP commissioned with YouGov last year showed that almost 90 percent of adults in the UK want to see poverty tackled.
Data from our online tool shows more than 4,700 emails have already been sent to candidates, with 56% asking what their candidates are doing to tackle poverty locally.
14.3 million people including 4.3 million children, are living in poverty in the UK, according to the DWP. However, most recently the Trades Union Congress (TUC) released new figures. As the Canary previously reported TUC analysis shows that the number of kids living in poverty with at least one parent in work increased by 900,000 (44%) between 2010 and 2023 – the equivalent to 1,350 a week.
The TUC says in 2023 there were three million kids in working households living below the breadline in the UK.
Children growing up in poverty in working households now account for:
69% of all children in poverty.
24% of all children in working households.
Spiralling debt
Meanwhile, according to CAP their debt service is unable to help almost half of the people who come to them for help because they are trapped in deficit budgets (meaning no matter how much a person cuts back, their essential outgoings are higher than their income).
In addition to increasing people’s income to meet the Minimum Income Standard, we also need to focus on public services such as public transport and free school meals, which will help to keep people’s costs down.
The online tool provided by CAP allows people to easily question their general election prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs) about what they are doing to tackle poverty. Anyone can use CAP’s online tool here, which takes just a couple of minutes to fill out and send.
Poverty: an impossible situation
Anthony spoke about why poverty matters to the election this year. He said:
This is an impossible situation, and I just see the divide between the rich and poor growing greater. Even though I only spend money on essentials such as food and bills, and even skip meals, my monthly income is £200 short.
I’d love to get to the point where I could afford to take my kids to watch a film, but unless poverty is put on the political agenda, I can’t see any end in sight. The help provided by Christians Against Poverty has given me a glimmer of hope, but it shouldn’t be left to charities.
In an era of retrenchment in social policy, food assistance is becoming more generous and inclusive. But Republican politicians are attempting to gut one of the most popular programs: free school lunch.
Analysis by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) shows the Tories have presided over a 44% (+900,000) increase in the number of kids growing up in child poverty in working households between 2010 and 2023. The TUC says a “toxic combination” of pay stagnation, rising insecure work, and cuts to social security have had a “devastating impact on family budgets”.
Child poverty has rocketed
Child poverty in working households has increased by over 1,300 a week, on average, since 2010 – according to new TUC analysis published on Tuesday 25 June. The analysis shows that the number of kids living in poverty with at least one parent in work increased by 900,000 (44%) between 2010 and 2023 – the equivalent to 1,350 a week.
The TUC says in 2023 there were three million kids in working households living below the breadline in the UK.
Children growing up in poverty in working households now account for:
69% of all children in poverty.
24% of all children in working households.
Toxic combination
The TUC says that a “toxic combination” of wage stagnation, rising insecure work, and cuts to social security have had a “devastating impact” on family budgets.
Real wages are still worth less today than in 2008 and the union body estimates that had they grown at their pre-crisis trend since the Tories took power the average worker would be over £14,000 a year better off.
And separate analysis from the TUC shows that the number of people in insecure, low-paid work has increased by nearly one million during the Conservatives’ time in office to a record 4.1 million.
Economic reset
Meanwhile, analysis from the Resolution Foundation on 25 June confirmed wage growth has stagnated under the Tories. It found that average wages are now only £16 a week, or 2.5%, higher in real terms than they were at the time of the 2010 election.
The TUC says Britain urgently needs an economic reset. And it called on political parties to make reducing child poverty a national priority.
TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:
No child in Britain should be growing up below the breadline.
But under the Conservatives we have seen a huge in rise in working households being pushed into poverty.
A toxic combination of pay stagnation, rising insecure work and cuts to social security have had a devastating impact on family budgets.
We urgently need an economic reset and a government that will make work pay. Reducing child poverty must be a priority in the years ahead.
Janine Jackson interviewed the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s Kennedy Smith about the proliferation and impact of chain dollar stores for the June 14, 2024, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
As the American Prospect (1/19/24) reports, Dollar General has also been fined by New York and sued by Ohio and Missouri for business practices that harm consumers.
