The bill is meant to make the often laborious process of transitioning easier. It would do this by streamlining the process of changing one’s name on legal documents like birth certificates.
Reaction
The bill, which can be accessed here, was welcomed by many. Stonewall Scotland told Pink News:
This is another milestone in Scotland’s journey to join over 30 countries around the world who have moved to a demedicalised process for legal gender recognition, affording trans people dignity and humanity.
Campaigners called it “fantastic news”:
Fantastic news. MSPs vote overwhelmingly in favour for reform of the GRA at Stage One with 88 voting in favour and 33 against. The bill now moves to Stage 2 and we look forward to working with all MSPs as the Bill continues its legislative process. #ComeOutForTransEquality
A Liberal Democrat MSP welcomed the development, saying that every day the reforms were not enshrined in law harmed trans people:
I was proud to rise for my party to speak in favour of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in Parliament today.
Every day we don’t reform Gender Recognition Act, it continues to harm our trans citizens. A simple change to law that will make a world of difference.
Even a Tory MP broke with his party to vote for the bill. Jamie Greene told his fellow politicians:
I know what it feels like to be told how you feel is just a phase or somehow be suppressed, or even worse you are immoral, delusional or mentally ill, destined to a life of misery.
He said that there was work to be done:
Let me clear, outcomes for trans people in Scotland are shockingly poor – poor access to medical help, poor access to physical and mental health, high rates of suicide and self harm, and failure to tackle growing transphobia. This bill fixes none of that, maybe it should.
Progress
It can only be hoped that the bill passes through parliament smoothly. What’s more, is it hard not to agree with Jamie Greene. This bill is a step in the right direction and should be lauded, but there is still plenty to be done to make sure trans people can live their lives with the dignity they deserve.
Energy giant Shell made £8.2bn in the last quarter despite the ongoing energy crisis. Initial reports from The Times indicated that they hadn’t paid any tax at all on this massive profit margin.
But, it’s even worse than that. It turns out Shell actually received a tax rebate from the UK government for the firm’s North Sea operations:
Shell tells me it's actually received a tax rebate from the UK government for its North Sea operations so far this year
As the tweet shows, Shell’s global profits were $30 billion this year. None of which has any direct bearing on you, because neither you nor your chilly grandma will see any of it.
Windfall tax?
Experts have suggested it might be time to enforce a windfall tax. Do you think? The New Economy Organisers Network tweeted that government excuses for letting global mega-corporations off the hook weren’t adding up:
Shell have doubled their profits in just 3 months to £8.2 billion. The government is saying it has to make difficult choices, but here's a really easy option to help out families who are struggling this winter – a windfall tax on windfall profits.@tessakhan of @ThisWinterUKpic.twitter.com/xdqjDjtPhA
One social media user quipped that it was good to see Shell’s struggling shareholders finally get a pay rise:
Some good news at last today. Shell Oil has made £8bn in profits on top of the £28bn it made a few months ago. It's about time those struggling share holders had a decent pay rise. £1000 per second in profits will keep the wolf from the door. pic.twitter.com/Wl7DAXirWy
Shell and the rest of the energy giants are clearly getting mate’s rates from governments – including our own. They’ve done nothing to deserve what are effectively doubled profits. And even when they do pay a bit of tax, they get a rebate from the British state. That’s the same British state which could intervene and set fair energy prices, but has chosen not to despite the implications for people who can’t afford to heat their homes.
Even a modest windfall tax could help millions of households through the winter if it was enforced properly – but, of course, that must be the first step in a move away from fossil fuels altogether.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been forcing more chronically ill and disabled people to prepare for work. This provision is taking place specifically under Universal Credit. However, we’ve only been able to see this after the DWP was forced to release the figures. This new data shows that the department is saving money. But, these figures also mean that the DWP may be denying countless people their full social security entitlement.
The DWP WCA
The Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is how the DWP decides if a claimant is too sick or disabled to work. Sometimes, it says that claimants currently cannot work. But the DWP still makes them do activities like attend work-focused interviews at the Jobcentre. This is because the department says they’ll be ready to work at some point. However, the WCA is extremely flawed: from the conduct of the private companies that run assessments to the deaths of claimants declared “fit for work” by WCAs.
The DWP first started using WCAs for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), and has released figures on them since 2010. Under that benefit, the DWP puts people into two groups based on the WCA. The first is the Support Group, where it says people are too sick or disabled to work. The other group is Work-Related Activity Group (WRAG). This is where the DWP says people cannot currently work, but will be able to in the future. It also uses them for Universal Credit, placing people into two similar groups. However, the DWP has never released figures for the outcomes of WCAs on Universal Credit – until now.
Finally releasing the figures
As Disability News Service (DNS) reported, the DWP has finally released the information, but only from July 2021 to March 2022. DNS editor John Pring wrote that after the department said it would make the data public four years ago:
The Office for Statistics Regulation told DWP earlier this year – following a complaint from [DNS] – that its failure to publish universal credit WCA statistics left “a gap in the information available” and that there was a “wealth of evidence around the need for transparency around Universal Credit WCA statistics”.
for every month… – apart from November 2021 – the proportion of claimants going through the [WCA] who were found fit for work, or were placed in the group of those expected to carry out work-related activity, was higher for those seeking support through universal credit… than for those receiving [ESA].
Pring doesn’t commit to the reason for this. However, it is possible to.
DWP: forcing more chronically ill and disabled people to prepare for work
The Canary dug further into the data the DWP provided. It showed that the DWP found roughly the same percentage of people fit for work on Universal Credit and ESA. From July 2021 to March 2022, 20.19% of Universal Credit WCAs resulted in a ‘fit for work’ decision. This was compared to 21.45% on ESA. The percentages of those who the DWP says do not have to work are also similar on both benefits. The figures are 61.51% on Universal Credit and 64.69% on ESA – a difference of just over 3%. However, there was one area where the figures were very different.
Under Universal Credit, the DWP is forcing more chronically ill and disabled people to ‘prepare’ for work – putting them in the Limited Capability for Work (LCW) group. This figure is 18.26% of all WCA outcomes – versus 13.83% on ESA in the equivalent WRAG. That’s a 32% increase in the number of people the DWP is saying can’t work at that time but should be getting ready to. This shows a major increase in the number of chronically ill and disabled people who the DWP is forcing to do activities such as interviews with work coaches, in order to get their social security entitlement.
The increase correlates with a sharp rise in the number of economically inactive people. These are people who aren’t working or aren’t looking for work. This might partly be down to more chronically ill people. The rise in the DWP LCW group decisions also fits with an increase in Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claims. The point being that there might be more sick people now claiming social security. But the DWP says these people will have to work at some point.
A money-saving DWP exercise?
Of course, the end result of this is that the DWP also saves cash. The people it puts in the LCW group do not always get extra money. This is specifically if people are making new claims. If the DWP put them in the Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity group, they would get £354.28 a month more. The department putting more people in the LCW group may also be linked to the introduction of over-the-phone WCAs in 2020. The DWP itself admitted that at first these phone assessments “resulted in a limited range of outcomes”, and it had to do second WCAs on people. This is probably because a phone assessment is no replacement for an in-person one. As such, the information the DWP can get about people is limited.
The DWP leaving chronically ill and disabled people languishing in the LCW group is dire for those affected. It means less money, the stress of having to complete tasks to get paid, and the constant, looming threat of the DWP forcing them into work. These new figures from the department confirm that this is happening.
Now, the DWP need to release the full figures for all WCA outcomes since it launched Universal Credit. We have to be able to properly scrutinise the department’s actions toward those it’s meant to support.
Saturday 5 November is bonfire night – and a major protest against the Tory government will also be happening. As always, everyone needs to get involved. But this time it’s more urgent than ever, given the escalating cost of living crisis.
People’s Assembly: back again
The People’s Assembly has called what it says will be a “huge demonstration” on 5 November. It will bring together trade unions, campaign groups, politicians and activists in a march from Embankment to Trafalgar Square via parliament and the river Thames:
The protest starts at 12pm, and so far has the support of:
Trade unions including Unite, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF), the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) the National Education Union (NEU), and the Communication Workers Union (CWU).
Campaign groups including Keep Our NHS Public, NHS Workers Say No, Stop the War, Disabled People Against Cuts, the Black Lives Matter Coalition, and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).
Social and climate movements including the Peace and Justice Project and Extinction Rebellion.
The People’s Assembly and its supporters have a clear set of demands. These are that the Tories should:
Call a general election.
End the cost of living crisis.
Tax wealth to fund public services and support people with their energy bills.
Nationalise the energy, water, postal, and rail industries.
End Britain’s ‘low pay crisis’, anti-trade union laws, the housing crisis (by building council homes), and the outsourcing and privatisation of NHS and Public Services.
Not a small list for the Tories – but one which is important.
Tories: “totally unaccountable”
Former Labour MP (and now ex-Labour member) Laura Pidcock is the People’s Assembly’s national secretary. She said in a press release:
This Tory Government is now totally unaccountable. But outrage is not enough. We have to come together, as a movement, to organise on the streets and in our communities and show that our voices will not be silenced and that we want fundamental changes to the way our country is run. We will not get that from the politicians, we will only get that from the strength of a united, vibrant movement of working-class people coming together, building together, and making change together.
What’s interesting about this People’s Assembly protest, nearly a decade after the group was born, is the change of language and position regarding Labour. It was historically supportive of the party under Corbyn, albeit without directly campaigning for him. However, now we see no reference to Labour at all, and Pidcock openly saying politicians (of any stripe) will not deliver the “fundamental changes” we need.
5 November’s demo also clashes with an RMT strike – although the union has given its blessing and support to People’s Assembly. RMT general secretary Mick Lynch has some strong words to say in its favour:
To circumvent the rail strike, People’s Assembly has organised coaches from across the country to London. However, the lack of trains may have an impact on the final numbers for the march.
People’s Assembly: good luck
It will be interesting to see how this demo pans out. People’s Assembly will be having its tenth birthday next year. In its early days, marches were fairly well attended, although numbers have waned in recent years.