Janine Jackson: Some listeners may have seen the story of Dollar General stores in Missouri being caught cheating customers by listing one price on the shelf, then charging a higher price at checkout. It’s a crummy thing to do to folks just trying to meet household needs. And yet it’s just one of many harms dollar stores—some call them deal destinations—are doing to communities across the country. What’s the nature of the problem, and what can we do about it?
JJ: Well, dollar stores are sort of like fancy restaurants. If they aren’t part of your life, you might not even physically notice them. But they’ve been proliferating wildly in recent years. In 2021, as the Institute’s report, “The Dollar Store Invasion,” begins, nearly half of new stores that opened in the US were chain dollar stores, a degree of momentum with no parallel in the history of the retail industry.
Now, I want to talk through specific problems, but could you maybe start by talking about where these stores are and what’s giving rise to them, which connects directly to what they do?
KS: Basically, they are everywhere. They are in 48 states now. They haven’t quite made the leap yet to Hawaii and Alaska, but they began—the two major chains, Dollar General, which is headquartered in Tennessee, and Dollar Tree/Family Dollar, which is now in Virginia Beach, Virginia—began by radiating out from their headquarters. And so we see heavy concentrations of them sort of in the east and the southeast. They are now marching across the country and entering all kinds of markets.
And they have slightly different profiles. Dollar General tends to be a little more rural. They tend to go into smaller rural communities. Dollar Tree tends to be more suburban, and Family Dollar tends to be located primarily in urban neighborhoods.
And they are being fueled by a variety of factors, including consolidation in the grocery industry and people’s desire to find more affordable food and products in general are driving people to believe that dollar stores are offering them a better value.
And in fact, that’s one of the tricks that the dollar stores play on people, is that they actually are getting poor value and usually paying more in a per ounce or per pound basis than they might be if they were shopping at a traditional, independently owned grocery store or hardware store or office supply store, whatever it might be.
JJ: It sounds like they’re filling a need, like they’re reaching to an overlooked group of people. And it reminds me a little of check-cashing stores, where folks who are oppressed economically in terms of their wages, so they don’t get to bank in a regular way, and then these fill-in spots show up and it’s perverse, you know.
But it’s also just not how a lot of folks think things work. They see these things, oh, these are cheap stores. These are for folks who can’t afford as much as, you know, maybe some others. And this is filling their need. That’s exactly what it’s not doing.
So let’s start on this “17 problems” that you engage in a pullout piece of the Institute’s work on this. What are some of the big things you lift up as the harmful impacts?
KS: Well, I should mention, to begin, that these are 17 of the problems that we hear mentioned most frequently, but there are plenty of others. And there are slight variations around the country. For example, in areas of the country that are susceptible to flooding and to hurricanes, there’s a lot more concern about the environmental impact of these stores and what it might mean in terms of stormwater runoff, because one of the problems with dollar stores in general is that they tend to have a very thin operating model. They’re thinly staffed. They look for inexpensive land. They build cheap buildings if they’re building new buildings. And so they’re not likely to want to afford to put in stormwater retention basins and things like that. So there’s some regional variations.
But in general, the things that we find to be the biggest problems are, one, their economic impact on the community, and two, their sort of social impact on a community. In terms of the economy, they are a direct threat to independent grocery stores. And there are a number of studies now that have come out that have looked at what that impact is.
There’s one that the USDA did last year, which found that basically grocery store sales will decline by 10 percent when a dollar store enters the market. There was one that was done by the University of Toronto and UCLA in 2022 that found after looking at 800-some dollar stores, that when you have three dollar stores within a two mile radius of one another, they’re likely to kill a grocery store that’s there.
And that has a huge impact on a community because grocery stores are really community anchors in many ways and are responsible for providing their community members with healthy food as opposed to the sort of overly preserved things that you’re likely to get at a dollar store, like a box of macaroni and cheese or a box of sugary cereal or something like that. When a community loses its grocery store, it can be devastating.
And the same thing can be true for some of the other categories, industry categories on which dollar stores tend to compete, like hardware and like office supplies and school supplies. Those are important anchor businesses for communities that people don’t want to lose.
On the sort of social side of things, there are a number of problems and probably first and foremost is crime. Because they are so thinly staffed, dollar stores are easy targets for robberies. It’s very easy for someone to come in and just reach into the cash register, grab cash and leave. And communities complain about this all the time. I have literally hundreds of news articles that I’ve clipped about dollar store crime.
They also have poor labor practices. They pay their workers less than the independently owned grocery stores that they’re threatening. They tend to promote workers to assistant manager relatively quickly, which means that they’re then exempt from overtime, and they make them work 40, 50, 60, 70 hours a week. They’ve been sued several times, both of the major chains, successfully by groups of workers or former workers for wage theft for exactly that.
There are other things, too. One of the things that we have observed and a researcher actually at the University of Georgia in the Geography Department has reported on and written about is that they tend to target black and brown neighborhoods. Dollar General, for example, 79 percent of its stores tend to be located in majority minority neighborhoods. And we think this is a little bit parasitic. And we also think that they’re looking for places where the community is likely not to have as much influence at City Hall as somebody in another neighborhood. And we think that’s just despicable.
JJ: Well, if I could just bring you back to that economic impact for a second, because it’s not that they are able to deliver better things cheaper, just to spell that out. That’s not what they’re doing.
A More Perfect Union investigation found that Dollar General frequently charges more than its competitors for staple goods but “masks the high cost from consumers by stocking smaller pack sizes.”
KS: Correct. No, they’re selling similar products, but the packaging that they’ll sell them in tends to be smaller. And therefore, on an ounce-by-ounce basis, we find that the products are often actually more expensive for consumers to buy. It’s a practice called “shrinkflation.” There are a couple of other names that it goes by—”cheater sizes.”
JJ: So it’s not, well, they just build a better mousetrap. That’s how capitalism works. That’s not what’s going on.
KS: Yeah. You know, it’s funny that you mention capitalism because in communities that are where a dollar store has been proposed to be built and the community kind of comes out and opposes it, the people who tend to support the idea of the dollar store coming in tend to say, well, that’s just capitalism. That’s just free market economics.
It isn’t. Free market economics are based on having a level playing field. And that’s why all of our major antitrust laws were developed a century ago, because we wanted for small businesses to be able to compete on the same playing field as bigger businesses. One of the things that dollar store chains often do is that they will go to their suppliers, their wholesalers, and say, we want you to offer this product to us, but not offer it to our competitors, do not offer it to grocery stores. Or we want you to make a special size for us of a package that no one else can get. And we can price it the way we want.
Those are blatant violations of federal antitrust laws. And I think that on a federal level, we need to begin paying attention to that. And the same thing at the state level, while communities themselves are doing what they can to fight dollars for proliferation at the local level.
JJ: OK, I don’t shop at dollar stores. I’m just a taxpayer. Why should I care about the issue of dollar store proliferation as a taxpayer?
KS: Well, I think there are a number of reasons, but one of the biggest reasons I would think as a taxpayer is that tax revenue that would normally accrue to the community, and wages that would normally accrue to the community, are now leaving the community, and they’re going to a corporate headquarters where they’re being either reinvested in corporate expansion, or they’re being distributed to shareholders or being used to pay off their investors.
There’s an example that we cite in one of our reports about Haven, Kansas, which had a local grocery store that was there that was paying $75,000 a year in property taxes. So the city was getting that revenue. A dollar store came in, a Dollar General store came in, and within a couple of years, the grocery store couldn’t hold on anymore. The dollar store had eked away just enough of its sales that it couldn’t hold on. And so it closed. The dollar store was paying $60,000 a year in property tax. So the city right off the bat is losing $15,000 a year in property tax revenue that it had before.
But not only that, as a concession to attract the dollar store, the city council had agreed to basically rebate half of the municipal utility taxes that the dollar store developer would have paid for two years. That was $36,000. So now all of a sudden the grocery store is gone and the city is losing $51,000 a year in property tax revenue.