However, given the huge pressure on millions of people due to Tory-induced financial chaos, maybe we’re about to see a resurgence of mass, organised marches. Whether the Tories will listen or not remains to be seen. However, a mass protest is surely worth a try. Because if not now, during the worst financial and social crisis in decades, when? If not a demo, when the left and working-class people need to be united, what? Not doing anything is not an option. So, see you all on 5 November on the streets.
It’s a time of crisis. The coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, plummeting living standards, capitalist decay, and the climate emergency affect us all. But it’s not quite that simple. With xenophobic populism and nationalism on the rise around the world, class analysis alone isn’t enough for us to understand the world.
Now, a timely and free week of lectures by the Stuart Hall Foundation can help provide critical insight into how class and race interact and intersect. The late Stuart Hall was arguably the foremost cultural theorist of his generation. He was also a political campaigner and a founder of the New Left Review.
The lecture series laid on by his foundation will run from 31 October to 5 November, between 5pm and 6.30pm every evening:
Racial Inequality in Times of Crises
A week-long conference exploring the impact of present-day crises on ethnic minority people in the UK, in partnership with @EthnicityUK
While Covid-19 highlighted and exacerbated longstanding racial and ethnic inequalities in the UK across a range of social arenas, the ensuing crises in living standards and the criminalising of protests could further entrench these inequalities.
They added:
As the pandemic wanes, we are thrusted deeper into a confluence of crises: Governmental inertia in response to the cost of living crisis and climate change, and a coordinated attack on the civic right to protest by the state’s Policing, Crimes, Sentencing and Courts Bill. While Covid-19 threw existing inequalities into sharp relief, these crises continue to disproportionally impact the lives of society’s most vulnerable people.
On 24 October, far-right Indian prime minister Narendra Modi congratulated new British prime minister Rishi Sunak on his appointment. This comes as Modi’s government continues to whip upHindutva nationalism in India, an ideology which has also spread to Britain. Alarmingly, instead of condemning Modi’s exclusionary and discriminatory policies in India, the Tories are firming up a convivial relationship with Modi’s fascist government.
Not a win for diversity
Sunak is the first person of South Asian heritage, the first Hindu, and the first person of colour to become British prime minister. However, the chaotic rise of a privately educated former banker with a terrible voting record, who sits on an obscene £730m fortune, cannot be construed as a win for equality, diversity, or inclusion in politics.
Rishi Sunak is proof to all little South Asian kids that if your parents send you to £46k pa Winchester College you become a banker and profit millions from financial crash that led to 300k dying from austerity and throw other POC under the bus you too can be PM. Inspirational
Indeed, as Daniel went on to highlight, Sunak’s commitment to maintaining and exacerbating racial and class inequalities is evident in his diversion of funding from ‘deprived urban areas‘ to wealthy, leafy suburbs. It is also evident in his commitment to increasing discriminatory stop and search, as well as his divisive rhetoric blaming “a particular group of people” for child grooming. In short, Sunak’s premiership is terrible news for working-class Black and Brown communities, who are already being hit hardest by the cost-of-living crisis.
Supported by Modi
Modi’s support for Sunak should raise alarm bells.
Referring to the 2030 Roadmap for warm political relations between India and Britain (which includes mutual support and a potential free trade deal), Modi congratulated Sunak on his appointment, saying:
Warmest congratulations @RishiSunak! As you become UK PM, I look forward to working closely together on global issues, and implementing Roadmap 2030. Special Diwali wishes to the 'living bridge' of UK Indians, as we transform our historic ties into a modern partnership.
Modi and the militant Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have overseen the rise of far-right extremism in India, featuring widespread Islamophobic lynchings and mob violence against minoritised groups. Right now, Britain should be condemning and directing sanctions against Modi’s oppressive policies and ideology in India, rather than cosying up to India’s far-right government.
Highlighting the discriminatory and exclusionary policies that uphold the BJP’s Hindu nationalist political agenda, Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party president Mehbooba Mufti tweeted:
Proud moment that UK will have its first Indian origin PM. While all of India rightly celebrates, it would serve us well to remember that while UK has accepted an ethnic minority member as its PM, we are still shackled by divisive & discriminatory laws like NRC & CAA.
The state of Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC) seeks to document Indian citizens in order to identify and deport those who are not citizens, rendering many Indian residents stateless and without access to rights or justice. Meanwhile, the 2019 Citizenship (Amendment) Act excludes Jewish and Muslim people who migrated to India from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan before 2014 from straightforward access to citizenship.
Hitting out against the double standard exhibited by those celebrating Sunak’s rise to power, journalist Swati Chaturvedi stated:
The Bjp currently the major pole of Indian polity under Modi has no minister cabinet or state who is a Muslim. The Bjp does not have a single Muslim MP. Says a lot about its attitude to India’s largest minority. Yes carry on cheering Sunak & diversity
Britain itself has seen the rise of Hindutva nationalism, partly due to the immense power and influence that the Hindu far-right BJP and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have in this country. This reached a critical point in September, when Hindu nationalists carried out violent targeted attacks against Muslim communities in Leicester.
Raising concerns regarding Modi’s celebration of Sunak’s new position as prime minister, one Twitter user shared:
That Modi has congratulated Sunak and the far right Hindutva are so pleased, is also v scary https://t.co/uV3o1OkuQh
It is unlikely that Sunak will condemn or sanction Modi’s BJP government, given his family’s past approval of the far-right nationalist party. Sharing footage of Suank’s father-in-law praising Modi (who – as governor of Gujarat – oversaw Islamophobic riots led by state-backed Hindutva fascists in 2002), cultural historian Dr Lubaaba Al-Azami tweeted:
Sunak's in laws have links to the Hindutva fascist BJP. Here's his father in law praising Narendra Modi's time in Gujarat. You know, when Modi oversaw fascist riots that massacred thousands of Muslims. What a time to be alive. https://t.co/vDkQym79TY
Any leader who is concerned about human rights and democracy would immediately condemn Modi and the BJP’s Hindu nationalist agenda. However, Sunak and the Tory government don’t appear to have any intention of doing this.
This spells danger for British Muslims, and suggests that Britain will continue to accommodate the increasingly exclusionary and violent Hindutva nationalist agenda in India.
British trade unions and a section of the broader labour movement have a military-shaped blind spot. When that blind spot is visible, we should all pay attention – accepting the militarist status quo is a major weakness. Militarism is anti-working class. It chews up generations of young people in wars, it allows for massive defence budgets which would be better spent on human needs, and it normalises state violence as a way of resolving problems.
The big British trade unions are, of course, status quo organisations. They are often conservative and aim to tweak the economy a little, rather than ending the extractive violence of capitalism. Some go as far as campaigning for defence spending hikes. In effect, this is lobbying for the arms industry.
The Queen’s death
Recently, the RMT – which is doing great work in other areas – backed down on a strike day following the death of the Queen. Fair play, some may feel. We don’t want to lose support. In fact, RMT general secretary Mick Lynch himself explained at The World Transformed in Liverpool in October 2022:
We cancelled the strikes because many of our members would want to do that.
He told the audience that he himself was from an Irish Republican background, but that many RMT members were ex-military and liked the queen.
This is an example of what we might call militarist realism. Supporting or avoiding conflict with militarist ideology because there might be a backlash. Just because militarism is a force in British politics, doesn’t mean we can just skip over it to save hassle. Socialists should openly and confidently oppose militarism (and right-wing nationalism) wherever they find it.
The British Legion
More recently, the RMT has come into conflict with the Royal British Legion (RBL). The Legion is the most monolithic of the military charities. Despite claims to the contrary, the Legion has embodied right-wing, establishment politics from its foundation in the early 1920s.
One of the main figures associated with it was field marshal Haig, known as the ‘Butcher of the Somme’ because of the massive death toll of his WW1 battles. As I explained in my book, Veteranhood: Hope and Rage in British Ex-Military Life, the Legion was a bulwark against radical working class politics. Haig wanted veterans of WW1 “back under their officers” – not engaged with the left-wing politics of the day.
One trade union leader of the time called the Legion “Haig’s White Guards” after the anti-Bolshevik forces fighting to crush the Russian Revolution. Elements within the Legion also wanted to help break the 1926 General Strike. And, as I reported in Veteranhood, the legion tried to have jobs performed by foreign and women workers given to veterans. So, the British Legion has always been a right-wing organisation.
RMT vs the Legion
On 21 October, the Legion announced that Poppy Day would not go ahead because of an RMT strike set for 3 November. Poppy Day is used to fundraise for the Legion ahead of Remembrance Day. The Legion complained that up to £1m in donations could be lost:
This from a charity which is, in effect, a large corporation. Figures from a 2019 report suggest the Legion had an income of over £160m, with reserves of £70m last year.
The Legion announcement saw far-right and Tory twitter condemn the RMT. But the RMT quickly offered to have the charity collectors on the pickets alongside striking workers:
This is such a shame @PoppyLegion as an alternative to cancelling London Poppy Day, we would love you to stand shoulder to shoulder with @RMTunion members on our picket lines and collect alongside us? #PoppyAppealhttps://t.co/0htUgZa5wq
The RMT eventually backed down, announcing the strike would go ahead on 9 October instead:
RMT update on national rail strike days Having been made aware of Royal British Legion @PoppyLegion London Poppy day on November 3rd, @RMTunion NEC has decided to re-arrange strike action for the 9th.https://t.co/dYQE5VBwyz
Moving a strike by a few days to avoid some negative headlines is not necessarily massively damaging to trade union’s aim. It is also true that the tendency to defer to the sacred cows of British national identity – the royals and the military – is a road to nowhere.
In the end, you can be for workers or you can be for militarism and monarchy – you cannot be for both. It is the job of the left to question and critique these institutions. This starts from the political position that militarism divides and harms workers at home and abroad.
Rishi Sunak promised to protect our environment in his first speech as prime minister. There’s been an audible – albeit cautious – sigh of relief due to his early remarks from some environmental groups. That’s understandable, given that Liz Truss’s government quickly moved to rip up and relax rules that safeguard the natural world.