And that’s just an example of tax revenue. We’re not even talking about the wage differential and the fact that dollar stores typically only have one or two staff employed at a time, whereas a grocery store might have 30 or 40 people employed. And the dollar store, Dollar General, is at the rock bottom of the 66 largest corporations in terms of hourly wages. So the community is just losing right and left.
JJ: Right. Well, what happens when communities recognize that, and they resist these dollar stores? I know that the Institute tracks that as well.
KS: Dollar General tends to work with developers who build buildings for them that they then lease for 15 years, usually with three five-year expansion options. And the developer is going to try to minimize costs. And so the developer tends to look for inexpensive land, which tends to be land that is often zoned for agricultural use, or on a scenic byway, or in some kind of rural area, or maybe on the edge of a residential neighborhood.
And to do that, they have to go to the city generally and request a zoning variance. And that’s where the battles tend to develop, is people come out and say, no, we want this area to remain zoned like it is, because there was a reason for that, that we wanted it zoned that way. And we don’t want to change that. I’ve tracked 140 communities now that have defeated dollar stores. And in 138 of those, all but two, they’ve been defeated based on the city denying a zoning variance request.
The other two—it’s something pretty exciting that’s happened recently. In Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana—which is where Hammond and Ponchatoula is, if you know Louisiana—last spring, a developer came to the Planning Commission and submitted plans to build a Dollar General store. It was an unzoned parcel of land. There was no zoning, so he wasn’t requesting a zoning variance. He simply had to have his building plans approved.
The Planning Commission turned him down. And they turned him down based on their police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, which is a completely novel approach. We had not seen that happen before. The developer appealed that to the parish council. The parish council supported the Planning Commission.
The developer then sued. And last September, the trial took place. And then in November, the judge—in a, you know, this is a pretty conservative part of the country—the judge ruled in favor of the parish and said that they were completely correct in using their police power to protect the health and safety of the community by denying that developer the right to build a dollar store there.
JJ: Wow.
KS: This is a kind of groundbreaking thing. There’s another community that we found, Newton County, Georgia, used essentially the same approach. So we’re getting to have now sort of a body of case law that provides a precedent for a community saying, wait a minute, forget, I mean, zoning is one thing, but these stores are unhealthy for our community. They’re not good for the economy. They’re not good for jobs. They’re not good for the environment. They’re not good for crime. And we’ve had enough.
JJ: Well, it sounds as though that community involvement relies a lot on information and on advance information. They have to know that this is in the planning process to know about the points that they could intervene, which is wonderful. But it also suggests, as I know the work does, that there could be interventions from a higher level, including from the federal level. What do you see as potentially useful that could happen there?
KS: Well, at the federal level, we would, of course, like to see stronger and more vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws that we already have on the books. The Robinson-Patman Act, the Sherman Act are all laws that are there to prevent exactly what’s happening with dollar store proliferation. And states can also adopt those same laws at the state level to provide some protection there. And that may be, in some instances, easier than getting federal attention.
States also are being pretty aggressive in looking at things like scanner errors, which you mentioned. In fact, the former attorney general of Ohio—well, first of all, the current attorney general of Ohio has investigated and fined Dollar General a million dollars for scanner violations. Basically, the price someone sees on the shelf is not the price they’re being charged by the scanner when they check out. The former attorney general of Ohio, a guy named Marc Dann, is now putting together a class action lawsuit against the dollar store chains for scanner errors, which he’s estimating Dollar General loan is making hundreds of millions of dollars annually in scanner errors because they’re so huge and they’re almost always in favor of the company and not the consumer.
The adage is, “the best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago.” And often communities don’t think about protecting themselves from this sort of proliferation, this kind of predatory business expansion until it’s too late. But for those who are seeing this happening around them in other communities and thinking about it, it makes a lot of sense to put some protection in place right away.
And some of the things that communities are doing are things like what we call dispersal ordinances, which basically say you cannot build a new dollar store within X distance, two miles, five miles of an existing store so that we don’t have the market crowded with them. Or they’re putting in place ordinances like just happened in a town in Oregon that I saw that has put in place a formula business ordinance saying we want to have retail diversity in the community. We don’t want to have 10 identical pizza places. We don’t want to have five identical grocery stores. We want to have diversity. So therefore, we are fine with one dollar store, but not with five.
JJ: Well, finally, information seems key to all of this—information of the actual impacts of dollar stores and then about the possible levers of potential resistance. And that brings me back to news media and reporting. The report itself on the dollar store invasion got coverage, absolutely. But of course, the implications go well beyond covering the report itself as an event. What would you like to see finally more of or less of from news media on this set of issues?
Kennedy Smith: “I would like to see more in-depth coverage of the impact of dollar stores once they’ve been in a community for a while…. I don’t see much looking back and saying, oh, yeah, we lost Ford’s grocery store and we lost the Haven grocery store, and these are the breadcrumbs that led to that outcome.”
KS: That’s a great question. I think I would like to see more in-depth coverage of the impact of dollar stores once they’ve been in a community for a while. I don’t see much on that. I don’t see much sort of looking back and saying, oh, yeah, we lost Ford’s grocery store and we lost the Haven grocery store, and these are the breadcrumbs that led to that outcome.
I’d also like to see more news media tying this to threats to democracy, because if we have major corporations that are able to basically extract this kind of money, this vast volume of money from communities and make it difficult for independently owned businesses to compete, then we’ve changed what the nature of capitalism is. And we need to get back to the roots of what democracy is about. And that really is about having a level playing field for small businesses, for every American to basically have the opportunity to create a business enterprise and thrive and reinvest in their community. And that’s being taken away from us.
JJ: Well, we’ll end it there for now. Kennedy Smith is a senior researcher with the Independent Business Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. You can find a lot of work on dollar stores, along with much else on their site, ILSR.org. Kennedy Smith thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
The most common jobs in the United States are home health care aide, retail salesperson and fast-food and counter worker, which are all tied for first place on a long list of professions tracked by the government, according to analysis of federal data by The Washington Post. From caring for the elderly to serving the lunch rush, people who work these jobs are bedrocks of the everyday economy.
The Internal Revenue Service announced Monday that it is cracking down on a complex maneuver that corporations and rich individuals use to avoid taxes, the agency’s latest enforcement action since receiving a badly needed infusion of funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. The new IRS policy targets a tactic known as “basis shifting,” whereby business partners move “the tax basis of their assets…
New research shows how Britain’s primary schools and GP surgeries are staggering under the weight of hardship as they divert resources to respond to the needs of those struggling to afford the essentials. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) conducted a study to discover how millions of people experiencing hardship is impacting key public services. Hardship was defined in the study as people going without essentials like food, heating, and appropriate clothing because they can’t afford it.
The stark results showed a widespread impact across all parts of Britain. It showed significant resource of time and money is being used to help those affected, with knock-on effects for pupils and patients not experiencing hardship.
JRF is calling on all politicians to “get serious” and understand that they can’t fix our public services unless they deal with hardship “at source” ahead of the general election.
Hardship: the scale of the problem is shocking
In a survey of staff in primary education and primary and community healthcare (for example GP surgeries):
Nine in 10 said hardship had had an impact on their own work, their colleagues or their organisation.
Six in 10 staff said poverty had made it harder to do their job well.
Seven in 10 said supporting people who can’t afford the essentials was a challenge in their organisation.
Around four in 10 said hardship is a factor that is contributing to them thinking about leaving their job.
In focus groups, teachers told of being unable to start teaching on time because they had to leave the classroom to deal with distressed parents facing homelessness or find warm clothes and food for children who were going without. They also discussed how overcrowded housing, including temporary accommodation, leaves children tired, and how much time goes into getting tired, hungry children ready to learn.
Rocketing incidences of hardship
Staff at GP surgeries described appointments being used to get prescriptions for over-the-counter medicine such as Calpol because the patient couldn’t afford to buy them at the pharmacy, or to ask for letters to stop evictions. When practices are already struggling to meet demand, staff said this put even more pressure on them to provide appointments to everyone who needed one.