But Sunak’s environmental line-up doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. He’s appointed Thérèse Coffey and Grant Shapps as environment and energy secretaries, respectively. Neither of them particularly stand out as climate or biodiversity warriors.
What’s more, Coffey has previously held a position at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). And there’s a floating turd – multiple, in fact – drifting through her tenure there.
Waterways awash with sewage
Coffey was the parliamentary under-secretary of state for the environment from 2016 to 2019. The key responsibilities of that role include waterways and the marine environment, along with the teeming lifeforms they hold, as musician and anti-sewage campaigner Feargal Sharkey pointed out:
Thérèse served as the Minister for Water @DefraGovUK from 2016 – 19.
Water companies are currently dumping raw sewage into Britain’s waterways and ocean at shocking rates. The rules allow them to do so, but supposedly only in exceptional circumstances such as very heavy rainfall. In reality, there’s nothing exceptional about the dumping. Environment Agency (EA) figures, for example, showed that companies discharged raw sewage into English rivers 372,533 times in 2021.
Sewage isn’t the only factor
This isn’t a new problem. The European Court of Justice found the UK guilty of breaching EU law in relation to dumping sewage in 2012. According to a 2019 report from the EA, there was a “trend of gradual improvement” in the “environmental performance” of companies that provide both water and sewage services between 2011 and 2017. But from that time, which was the year after Coffey took the DEFRA post, performance declined.
serious pollution incidents which damage the local environment, threaten wildlife and in the worst cases put the public at risk, have increased.
Their environmental performance deteriorated even further in 2019. Meanwhile, the EA also published water classification results in 2020 that showed only 16% of England’s waters had “good ecological status”, based on data between 2016 and 2019. A report by WWF, published in 2017, pointed out that wastewater pollution is one of the top reasons for poor ecological status. It also asserted that:
55% of all rivers in England and Wales failing to reach the required good ecological status are polluted by wastewater
Farming also plays a significant role in the country’s poor water quality, particularly animal farming. As Surge Activism reported in January:
England’s cherished waterways are awash with animal faeces, microplastics and chemicals according to the findings of a report by the Environmental Audit Committee – and intensive chicken and livestock farming is one of the leading causes.
The farming sector, of course, also falls under DEFRA’s areas of responsibility.
As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. And her actions – or lack thereof – as the minister in charge of water speak plenty about what to expect from Coffey in her wider DEFRA role. The same is true of Shapps, who took the role of energy minister after rallying against renewable energy like wind:
The chap in charge of solving the energy crisis this week is the same chap who pushed for a ban on onshore wind farms despite them being 9X cheaper than gas because he didn't like the view from his private plane. Hoping for a #renewableenergy revolution but not expecting much https://t.co/2QVGgjSneB
In short, despite Sunak’s early remarks suggesting he will prioritise the environment, his picks for the top jobs in this regard leave a lot to be desired.
Tory MP Kemi Badenoch keeps coming back to government, despite numerous controversies. But her reappointment as equalities minister is deeply worrying – not least for the LGBTQIA+ community.
Badenoch: multiple jobs and multiple controversies
As the Canary‘s Maryam Jameela previously wrote, Badenoch:
has made a name for herself in the right wing-manufactured culture war by railing against critical race theory. She also attacked journalist Nadine White, who is the first dedicated race correspondent at the Independent.
When I look at a lot of the stuff that you see on social media about how – I think it’s a generational thing as well – younger people look at appropriate behaviour and what is a sexual advance, what is sexual harassment and so on, to me, it’s actually becoming a lot more puritanical than anything I ever saw in my 20s or in my teens.
We are running a compassionate equalities strategy and we should nor be distracted by people who use Twitter as a way to insult or accuse members of parliament.
Naturally, Badenoch’s claim of a “compassionate equalities strategy” is demonstrable bullshit if you base it on her opinions on LGBTQIA+ people.
pursuing a single-minded vendetta against trans people [which] presents a real and active danger to the mental and physical safety of trans people, which is vastly exacerbated when those in authority lend them credibility.
However, her most offensive views were in private – or so she thought, until an apparent recording was leaked to Vice.
It’s no longer about minority rights in terms of race any more or nationality,” Badenoch can be heard saying, “it’s now, you know like, it’s not even about sexuality now, it’s now like the whole transgender movement, where, OK well we’ve got gay marriage, and civil partnerships, so what are transsexuals looking for?
Even when, you know, so, people hear about, you know like the whole bathroom thing, it’s actually more of an American thing but they have a similar problem, that, right so now it’s not just about being free to marry who you want, you now want to have men using women’s bathrooms.
The LGBT+ Liberal Democrats group dragged Badenoch, saying her meeting with the LGB Alliance:
displays an appalling lack of understanding of the issues at best; at worst, it is crass, offensive and possibly evidence of a bias against trans people that should render the minister unfit to make any judgements or decisions on the subject.
Badenoch as equalities minister? Normal island again.
In a functioning society, Badenoch’s status as an MP would be questioned. But this is the UK. So, new PM Rishi Sunak appointed her as equalities minister. This makes Badenoch the person in government directly responsible for trans rights.
So, same-sex marriage appears to be unpalatable for Badenoch, and her comment about “men using women’s bathrooms” is potentially unlawful under the Equality Act 2010. Not that this matters to her – anti-LGBTQIA+ discrimination is clearly all in a day’s work for the new equalities minister. The community now faces a very real threat – coming directly from a government charged to protect it.
Featured image via screenshot -YouTube/Independent
Clearly the BBC shares a similar dream to first-sacked, now-back home secretary Suella Braverman: demonising refugees and deporting them to Rwanda. Or rather, you’d think that was the BBC‘s goal if you saw the hideous and frankly immoral segment on its News at Six on Wednesday 26 October.
Migrants everywhere!
BBC News was reporting on the number of refugees that had crossed the Channel this year. Host Sophie Raworth noted that:
More than 38,000 people have already made the journey to the UK, compared with 28,500 last year.
The normal response to this news should be fear and sorrow for the brave people risking their lives in one of the world’s busiest waterways. However, this was not on BBC News‘s agenda. Instead, the segment generally focused on the economic and social impact of refugees. And it was straight out of right-wing politicians like Braverman’s playbook.
Reporter Mark Easton set the BBC stall out from the off. Amid images of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) pulling near-drowning refugees out of the water, he commented that these were:
Distressing images illustrating the challenge posed by record numbers of migrants trying to reach the Kent coast in flimsy boats.
Never mind that these people could have died. It’s a “challenge” – the implication being for those having to deal with the situation, not the refugees themselves. Easton and the BBC then hammered home the point that 10,000 of the people who crossed were “single men” from Albania. ‘They aren’t refugees!’ you can almost hear the gammon squealing. No – they’re desperate humans, exploited by gangs which have taken thousands of Euros from them, only to potentially send them to their death or a UK prison camp. However Easton still dropped in the tired, right-wing trope that somehow these people are ‘illegals’ – when under international law no migrant, immigrant or refugee is ever illegal when they first enter a country to claim asylum.
Foreigners costing YOU money, says the BBC
If the idea of single men coming over here illegally wasn’t enough to send Middle England’s blood pressure rocketing, then the BBC knew what would give it a coronary: these people are costing YOU, the hard-working taxpayer, money! Easton claimed that:
Many migrants are being housed in hotels like this one in Scarborough. The cost? Almost £7m a day.
But if £7m a day has boiled your piss – wait until you hear what everyone’s favourite right-wing girlboss Liz Truss pissed away with her mini-budget. She managed to wipe around £10bn a day off the UK economy after the announcement. So actually, refugees are costing us 0.07% of Truss’s clusterfuck and just 0.00003% of the UK’s gross domestic product (our overall wealth) in 2021.
BBC: Braverman Broadcasting Corporation
To be fair on the BBC, it did show evidence given by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration to a parliamentary committee. He called the conditions in one refugee camp “pretty wretched”. However, Easton couldn’t help but frame this as the inspector had written to “warn” the home secretary of the “dangerous” conditions there. This implies that Braverman and the government didn’t know of the situation, which is unlikely. This is because the media started to report on it over a month ago, and historically governments have always managed refugee centres like prison camps – the appalling Yarl’s Wood centre being a case in point.
But this is the BBC – and in the face of an increasingly authoritarian government it has to play by the rules. So, not one refugee was interviewed in the segment, nor were any advocacy groups or charities spoken to. Instead, it was little more than a piece of right-wing propaganda, dressed up as public service broadcasting.
Of course, the only service the BBC is performing is to Braverman and the government – not the 150 plus people who have died in the past five years trying to get to the UK. When we have a state broadcaster as cold, heartless and cynical as the BBC, it’s little wonder the public keep electing politicians with those exact same characteristics.
Another intensive round of badger killing is underway in England. But, in a break from standard practice, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has failed to release details about this round of killing. This means there’s no clarity or transparency on which new areas are targeting badgers, or in what numbers.
This lack of openness is part of a trend for DEFRA lately, specifically in relation to the badger cull.
Badger cull secrecy
As the Badger Trust has highlighted, the government has two points each year when it issues licences. In early Autumn, it issues what are known as ‘intensive licences’. These include licences for new areas to begin a four-year period of killing, which is the length of each intensive cull licence.
Typically, DEFRA releases details on the licences towards the start of a new round of killing. It has revealed details of the Autumn intensive licences in early September since 2019. The Badger Trust says this has been the case for the best part of the last decade since badger culling began in 2013.
However, the department hasn’t released the licence details yet this year.
The Badger Trust has pressed DEFRA to release the information, to no avail. When approached by the Canary for comment, a department spokesperson said:
In line with our standard procedure, details of the licences that have been granted for this year will be published on gov.uk.
Causing chaos
As Vet Times recently reported, the Badger Trust says that the secrecy around the cull is causing chaos. The organisation’s executive director Peter Hambly said:
The badger cull is out of control. We’re hearing reports of horrific examples of alleged licence breaches.
The situation is shocking, and Natural England (which grants cull licences) needs to do its duty, and stop this mess on animal welfare and public safety grounds.