JRF/Thinks Insight polling of staff in primary schools and primary and community healthcare services across Britain also found:
On average, primary school staff estimate 48% of their pupils had experienced hardship at some point since the start of the school year.
Primary and community healthcare staff estimated 57% of patients they had seen had experienced hardship, at some point over the last 12 months.
Almost half (49%) of respondents from primary care, and a third in primary schools, said that they were providing a food bank as part of their service.
‘Shameful levels’ in the UK
Katie Schmuecker, principal policy adviser for the JRF said:
Hardship has reached a shameful level in our country, with almost four million people finding themselves in destitution in a single year – unable to keep themselves dry, warm and fed.
As the parties compete to lead the UK after 4th July, we need them to get serious about tackling the scale and depth of hardship which is afflicting millions and holding families back from building better lives.
No plan for our schools or NHS should be taken seriously if it doesn’t include tackling hardship. Leaving millions to live without essential items such as enough food or heating doesn’t just rob people of options or dignity, it also adds to the pressures on the services we all rely on.
Primary schools and GP services are staggering under the weight of hardship – it shouldn’t fall to them to ensure families are not going hungry. As a country we need our politicians to address hardship at source, not look the other way.
We still need to hear from all our politicians on how they’ll take urgent action to support families, as well as setting out bold, long-term solutions which ensure that everyone in our country can at least afford the essentials.
The impact of hardship in primary schools
Primary school staff report seeing increasing numbers of children who are hungry, tired and in need of emotional support because they are experiencing hardship. This was the case in both more and less deprived areas.
Getting tired, hungry and upset children ready to learn eats into resources and classroom time. Parents and carers breaking down in tears at the school gates and looking to the school for help also takes time away from core duties, with some schools creating job roles specifically to respond to this need. As trusted and visible services in the community, many now feel like the first port of call for help.
One deputy head teacher in greater Bristol said:
You feed them, you clothe them, you tell them where to go if they’re homeless. It’s literally everything. It’s not even about teaching or learning. It’s about keeping them fed, keeping a roof over their head. Writing letters to MPs, writing letters to GPs, writing letters to housing services. It literally doesn’t stop. It is a first line service because you’re having to provide that support for every single thing that families need because who are they going to go to?
More than half of staff said hardship meant there was a greater requirement for resources like staff time. Moreover:
One third of staff said their school has reduced school trips to fund or provide support towards hardship.
One third said their school provided a food bank.
Four in 10 said their school has extended free school meals.
57% said their school offers free or subsidised food (outside of free school meals).
59% of staff have increased stress or low morale as a result of the hardship they see at school.
Dealing with hardship is beginning to affect all the children in the class, as teachers have to address immediate needs which meant not starting teaching on time. One staff member said:
There are classes that haven’t got a teacher in front of them because a teacher is trying to help a parent with something that’s happened.
Staff also see opportunities for enrichment activities reduced as schools have to cut back in order to fund or provide support for children and families experiencing hardship.
A deputy head in Manchester said:
We cannot provide as many extracurricular opportunities such as trips and visits as we would like, we cannot ask our parents to pay for them. It just results in our children getting a raw deal and not having as many life opportunities even though we really do try our best.
The impact of hardship on primary and community healthcare
Staff across primary and community healthcare experienced hardship impacting their work, with staff reporting the impact of hardship on patients’ mental, physical, and dental health. This has an impact on the service they provide:
Almost half said hardship led to an increased demand for services.
Two in five said there was a greater requirement for resources like staff time.
Nearly two thirds said they were increasingly under pressure due to the hardship they saw.
More than two in five said that the impact on their work of patients experiencing hardship has made them think about leaving their job.
In JRF focus groups, it was clear that hardship adds to need and demand for appointments. It causes and exacerbates ill health, leading to more complex conditions and more frequent, longer appointments.
One practice nurse in Greater Manchester said:
Problems are always worse in the winter. Especially with chronic diseases like respiratory problems especially if people are suffering from hardship and not being able to afford bills and they’re living in cold, damp houses, the elderly… everything’s kind of flaring up and exacerbating.
Patients experiencing hardship have become such an everyday occurrence that healthcare settings are having to provide additional services, with half of staff (49%) saying their service offers a foodbank. Around a fifth (22%) say staff provide for patients out of their own pocket.
One GP described her experience:
I think a lot of the time we encourage people to go to the pharmacy first for some simple treatments, but then of course patients often have to buy them from the pharmacy so it does then clog up our system because they can’t afford to buy it from the pharmacy so they come to the surgery and we’re short of appointments already.
With the general election just weeks away, Tynah Matembe – money expert, Edinburgh based entrepreneur, and founder of MoneyMatiX – has criticised the government’s track record on financial inclusion. She has also highlighted the fact that the main parties are not discussing the issue and ignoring what Matembe calls “financial apartheid” in the UK.
Financial inclusion – but only if you’re white
‘Financial Inclusion’ means ensuring that everyone, regardless of their differences, has access to affordable, convenient, and appropriate financial services such as bank accounts, loans, insurance, and investment opportunities. It aims to eliminate the barriers that prevent marginalised groups from fully participating in the economy.
Matembe has called on whoever takes ‘the keys to Number 10’ to finally prioritise financial inclusion for all segments of society, as millions of people continue being left behind and significant injustices and disparities in financial wellness persist, particularly for Black and brown people.
She believes it is time for radical measures that tangibly involve Black and brown in critical discussions to prioritise dismantling the staggering disparities that plague the UK’s financial system in a crucial bid to safeguard fair and stable economic growth for the UK.
For example, as MoneyMatiX noted on its website, Matembe says:
According to a 2021 study by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), 60% of Black adults in the UK feel financially excluded, compared to 37% of white adults. I have personally experienced fundamental racism from financial institutions and anchor organisations both as a person of colour and as a black founder.
Addressing the reason why she thinks the issue is not part of the election narrative Matembe said:
Politicians might think that financial inclusion is already being adequately addressed through existing policies and programs, or that it is an issue being handled by financial institutions and regulatory bodies rather than needing direct political intervention –unfortunately this is not the reality for people of colour.
A manifesto for change
Now, she has published her own manifesto for change, commenting:
We have suffered ridicule, oppression, and systematic denial of financial opportunities for too long in an untenable, degrading structure designed to enslave and maintain an oppressive class structure which leaves people of colour at the bottom of society, similar to colonial Britain.
Matembe added:
I have prepared this manifesto simply because all the main parties are ignoring the issue of financial inclusion. Through this manifesto, I hope to expose the shocking realities of financial exclusion. As a first-generation migrant, I am writing from first-hand experience, and I will continue to speak out until my message is heard. Hopefully the new parliament adopts some of my practical solutions to ensure everyone in the UK can access essential financial services.
Financial exclusion is a crisis affecting millions of people, locking them out of the financial systems that should support them. This exclusion perpetuates cycles of poverty, limits economic growth, and destabilises communities. Matembe added:
Simply put, we are not accounted for, and there is no real appetite to account for us. We go unseen, set aside by almost every player’s inherent bias as poor, needy, and unable.
Matembe’s manifesto combines unique education, signposting, tailored curated products, and services to address the intersecting issues causing poverty and financial exclusion. For example, recent statistics show that around 1.1 million UK adults are classed as “unbanked” – that is, without a bank account.
However, there are racialised disparities. For example, in 2022 10% of Muslim people had no bank account. Around 6% of people of Asian heritage had no bank account. Both of these are compared to 1.7% of white people. Plus, around 7% of chronically ill, disabled, and non-working people did not have a bank account in 2022.
Ending the UK’s ‘financial apartheid’
Matembe said:
Now is the time to drive forward the financial inclusion agenda. The election provides a unique opportunity to implement targeted policies and practical initiatives that involve strategic partnerships, deeply embedded in the communities they seek to serve. It is imperative that both the community and thought leaders like us, are an integral part of this process, ensuring that initiatives are grounded in real-world needs and expert insights. Political parties vying for power must demonstrate a solid commitment to making financial inclusion a cornerstone of their policy agenda.