A recent exposé released by the non-profit organisation Protect the Wild, previously known as ‘Keep the Ban’, is an example of what Hambly refers to. The organisation explained that badger cull investigators recorded undercover footage at a facility that is handling the corpses of badgers in Northamptonshire. It described on its website what the footage showed:
Dead badgers tipped into an open-air skip, operators with no regard for potential biohazards, unbagged gutted carcasses left inside a van, reckless and careless handling of supposedly disease-ridden animals.
As Protect the Wild’s description highlighted, the government claims that badgers are “disease-ridden”. In particular, it blames badgers for transmitting bovine tuberculosis (bTB) to cows, which is its justification for the years-long cull. This is despite the fact that government-funded reports have suggested that very few badgers carry the disease.
Due to the “the lack of biosecurity or concern about personal risk” shown by handlers of badger carcasses in the footage, Protect the Wild has questioned whether:
operators know that these badgers aren’t infected with bovine TB?
The Canary asked DEFRA about Protect the Wild’s allegations. It said that any allegations reported to the department are investigated, but that it wouldn’t provide further comment.
Little transparency
The dearth of information from DEFRA in relation to badger killing extends further. Researchers released an in-depth and peer-reviewed study on the badger cull in March. It found that the killing was doing little to lower bTB rates in cows. Instead, the study pointed to cow-focused measures, such as bTB testing, as likely being responsible for reductions in the disease.
DEFRA responded quickly to the study, accusing its authors of manipulating data. Its rebuttal has proven less than convincing, however. It first provided flawed data to counter the study. Then, its own executive agency – the Animal and Plant Agency – appeared to contradict elements of the department’s rebuttal in a presentation on the cull’s effectiveness at a conference.
DEFRA’s chief veterinary officer, Christine Middlemiss, suggested that the government planned to release its own peer-reviewed analysis on the subject. This is yet to be made public.
In its comments to the Canary, the DEFRA spokesperson said:
With national statistics showing that our bovine TB eradication strategy is helping to drive down bTB, we are now able to move onto the next phase of the long-term eradication strategy. This includes steps to expand badger vaccination alongside improved cattle testing and a potential cattle vaccine. We have always been clear we don’t want to continue the current badger cull longer than absolutely necessary.
Why the badger cull secrecy?
Lead author of the March study, Tom Langton, said of the department’s failure to release the cull licence details:
Yet again we find ourselves writing to government to obtain information that should have been readily available online or on request. The reluctance and refusal to communicate properly to those questioning the policy is in stark contrast to the huge resources spent streamlining procedures for cull companies and pro-cull bodies.
He argued that those involved:
refuse to accept the huge scale and consequences of a strategy that does not work and appears unable to adapt from its results
Is it a fear of admitting how many more badgers they plan to cull? Is it because they can’t reach their minimum kill targets as so few badgers remain in some intensive cull zones? Is it a growing lack of transparency? Or is it simply more incompetence from Defra?
Campaigners expect that the cull policy will have cost over 200,000 badgers their lives by the end of 2022. And the lack of transparency from DEFRA means that the most recent killing is largely happening under the radar. That’s deeply worrying direction for this policy of mass slaughter to take.
Keir Starmer’s hypocrisy knows no bounds, as demonstrated by an interview he gave recently. The Labour leader not only carried out a Tory-style break-neck U-turn but also exposed yet more betrayal of former leader Jeremy Corbyn. Moreover, Starmer continues to sell out left-wing Labour members down the river. This is because he just backtracked on a 2019 policy pledge that helped sink Labour at the last general election. It’s about Brexit – and it shows Starmer for the rank opportunist he is.
The second Brexit vote and Labour
In Labour’s 2019 manifesto, it committed to a second referendum on Brexit. The party stated that, firstly, it would scrap then-PM Boris Johnson’s deal. Next, Labour would negotiate another one with the EU. Finally, the party would:
put it to a legally binding referendum alongside the option of remaining in the EU. This will take place within the first six months of a Labour government.
This was a historic mistake which led to defeat in the General Election… Labour should have respected the vote to Leave and offered a platform for change based on a future outside of the European Union.
But it didn’t, and we know why. As Wilkinson wrote, Corbyn capitulated to remainers in his own party and pressure groups in an attempt to please everyone. This was disastrous, losing Labour’s so-called ‘Red Wall’ seats to the Tories, and losing voters elsewhere. Of course, one of the people behind the campaign to force Corbyn into a second referendum pledge was Starmer.
Starmer the remainer
The evidence is there that Starmer was central to the second vote policy. As the Guardian wrote:
Starmer felt so strongly about the Brexit referendum result in June 2016 that he quit as a junior shadow minister under Jeremy Corbyn. A few months later he returned to the Labour frontbench as shadow Brexit secretary and spent the next four years campaigning to mitigate the result, which he described as “catastrophic”, while at the same time retaining voters in “red wall” constituencies. But he was a remainer. He campaigned against a no-deal Brexit and for a second referendum to give the people a “confirmatory vote” on any deal with Brussels.
Starmer was his party’s shadow Brexit secretary. And it’s worth recalling that in the long “Brexit wars” from 2016 to 2019, he was not a mere observer but a very active participant. During private talks between Theresa May’s government and Corbyn’s team to try and find a compromise Brexit deal that could get through the hung parliament, her former chief of staff Gavin Barwell claimed in his memoir: “Starmer was not prepared to settle for anything that didn’t include a confirmatory vote.”
So, the now-Labour leader played a fairly sizeable part in the undoing of the former one. However, Starmer is also a stinking hypocrite.
A hypocrite and a snake
On Monday 24 October, LBC was interviewing Starmer. In short, after a caller asked him if Labour would “reverse Brexit”, Starmer said:
It’s a straight no from me! We’re not going back into the EU. We do think that we should make Brexit work.
This is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Opinion polls now say the majority of people want to rejoin the EU, and the economic impact of Brexit under the Tories has become clear. Starmer saying we won’t rejoin now is a clear indication of his courting of Tory voters – but this is too little, too late. If he had pushed this position in 2019, Labour may have forced a hung parliament, and the past three years would have been a very different story.
But Starmer didn’t. Given the lies he told during his leadership campaign around his ‘ten pledges’, it is likely that he knew the second vote position would kill Corbyn’s Labour. This would clear the way for his leadership bid – in which he could proclaim a wish to continue a “radical socialist tradition” while keeping his fingers crossed behind his back.
Starmer’s position on Brexit has all been about his career. He cannot be trusted to run Labour, let alone potentially lead a UK government. Due to his Brexit position, he condemned the rest of us to the hellscape that has been the past three years – he should be nowhere near power.
the reduction of food costs in canteens, children of staff eating for £1 in hospital restaurants, free facilities to wash and dry clothes on site, and free staff travel on hospital buses.
Leicester is not the only city to see hospitals running foodbanks for staff. The Times reports that across England, 27% of hospitals have staff foodbanks.
Bosses at UHL seemed sympathetic, if sitting on the fence somewhat. UHL’s chief people officer Clare Teeney told BBC News:
As NHS leaders, I think we have a moral responsibility to support our colleagues through this challenging period. At UHL, we are offering support around the costs of food, transport, energy for people who need it and considering how else we can support colleagues on the lowest pay.
However, trade unions and campaign groups have blasted the situation.
“Shocking sign of the times”
UNISON East Midlands says UHL’s installation of foodbanks showed “the present problems within the NHS in respect of the level of pay”. Campaign group NHS Workers Say No went further, telling the Canary:
It’s not a surprise to see yet another foodbank for hardworking staff opening in a hospital. The Tories have dealt NHS staff year after year of real terms pay cuts. This has left many of them working 40+ hours a week and selling back their annual leave just to survive. The Tories refusal to raise workers’ pay in line with inflation has left us with the situation that the NHS is no longer a living wage employer. This is why unions are conducting industrial action ballots across every corner of the NHS. We have no hope of recruiting or retaining staff unless this crisis is addressed – and that has repercussions for us all.
struggling to cope as demand for our support outstrips our food and financial donations
With inflation set to rocket further and no additional pay rise in sight, NHS workers are already under immense strain. Factor in another looming, Tory-created winter crisis, rising coronavirus (Covid-19) deaths and increasing flu cases, and staff will soon be well-past breaking point. The Tories’ shocking treatment of some of the country’s most vital workers is disgusting. But when a government encourages claps over decent pay – this is the end result.
Magistrates acquitted five scientists on 21 October for their protest against the government’s energy plans, which includes new oil and gas exploration. The Crown Prosecution Service pursued the scientists for criminal damage after they participated in direct action at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) in April.
At the time, one of the scientists – Dr Aaron Thierry – explained why he took part in the action, saying:
We have tried all the rational, normal, evidence-based policy approaches and they’re just not acting according to it. The government’s insane and I don’t know what else to do
“The government’s insane, and I don’t know what to do, other than to do this, to try and get the attention that we need to wake the public up.”
25 scientists took part in the protest. The action involved the scientists pasting scientific papers on BEIS’s windows, along with some gluing themselves to the building. This happened days after the government released its energy security strategy. The energy strategy included plans to encourage more drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea. It also promised a review of the potential for fracking in the country.
This time last week a group of desperate scientists stuck scientific papers (and themselves!!!) to the front of @beisgovuk. They had a simple and science led demand: Stop all NEW fossil fuel investment & development.
Emma Smart, Dr Stuart Capstick, Dr Abi Perrin, Dr Aaron Thierry and Dr Caroline Vincent faced a charge of criminal damage as a result of their involvement in the protest. However, the Magistrates Court found that the scientists had no case to answer and acquitted all five of them.
Four other scientists involved were tried in September and found guilty. According to one of them, Colin Davis, they are planning to appeal:
Four of us who took part in exactly the same action were tried separately, appearing before the notorious Judge Snow. He refused to allow our legal arguments to be made and found us guilty rather summarily. We are seeking leave to appeal …
Bindmans LLP represented four of the scientists in the Magistrates Court case. Following the judgment, their solicitor Hester Cavaciuti commented:
This prosecution should never have taken place. We made representations to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) not to pursue this matter, but they insisted on doing so.
The CPS’s attempted prosecution of them comes amid a widespread crackdown on the right to protest in the country. Dr Vincent condemned the government’s introduction of “oppressive laws” that stifle the “voice of reason”, saying:
The government would rather prosecute scientists and suppress legitimate protests than act on the advice they receive from scientists and their own advisors.
We have long since arrived at the point at which civil disobedience by scientists has become justified.
They warned that inaction from governments, industry and civil society is “setting the course” for catastrophic levels of global warming. The scientists insisted that in order to have any hope of securing a liveable future, civil disobedience is needed now.
After Channel 4 suspended Krishnan Guru-Murthy for calling a Tory MP a “cunt” off-air, the BBC has also suspended one of its journalists – for laughing at a joke about Boris Johnson. Of course, right-wing screams of bias against Tories and Brexit bias are nonsense in terms of the BBC. The state broadcaster is, and has always been, a government mouthpiece.
If it walks like a cunt…
Guru Murthy’s suspension was unsurprising, given that the future of Channel 4 still hangs in the balance. Currently, the Tories want to ‘privatise’ the broadcaster, stripping it of its public status. On Monday 24 October, Channel 4 said it was, according to the website Proactive:
considering whether it could raise money from charities and foundations so that it is no longer state-owned and on the government’s books.
This comes as the current culture secretary Michelle Donelan is looking at her predecessor Nadine Dorries’ case for privatising Channel 4. However, with the broadcaster’s future still uncertain, it can’t let its presenters call Tory MPs cunts – even if it’s the truth. Then, over at the BBC, things appear just as fractious.
Well this is all very exciting isn’t it? Hello and welcome to our lookahead to what the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. Am I allowed to be this gleeful? Well I am.
In reality, and as Will Black summed up, the BBC is hardly filled with hordes of jam-making, girthy marrow-growing socialists:
I'm old enough to remember a BBC hack close to tears when it became clear that there was to be a hung parliament. And 12 years of #bbcqt cramming Question Time seats with white nationalists found on far-right websites
But the real issue here is not BBC impartiality. It’s the fact that the broadcaster pretends that it’s impartial. Actually, the BBC is an extended arm of government – and always has been.
during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic the BBC went onto a war footing. It was a similar MO to the one it had during WWII. It’s also the same one that led it to it being directly involved in espionage during the 1953 Iranian coup. It’s the same MO that led Marr to stand outside Downing Street at the end of the Iraq invasion in 2003 and say: ‘it would be entirely ungracious, even for [Tony Blair’s] critics, not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result’.
And it’s the same MO that saw the government fund the BBC to push Western propaganda in North Korea. The point being, the BBC has often worked as a propaganda arm of government; regardless of whether that government is Tory or Labour.
Of course, BBC bosses now have their ranks filled with Tories. So what we’re seeing now is an uptick in government bias. However, much like Marr’s fawning over Blair in 2003, as soon as Labour gets back in the BBC will toe the line with a Labour government too.
BBC: barely dissenting but still dangerous
Croxall laughing about Johnson doesn’t show the BBC‘s problem with anti-Tory bias. It shows the broadcaster has a pro-government bias – and it doesn’t allow any deviation from that. Who can forget Laura Kuenssberg having access to postal vote results before the 2019 general election which undermined Labour – a potentially criminal activity – with nothing being done about it? Yet Croxall has a chortle and the gates of hell have officially opened, with Jeremy Corbyn cutting the ribbon.
As the government drifts further into chaos, we can expect more silencing of barely-dissenting voices on Channel 4 and the BBC. God forbid the government hears about the Canary – because we’ll really be in for it.
Content warning: this article contains discussion of people taking their own lives, which people may find distressing.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) repeatedly breached the Equality Act in the case of a Universal Credit claimant. The department treated him so badly he needed emergency hospital treatment on three occasions because he was on the verge of taking his own life. But even now, after the DWP admitted liability in court, it is still arguing over how much compensation to pay the claimant.
Disability News Service (DNS) reported on the case of George, who asked for his surname not to be used. You can read the full article here. As DNS reported, George lives with a neurological impairment which causes:
regular seizures, memory problems and “brain fog”, and [he] has significant care needs, needing assistance with washing, dressing, eating, reading, writing, and completing paperwork.
George made a claim to the DWP for Universal Credit in February 2020. However, staff immediately ignored his accessibility needs. They told him he could only claim online. This is not correct. You can claim Universal Credit via telephone. DWP staff also failed to put on his records that he was a vulnerable claimant. After this, according to DNS, staff “ignored or refused” George’s requests for support and reasonable adjustments. They continued to communicate with him online for a year – ignoring his requests for phone calls instead. But it gets worse.
made repeated attempts to complain about the discriminatory way he was being treated
But DWP staff failed to investigate many of these complaints. And on the same day they finally said George could get paper letters and phone calls, one staff member still put sent him an online letter and message. DNS noted that twice the DWP gave George a new case manager:
who then refused to accept the reasonable adjustments that had previously been agreed.
DWP: driving people to the brink
The end result of this repeated unlawful treatment was that the DWP left George:
needing hospital treatment three times for suicidal thoughts
In court, the DWP admitted liability, but it is arguing over the £25,000 George is seeking in damages. Also, DNS wrote that that the DWP is still denying George “the reasonable adjustments he needs”, and is still asking him “to respond online”. You can read George’s full statement to DNS here. But he said:
They have conceded my case, but that doesn’t change anything for other people. If they are admitting they did this to me, why aren’t they looking at the system as a whole? I think this is happening to potentially thousands of other disabled people.
George is probably correct, given the DWP’s track record.
Yet here we are, in October 2022, and another shocking case of DWP discrimination has come to light. Its failings and intentional disregard for claimants are now institutionalised – only a government that will raze the DWP to the ground and start again will change this.
As so often in recent times, the Tory Party has a new leader, and therefore Britain a new prime minister. In the last leadership contest, Rishi Sunak managed to lose to the inept ideologue Liz Truss, who then, only weeks later when challenged by a tabloid newspaper to outlast a lettuce, lost to the vegetable.
How did the political script twist into this farce? How could former Prime Minister Boris Johnson — a figure so disgraced that he should be auditioning for pantomime villain roles in the run-up to Christmas — countenance a comeback and why did he fall short? Why is Sunak so despised in the Tory Party and how did he nonetheless carry the day? What does his government represent and how will the Labour Party respond?
The trigger came when Truss’s government attempted a Reagan-style borrowing binge.
Truss was not the choice of her fellow Tory Members of Parliament (MPs). Since 2001, a voice in some Tory leadership contests has been granted to party members. Their demographic is distinctive: small in number, overwhelmingly old, white, male, bigoted, middle-class residents of southern England. In a word, out of touch. Their idol, Truss, promised Reaganite tax cuts for the wealthy plus Johnson-style cake-ist populism. (When it comes to cake, “he is pro having it and pro eating it too.”) All this, in a period of stagflation when central banks were raising interest rates.
The sums didn’t add up. Truss lost the support of capital, in the shape most immediately of currency and gilts traders. Sterling slumped to a record low against the dollar and the price of government debt soared.
The fracture between capital and the “party of capital” under Truss had begun earlier, in the slipstream of the 2008 Great Recession. The 2010s were years of despair and polarization. The rich were greatly enriched, thanks to quantitative easing. Everyone else was subjected to austerity. Wages flatlined or declined, and have still not recovered.
In response, both major parties undertook a “populist” turn. Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour populism was all about opposing austerity. For the Tories, it was opposition to the European Union and immigration. As the Tory Party signed up to the Brexit cause, it abandoned its traditional role as the party of big business. The corporate sector, with two major exceptions to which we’ll come below, opposed Johnson’s “hard Brexit.” It would snaggle Europe-bound exports in far too much red tape.
The timing of Britain’s last general election, 2019, saw the fortunes of these two populisms intersect in a way that artificially inflated the Tory triumph — and Johnson’s already oversized ego.
Corbyn, like Truss, was defenestrated by establishment forces. In his case, party members had been permitted in 2015 to choose the leader but the bulk of MPs opposed their decision. Whereas Truss was swiftly deposed by “the markets,” Corbyn was slashed, day after day, by a thousand knives wielded by the Labour machine and their media friends (led by the Guardian and the BBC). Labour officials and most MPs declared open war on Corbyn from the get-go. This made the party unelectable. They preferred to lose to the Tories than see a socialist win.
The same election saw Tory populism reach its acme. It succeeded in parlaying Brexit support into conservative electoral gains, even in areas blighted by Thatcher-era deindustrialisation.
Johnson was the frontman in the populist turn — a British Trump. The comparisons with Trump can be overegged: Johnson doesn’t regularly consort with fascists, nor is he quite so gratuitously vulgar. Yet, like Trump, he is a lawbreaker, and is prone to smear opponents with inflammatory falsehoods. Like Trump, he is a bully in clown’s costume. He kicks down — but in an ever-so-British manner: through wit. His upbeat humor, cast-iron confidence, nostalgic racism, casual nastiness toward oppressed communities and the ability to breezily say unsayable things, formed a package that tapped a cruel streak among many voters who, in insecure times, shore up brittle selves by championing the “right” to denigrate others.
Being mocking and facetious, Johnson’s “banter” unsettles the sense of tradition that Tories hold dear. Likewise his iconoclasm and unpredictability. At one moment he’ll blurt out: “Fuck business.” The next, he’s cordially reminding his financial friends that, following the Great Recession, he “stuck up for the bankers” when everyone else “wanted to hang them from the nearest lamppost.”
No wonder many Tory MPs gaze at “Boris” in mesmerized ambivalence. They share his bigotry and admire his ability to win support among the plebs. Yet they shudder at the corrosion of traditional conservative values.
Then there is Johnson’s lying, in pathological profusion: to the public (frequently), to the EU negotiators when signing the Northern Ireland Protocol of the Brexit withdrawal agreement, and even to the Queen for goodness sake. His serial mendacity has brought an investigation by Parliament’s Privileges Committee into whether he misled MPs over his numerous COVID rule breaches. If found guilty, he would face suspension as an MP. This looming case swayed many Tory MPs against nominating him to replace Truss as party leader. It’s sobering to note that, but for this coincidence of timing, Johnson would likely have regained the premiership.
Prior to politics, Johnson’s career was in the press. It’s one of very few economic sectors that largely backed a “hard Brexit.” The other was finance, with hedge funds to the fore. It was here that Rishi Sunak won his spurs, and he sings to the hedge fund hymnsheet: Slash regulations and give the markets free rein.
Sunak has become PM against hostility from the populist right. He symbolizes the “cosmopolitan globalism” they abhor. They may forgive him his U.S. green card, his Santa Monica beach penthouse and his vast fortune, but not his marriage to an Indian woman, his skin color or his recent fiscal policies. As chancellor under Johnson he hiked Britain’s tax burden to its highest level in 70 years to fund the lockdown furlough scheme. Later, he applied the final shove when Tory MPs removed Johnson from office. Johnson’s secretary of state for digital, culture, media and sport, Nadine Dorries, went so far as to share a montage of Rishi stabbing Boris in the back. For all the talk of party unity, these scars run deep.
Temperamentally, Sunak is Johnson’s antipode: dapper, teetotal and pragmatic. As such, he suits the Tory project going forward. Messaging to the markets will need to be slick.
Sunak’s government faces a global headwind in the shape of stagflation, but also two homemade poisoned chalices: his and Johnson’s previous flops.
Of their most vaunted successes, both have flattered to deceive. The first, in 2016, was the Brexit referendum. Winning 17 million votes, around a third of the electorate, represented the biggest democratic vote in British history. Yet the Tory Brexit aim was to inaugurate a new economic growth model, with new trade deals assisted by deregulation. That has not gone to plan, as a recent report by the House of Commons public accounts committee makes clear. Britain’s per capita GDP has risen less since 2016 than most of Europe and much less than the U.S. Brexit, far from healing intra-Tory schisms, has deepened and multiplied them, including between the austerian “extreme centre” (Sunak, and the current chancellor Jeremy Hunt) and the populist right (Johnson and Truss).
Johnson and Sunak’s other sham success was the response to COVID. They crow of having quickly purchased vaccines. Overall, however, the “let-the-virus-rip” instincts that they both shared, compounded by glaring errors (such as the nepotistic appointment of a hapless horse-racing entrepreneur to head COVID Test and Trace) led to an abysmal record. The life expectancy of British people, especially in deprived neighborhoods, slumped. Britain’s COVID-caused excess mortality exceeds almost all nations of Western Europe and all the G7 countries apart from the U.S. Long COVID continues to afflict around 2 million people, causing labour shortages and burdening the health system.
Sunak has defeated Johnson, thanks to a rule change stipulating that any prospective leader must secure at least 100 nominations from MPs. Johnson was barely able to secure half that figure. Where does this leave Sunak’s government?
The bleak fact is that Britain, experiencing eye-watering levels of poverty and chronic ill health, and now wracked by a cost of living crisis, will re-commence austerity mode. Its new leader is possibly the richest MP in history and certainly the only prime minister whose wealth exceeds that of the monarch. As a former hedge fund partner, he represents the most parasitic and destabilizing form of finance. His wife belongs to the “non-dom” class, i.e. the multimillionaires who are permitted to avoid paying tax on the vast bulk of their wealth and earnings. According to tax experts, Sunak “has not been transparent with his finances and his hedge fund background raises questions about his commitment to fighting tax avoidance.” As chancellor he oversaw what is by some measures Britain’s biggest ever rise in inequality. Hated by many in his party and lacking Johnson’s charisma, he is set to oversee a final brief spell of Tory rule. At time of writing we don’t yet know his cabinet team but we can predict that he will be flanked by Hunt, notorious for his role as useful idiot for Rupert Murdoch and for having inflicted “ruin” upon the National Health Service.
In short, although Sunak inherits a substantial parliamentary majority, the Tory Party is fractious and a substantial segment of MPs and members loathe him. Their majority is likely to disappear as soon as it’s subjected to an electoral test. (And Sunak will receive little or no boost from ethnic minorities. That Britain’s PM is nonwhite is historic, but this is no “Obama moment.”)
The main beneficiary of the Tory omnishambles will be Labour. But here’s the rub. Labour post-Corbyn has gravitated to the extreme center. Their leader, Keir Starmer, wishes to repeat the trick of three decades ago. On “Black Wednesday” of 1992 the then-Tory government lost confidence of the markets and sterling slumped. With the Tories branded financially incontinent, Labour restyled itself “New Labour,” the party of sound finances, fiscal responsibility and centrist neoliberalism. Having ruthlessly purged his party of left-wing spirit — with the sustained application of deceit, corruption and lawbreaking, a major email leak has recently revealed — Starmer’s Labour can offer little but platitudes and “market discipline.” The aim is to manage the nation’s finances in inclement times such that a little space for infrastructure spending can be found, which will rekindle upward circles of GDP growth. It’s a bloodless pitch that stands a prospect of electoral success only through the opponent’s ineptitude. The fundamental crises, of social inequality and democratic decline, from which the turbulence of Britain’s politics stems would remain unaddressed. The very policies laid down under the last Labour government — including the empowerment of the Bank of England and the financial markets — are coauthors of the economic polarization, social fragmentation and seething anger that lie behind the recent scenes of chaos at 10 Downing Street. Whether a Sunak premiership survives longer than a Truss, a Johnson or a lettuce, the turbulence is set to continue.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is forging ahead with plans to scrap several European Union (EU) restrictions. As business secretary, Rees-Mogg is using Liz Truss’s final week in office to move forwards with the Retained EU Law (Reform and Revocation) Bill.
As part of Britain’s departure from the EU, the EU (Withdrawal) Act of 2018 was used to mark out a transition period in order to avoid “gaps” in domestic law. Regulations that would previously have been covered by our membership in the EU will now need to be covered by our own legislation.
As with anything this government does, there are serious concerns from across business sectors, legal experts, and unions. The bill, it would appear, risks deep instability while Rees-Mogg ploughs ahead with it.
Brexit means…?
Brexit was always going to be legally complex, to say the least. Now that it’s time to actually untangle this legal mess and work out what protections we need in our domestic law, there’s scepticism amongst experts.
A lot of laws are going to be changed without any scrutiny at all by a dying government that few people respect.
Meanwhile, former government lawyer and partner at law firm Bates Wells Eleonor Duhs pointed out:
This bill gives ministers powers to repeal and replace a vast body of what is now domestic law at speed and without proper scrutiny. This is unprecedented, reckless and undemocratic.
And Jonathan Jones, who was head of the government legal service until 2020, said:
As far as I can see there is no indication of which areas the government is thinking of retaining and which it is getting rid of…It is a very, very bad way to change and make law
Jones went on to point out that, actually, this bill has nothing to do with Brexit:
This has nothing to do with Brexit. We have left. It creates great uncertainty within a very tight, and completely self-imposed timescale. There is nothing inherent in Brexit that says we have to change the law within a particular period after we have left. It has been driven by the usual suspects wing of the Tory party.
Evidently, by continuing with their self-imposed agenda, Rees-Mogg and the government are using the politics of Brexit to hastily scrap much-needed regulations. As Jones argues, it appears that the government is set on barrelling towards ill-thought-out policy decisions which create many more problems than they solve.
Food crisis
On top of the already existing food insecurity that many are struggling with, Rees-Mogg’s bill is going to further complicate things.
We in Food Standards Scotland are quite incredulous as to what it would mean for food safety and standard protections in Scotland and across the UK as a whole.
This bill, in our view, presents serious challenges to the current standards UK consumers benefit from.
In the area of food standards, if the Scottish Parliament decides that we will remain aligned to the EU and we will ban the sale of chlorinated chicken, but this place [Westminster] decides that cheap imported, chlorine-washed chicken is acceptable, then there’s almost nothing the Scottish Parliament can do to stop lorry loads of chlorinated poultry appearing on our supermarket shelves.
So deregulating food standards could mean that people have no option but to buy chlorinated chicken or inaccurately labelled food.
Climate crisis
Beyond that, farmers and environmental activists have also raised the alarm. Hundreds of farmers have written to Tory MPs in protest at the plan to scrap hundreds of environmental laws. They said:
A thriving natural environment, healthy soil and a stable climate are vital conditions for productive and profitable food production. We were promised agricultural policies that would make our farms the standard bearers for quality, sustainability and profitability.
The Canary’s Tracy Keeling has been following the top-down assault on nature, writing last month:
Despite the government’s protestations, its plans represent a real threat to nature. Last year, researchers warned that the UK has already lost so much biodiversity that it risks an “ecological meltdown.”
Revoking EU-standard environmental law protections means that many of our rights are on a cliff edge. The Public Law Project argued that:
many important protections are at risk. Swathes of workers’ rights, environmental protections, and other consumer/economic protections will vanish at the end of 2023 UNLESS specifically saved by a Minister.
Workers’ rights
Somehow, there’s more. The public service union UNISON explained that the Retained EU Law bill is an attack on “working women”:
Many of these basic protections are those workers take for granted, including:
holidays
equal pay
family friendly policies
rest breaks
pregnancy protections
security if your job is outsourced
safety at work
fire and rehire
These protections are set to be rolled back significantly, and – as UNISON concluded – this is terrible for workers:
Without the shield of EU law, workers in the UK will be exposed to an Americanised, hire-and-fire culture that makes work more insecure and dangerous.
Christina McAnea, UNISON general secretary, said:
At a time when working people are experiencing huge financial pressures and uncertainties, we need stability and support – not a bonfire of workers’ rights.
A bonfire of workers rights, however, is exactly what’s on the cards.
Take back control
The huge range of protections that are about to be revoked in Rees-Mogg’s Retained EU Law bill show just how many of our rights are at risk. In fact, with Rishi Sunak primed to take up the top job at Downing Street, none of this shows any signs of slowing down. Earlier in 2022, when Sunak ran for prime minister the first time round, he said:
Today, I make a promise. If I am elected prime minister, by the time of the next General Election, I will have scrapped or reformed all of the EU law, red tape and bureaucracy that is still on our statute book and slowing economic growth.
We have made a start on taking advantage of our Brexit freedoms.
The lie of Brexit was the promise of more freedom and less regulation from the EU. Instead, it turns out that less EU regulation means plummeting standards in food production at a time of food crisis, a stripping back of environmental protections during a climate crisis, and a threat to workers rights during a cost of living crisis.
Rees-Mogg and Sunak would have you believe they’re fighting red tape from Brussels. They’re doing nothing of the sort – rather, they’re using the racist lie that was Brexit to significantly strip back our rights and freedoms. Who could have seen this coming?
Communication Workers’ Union (CWU) members at BT call centres and Openreach are on strike once again. It’s now the eighth walk-out in the union’s current phase of industrial action. However, the CWU is taking another step in its fight for fair pay and conditions. It’s going directly to BT shareholders and urging them to support CWU members.
CWU: a “bitter dispute” with BT
Currently, 40,000 workers – including 999 call handlers, BT call centre workers and Openreach engineers – are taking strike action. It’s in what the union calls an “increasingly bitter dispute over pay”. BT imposed a flat-rate pay award onto workers – without consulting the CWU first. This was originally an extra £1,200 a year. BT then upped this to £1,500 – which meant a 3-8% increase for workers. However, this is of course an effective pay cut when you factor in spiralling UK inflation – currently at 10.1%. Worse still, the Bank of England says inflation will hit 11% soon, with some analysts saying 14% is possible in the next few months.
The CWU claims the paltry BT pay offer is “despite [BT] making £1.3bn in profits” and “handing record pay-outs to senior executives and shareholders”. It also says the £1,500 pay offer is despite:
Philip Jansen, the BT CEO… [receiving] a £3.5 million pay package… [Jansen] refuses to engage in talks to resolve this dispute.
The union says this was a 32% rise in Jansen’s overall remuneration package. On Monday 24 October, workers engaged in the last day of their current round of striking. The CWU says they have “been incensed by both the hypocrisy of the company but latterly their anti-strike propaganda”. So the union is taking things further.
Getting BT shareholders on board
The CWU is trying to organise a meeting with BT shareholders. It wants shareholders and “the media to expose the actions” of Jansen. CWU general secretary Dave Ward said in a press release:
Meeting the shareholders of BT Group is the natural next step – it should demonstrate to the company that we won’t relent until we have exposed them and changed the course of this dispute. Alongside these external pressures, BT workers will take further strike action if needed.
Morale is at an all-time low – we have an out of control, out of touch CEO who is counting his money while his employees are using foodbanks. This is just not right, and we will not stop fighting until our members gain a proper pay rise.
It’s unclear at this point what any shareholder meeting would look like. However, given that the CWU is claiming its strike action has caused cracks to appear in BT Group, and the company’s share price has been steadily falling in recent months, shareholders may take up the CWU’s offer.
Fighting back
CWU deputy general secretary Andy Kerr said:
Our members are standing strong – they know supporting the union is not only the right thing to do, it’s the only thing to do. Despite being impacted by the worst cost of living crisis in memory, CWU members are fighting back. Today’s strike turnout is rock solid once again, and this will remain the case until BT wake up and get back around the negotiating table to settle this dispute.
Now, workers must wait to see what the outcome of their union’s shareholder meeting request is. As always, the CWU is acting in their best interests. It will be interesting to see if the shareholders do the same.
A Scottish Green Party politician has accused Scottish Labour of ignoring complaints raised against one of its councillors. This councillor attended a rally organised by For Women Scotland, a group which has likened transgender people to fetishists.
For Women Scotland
Labour councillor Alison Ann-Dowling is a representative in the Houston, Crossless and Linwood ward of Renfrewshire. The accusations against her are due to the fact that she spoke at the ‘Scottish Women’s Rally’ on 6 October. This was an event that For Women Scotland organised.
According to a press release from Renfrewshire and Inverclyde Green Party, For Women Scotland has:
been widely described as an anti-trans group, and its members oppose the strengthening of rights for LGBT+ people, have repeatedly belittled trans identities, suggested being trans is a “fetish”, and have been accused of hounding rape crisis centres in Scotland to the point of closure.
The same press release said:
Leadership within Scottish Labour in Renfrewshire and across Scotland have ignored complaints raised about an elected councillor after she spoke at a demonstration organised by an anti-LGBT organisation.
‘Zero-tolerance’
The press release also noted that Scottish Labour had pledged a “zero-tolerance” approach to sexuality and gender-based discrimination. It linked to Scottish Labour’s National Recovery Plan, which contains text stating that the party will:
reform the Gender Recognition Act to demedicalise the process and allow for the recognition of people who identify as neither men nor women.
Our Government’s proposals to amend the Gender Recognition Act by removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria are deeply concerning
‘Slowly losing hope’
Charley O’Hear, who is co-convener of Renfrewshire and Inverclyde Greens, said:
Our complaints to the Labour Party, the Co-Op Party and the leader of Labour in Renfrewshire Council were submitted in the hope that these officials were simply unaware of the views of Councillor Dowling or her presence at this anti-trans rally.
Unfortunately, we have yet to receive a response with regards to this. We are slowly losing hope that any response received would be sufficient in addressing and owning up to the harm Councillor Dowling’s actions have caused.
O’Hear added that Scottish Labour’s lack of action amounts to a failure in its duty to follow through with the policy platform the party promoted:
A Labour politician using her profile as a councillor to attend events and promote views that contradict party policy is simply unacceptable – not just to transgender people in Renfrewshire and Scotland but also to everyone who believed the Labour Party’s policies at council elections.
Everybody deserves to be able to elect politicians, and political parties, who stick to their word and their own policies. Sadly, those who have voted Labour will now know that they have backed a party who do not stand up for the rights of trans people across the country. Both Councillor Dowling and the Labour Party have failed in their duty.
On 19 October, Robinson spoke at the National Press Club in Canberra. She was blunt in her assessment of Assange’s health, saying “I don’t know how much longer he can last”. Indeed, on 12 December 2021, it was reported that Assange had suffered a Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA), also sometimes referred to as a mini-stroke. A TIA can often indicate the likelihood of a follow-up major stroke.
Julian’s wife Stella waits anxiously for the phone call she dreads. As she has said, Julian is suffering profoundly in prison – and it is no exaggeration to say he may not survive it.
She described what was happening to him as:
Punishment by legal process. Bury[ing] him in never-ending legal process until he dies
Appeals
Robinson also brought up the matter of the appeals process:
We have filed an appeal and we should learn soon whether the High Court will grant permission and hear it.
If it does, we can expect a process that could take years – through the High Court, and to the UK Supreme Court. If we lose, we will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] – that is, if the conservative British government doesn’t remove its jurisdiction before we are able to.
Indeed, the Tory government with Boris Johnson as prime minister considered making it easier for the UK to override ECHR rulings. And the next Tory administration could continue to push that policy.
Julian will be extradited to the US – where his prison conditions will be at the whim of the intelligence agencies which plotted to kill him. He will face an unfair trial and once convicted, it could take years before a First Amendment constitutional challenge would be heard before the US Supreme Court.
Another decade of his life gone – if he can survive that long.
Legal milestones
During the course of her speech, Robinson noted some of the recent legal milestones leading to the present day. For example:
In May 2020 the Canary published details of the notorious Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) that Assange would likely be subject to if extradited to the US.
In January 2021, the judge ruled that Assange’s extradition was disallowed on health grounds and the risk that he could take his own life.
However in December 2021 the US appealed that decision, offering an ‘assurance’ that, according to Robinson, US authorities would not “place him under SAMs unless they decide he later deserves it”. The magistrate then ruled that the extradition could go ahead after all, once the home secretary approves it.
In June 2022, then UK home secretary Priti Patel agreed that Assange could be extradited.
Robinson also summarised some of the other developments surrounding the case:
UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer concluded in 2019 that Assange had been subjected to “torture”.
In 2017, US congressman Dana Rohrabacher met with the WikiLeaks founder in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, to offer him a deal. Robinson was present at the meeting. Rohrabacher wanted Assange to provide evidence that Russia did not hack the Democratic National Committee emails. At the time, president Donald Trump was under investigation as part of the Mueller inquiry into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. Rohrabacher told Assange that if he agreed to provide the evidence, Trump would arrange a pardon or protection against extradition. But Assange was not prepared to name the source of the leak. An indictment followed.
Meanwhile, in October 2021 news emerged that the CIA planned to kidnap and kill Assange in London.
Of the 18 charges listed against Assange, one is simply about measures taken by any journalist to protect a source – in this instance Chelsea Manning. The other charges merely relate to receiving and publishing of information and so violate a journalist’s freedom of expression.
She told ABC that an urgent political solution is needed:
This case needs an urgent political fix. Julian does not have another decade of his life to wait for a legal fix
She added:
And it might be surprising to hear that from me, as a lawyer, that the solution is not a legal one. It is a political one.
On 17 October, more than 300 doctors sent a letter to then home secretary Suella Braverman and US attorney general Merrick Garland requesting that Assange be freed:
As Covid & isolation add to dire health concerns, we 300+ doctors implore the US & UK to release #JulianAssange now.
It is a travesty that a remand prisoner never convicted of a crime is languishing in Britain’s most notorious high security prison, when he shouldn’t have been imprisoned in the first place. The critical nature of Mr. Assange’s physical and psychological health underscores the need for his immediate release from prison.
The fear is that by stringing the legal process out over years, if not decades, Assange will not survive.
And those implicated in allowing such a tragedy would be party to nothing less than judicial murder.
A new study suggests that the news media’s tanking levels of public trust may be made worse merely by association with social media.
The study, released this month by the Reuters Institute at Oxford University, has exposed gaps between trust in news via conventional delivery and the same thing consumed via social media.
It doesn’t matter whether people use social media or not: Levels of trust is lower if they simply associate news with the platforms.
The gap varies between platforms and between countries but the overall finding is that levels of trust in news on social media, search engines, and messaging apps is consistently lower than audience trust in information in the news media more generally.
And our media is becoming more and more associated with social media.
Many of the country’s main news outlets have done deals with Google to appear on its Google News platform. Click on the app and you’ll see stories from Stuff, Newshub, New Zealand Herald and NewstalkZB, Radio New Zealand, Television New Zealand, Newsroom, and the Otago Daily Times.
I think I’ve also seen The Spinoff in there, too.
NZME has brokered a deal with Facebook for the use of content, and other publishers are using the Commerce Commission in the hope of leveling the negotiating playing field.
Split between north and south
The Reuters study (part of the institute’s on-going research into trust in the media) was a split between north and south. The four countries surveyed were the United Kingdom, the United States, India, and Brazil. Two thousand people were surveyed in each country and covered seven platforms: Facebook, Google, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, WhatsApp, and YouTube.
New Zealand use of social media more closely follows that of the United States and the United Kingdom than India and Brazil so the data relating to those two nations are quoted here. The full results can be found here.
Google showed the smallest gap between platform and general trust in news. It was only one percentage point behind in Britain where 53 percent express general trust in news. In the US, where the general trust level sits at 49 percent, Google was actually four percentage points ahead.
The same could not be said for other platforms.
To ease the calculation, we’ll say roughly 50 percent of respondents in both countries express trust in news in general. Contrast that with news on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, which score in the mid to high twenties.
TikTok news is trusted by only 20 percent on those surveyed, the same number as WhatsApp rates in the United States (the UK is higher on 29 percent).
Only YouTube emerged from the twenties, with its news content being rated by 33 percent in Britain and 40 percent in the United States.
Complex reasons
The reasons for these gaps in perception of news on social media are complex. This is due in part to the fact that social media serves many different purposes for many different users.
News is only a small part of the interchange that occurs. The study shows that no more than a third use Google or Facebook for daily access to news, with other platforms below 20 percent, and on TikTok only 11 percent.
Large portions of the public, in fact, do not use social media platforms at all (although this does not stop them having opinions about them in the survey). Usage varies between Britain and America but a quarter to a third never use Facebook, Google or YouTube and half to three quarters do not use the remaining platforms.
Previous Reuters research has shown levels of trust in news are higher in those who access it on a regular basis. Distrust is highest among those who have least contact with news and with social platforms. This is confirmed by the latest survey.
News organisations may take some comfort from the findings that young people are more trusting of news on social platforms than older people. The gap is huge in some cases.
An average 14 percent of Americans and Britons over 55 trust news on Facebook. That rises to 40 percent among those under 35. The gap for Google is similar and even greater on other platforms.
News aside, however, people have generally positive views of platforms. More than two-thirds give Google a tick and almost as many give the thumbs-up to YouTube. Both are seen as the best platforms on which learn new things.
Facebook doesn’t fare so well
Facebook does not fare quite so well but at 40-45 percent positive rating, while fewer than a third feel positively about Twitter and TikTok.
In spite of these warm fuzzies, however, the surveys reveal “big problems”, particularly with Facebook.
Almost two-thirds of respondents blame Facebook for propagating false or misleading information and it is also seen as the worst culprit in on-platform harassment, irresponsible use of personal data, prioritising political views, and censoring content.
Although opinions expressed by non-users has complicated the Reuters study, both users and no-users express similar views when it comes to these problems. For example, the proportion of Facebook users that say false or misleading information is a problem on the platform (63 percent) is virtually the same as those who say it is in the overall sample.
The study, which includes an even wider range of variables than are included here, attempts to correlate platform usage and ideas about journalism. After all, it is on such platforms — and from the mouths of some politicians — that users encounter discussions about journalism and criticism of journalists.
The survey asked specific questions about journalists. Half the respondents thought journalists try to manipulate the public to serve the agendas of powerful politicians and care more about getting attention than reporting the facts.
Forty percent thought journalists were careless in what they reported, and a slightly higher proportion thought they were only in it for the money.
Criticism of journalism
The researchers then attempted to identify where and how criticism of journalism is encountered. Twitter users are most likely to encounter it. In the United States almost half said they often see criticism of media there and the UK is not far behind.
More than 40 percent of Facebook and Google users in America encounter it and a third of British users of those two platforms say they see it there. Other (newer) platforms have even higher incidences.
So that is where the criticism of journalists is propagated, but who is doing the criticising? Almost half those surveyed in the United States pointed the finger at politicians and political parties, although a similar number also say the hear it from “ordinary people”.
The figures are slightly lower in the UK but around a third identify political or government sources.
The survey also asked whether other public figures were responsible for criticism of journalists. Celebrities and activists figure in around a third of responses but so, too, do journalists themselves.
The surveys also give some pointers about the relative importance of “clicks” or how much attention our newsrooms should give to real-time analytics. The answer is . . . some.
Respondents were asked to pick the factors that were important in deciding whether they could trust information on online platforms. In both countries fewer than 40 percent said the number of likes or shares were important or very important.
Media source familiarity
Around half paid attention to comments on items but far more important was whether they had heard of the media source. Two thirds were influenced by the tone or language used in headlines and almost 60 percent were influenced by accompanying images.
That finding correlates with another in which respondents were asked who should be responsible for helping to differentiate between trustworthy and untrustworthy content on the internet.
More than two-thirds put that responsibility on media organisations, higher than on tech companies, and significantly higher than on government (although Britons were more inclined toward regulation than their American cousins).
However, if the research proved one thing, it was that the media/social media environment is deeply nuanced and manifests the complexities of human behaviour. The conclusions drawn by the researchers say as much. They leave a couple of important take-aways.
“As a trade-off for expanding reach and scale, newsrooms have often ceded considerable control to these outside companies in terms of how their content is distributed and how often and in what form their work appears on these services.
“Such relationships have been further strained as publishers become increasingly dependent on platforms to reach segments of the public least interested in consuming news through legacy modes, even as platforms themselves have pivoted to serving up other kinds of experiences farther removed from news, recognising that many of their most active users have less interest in such content, especially where politically contentious issues are involved.”
They say the gap they have identified is likely a reflection of this mismatch in audience perceptions about what platforms are for, the kinds of information they get when using the services, and how people think more generally about news media.
“It is possible that the main challenge for news organisations when it comes to building and sustaining audience trust is less about the specific problem of how their journalism is perceived when audiences encounter it online, and more about the broader problem of being seen at all.”
My conclusion
Years ago, we heard the term “News You Can Use” as a response to the challenge of declining newspaper circulation. That was a catchy way of saying “We must be relevant”. The Reuters study is further proof that journalism’s real challenge lies in producing content that ordinary people need to live their daily lives. If that means collating and publishing daily lists of what every supermarket chain is charging for milk, bread, cabbages and potatoes then so be it.
Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.
Here we go again. Yes – another month, and another internal Tory election for the UK’s prime minister is underway. So, who are the tired old Tories slogging it out to be able to screw the rest of us over even more?
if there ever was an age in which civility and honesty were the key ingredients in British politics (spoiler alert: this has never happened) then this is not it.
That was an understatement if ever there was one. So, after the catastrophe of recent days, we’re all waiting to see who the next unelected Tory PM will be – and the list is a veritable Who’s-Who of self-serving shits.
What’s the collective noun for a group of shits?
Former chancellor and previous leadership candidate Rishi Sunak is currently favourite to take the job. However, let’s not forget that he wasted billions of pounds of public money while posing as the man competently in charge of the UK’s finances. Then, the government allegedly gave his non-dom ‘tax-sheltering’ wife’s company £22m in public sector contracts. And, Sunak’s wealth is obscene – he’s worth around £200m. Once again, if he gets in, expect more policies detached from reality for the rest of us.
Then, the next shit in the running is, unbelievably, Boris Johnson. Little more needs to be said about him, except that if the Tory Party give him a second chance as PM, it would probably be its most self-destructive move since appointing Truss – a low bar, we know. So, what’s even the point of spelling out this mendacious fuckwit’s record? Nothing sticks to him, regardless.
Ultimately, for the rest of us, this is going to be hell on earth. None of these people will serve our interests – just those of them and their peers. We need a general election, although with its now-right-wing credentials, Keir Starmer’s Labour won’t be much better. There’s little else to say except for ‘we’re fucked’.
Just before 1:30 pm London Time on Thursday, Downing Street announced that Prime Minister Liz Truss would be making a brief statement. A few minutes later, the frazzled leader — whose authority was shredded by the firing of her chancellor and the resignation of her home secretary, by open revolt among her Members of Parliament (MPs), and by a market swan dive in response to her signature policies — announced that she was quitting.
The Conservatives are now improvising as they go, desperate to avoid triggering a general election that polls suggest would spell the political death of the party. The party is trailing Labour by over 30 percent; 87 percent of the public disapprove of Conservatives’ handling of the economy, and in the days before her resignation, only 9 or 10 percent of the electorate had a favorable view of Truss. By every measure, Truss was the most unpopular U.K. prime minister in the history of polling.
Within minutes of Truss’s resignation, the party had announced it would hold a snap leadership contest, with the aim of installing a new prime minister at the helm by October 28. The hope in doing a quick-and-dirty transition, was, presumably, that it would forestall a long fratricidal turf war, denying extremists in the party the chance to build support amongst the party’s base — the same base that had, over the opposition of the parliamentary party, elevated Truss to power in the first place.
Yet, any hope the party had of making this a smooth transition — of finding a single leader who would unite the Conservatives and forestall a messy contest — was dashed two hours later when disgraced ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson — who had been sitting out the Truss fiasco by holidaying in the Caribbean — let it be known to select journalists that he would likely be standing in the contest as a matter of “national interest.”
And so, now the British post-Brexit soap opera continues.
Truss’s demise is a case study in what happens when a political system built around notions of stability and continuity breaks down.Truth
The day before Truss quit — making her prime ministerial tenure the shortest