Financial inclusion is a fundamental human right that must be a major election issue in dealing with Britain’s economic challenges. Implementing focused policies, infrastructure investment, and financial literacy promotion is not a luxury but a must.
This manifesto is a rallying cry for justice, equality, and economic prosperity. It is a call for radical change. The financial exclusion of people of colour is a stain on our society and a massive economic blunder. The time for empty promises and superficial changes is over. We demand genuine, impactful actions to dismantle the financial apartheid and pave the way for a truly inclusive economy.
Her final message to whatever party wins the general election is:
The ball is in your court. Engage with us, listen to us, and take decisive action. The future of our nation’s economic health depends on it. Together, we can dismantle the hidden financial apartheid and build a fairer, stronger UK.
This week on CounterSpin: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote dozens of pages justifying his decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, stating the Constitution does not confer the right to determine whether or when to give birth. None of those pages mention his intention to make the United States “a place of godliness,” or his belief that there can be no compromise on such concerns, because “one side or the other is going to win.” Yet those are thoughts Alito freely expressed with a woman he thought was just a stranger at a public event. So: Will elite news media now suggest we just go back to considering the Supreme Court a neutral body, deserving of life terms because they’re above the fray of politics? How long until we see news media take on this pretend naivete, and how much it’s costing us? Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR.org and the newsletter Extra!. We talk to him about that.
Also on the show: The news that “the economy” is doing great on paper doesn’t square with the tone-deaf messaging from food companies about mysteriously stubborn high prices: Kellogg’s says, sure, cereal’s weirdly expensive, so why not eat it for dinner! Chipotle’s head honcho says you are not, in fact, getting a smaller portion for the same price—but, you know, if you are, just nod your head a certain way. None of this indicates a media universe that takes seriously the widespread struggle to meet basic needs. Which may explain the failure to find the story in the upsurge in dollar stores, supposedly filling a void for low-income people, but actually just another avenue for ripping them off. We talk about that with Kennedy Smith from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
Boris Johnson’s flagship policy when he was Conservative Party prime minister has failed, according to new analysis. Everyone outside of London and the South East should know about it before the general election.
Levelling Up: a failure by the Conservatives
There are very few signs of Levelling Up, with disparities in living standards and productivity between various English regions and UK devolved nations remaining unchanged or widening since the last general election, according to the latest analysis by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) ahead of this general election.
The Levelling Up process – as set out in the 2022 White Paper after it was Boris Johnson’s brainchild – had the important ambition to narrow the economic and social gap between the regions of the United Kingdom by 2030.
However, NIESR research shows that the gap in living standards between the London and the South East and the North East has grown, and productivity differences between London and the South East and the West Midlands have also increased.
The combination of insufficient central government resources and the slow disbursement of relatively small pots of money has meant that progress on the 12 main Levelling Up missions has been feeble.
NIESR projections of living standards and productivity suggest that unless some fundamental change occurs, there will be no significant progress by 2030.
To change the course of action and start reducing regional inequalities, NIESR recommends the next government to:
Substantially increase the level of public investment to at least 4-5 per cent of GDP per year.
Speed up the disbursement of Levelling Up funds according to clear economic and social criteria.
Reform the operation of government, with better cross-government coordination and greater decentralisation of both decision-making powers and resources in policy areas such as skills, transport, infrastructure and housing.
Everyone should know this before the general election
Professor Adrian Pabst, deputy director for public policy at NIESR, said:
Levelling Up is the right idea but it has been a policy failure.
Notwithstanding the various shocks like Covid-19 and the spike in inflation, Levelling Up has not happened because of a lack of resources and the slow disbursement of small pots of money. If the next government wants to reduce regional inequalities, it will need to combine political leadership with a credible programme of public investment of 4-5 per cent of GDP per year, which can unlock greater business investment.
Bringing about sustained regional regeneration is a generational task, and we require a commitment that is at scale.
The graph that says it all is below – showing the London and the South East have been the only big winners since the Tories brought in Levelling Up: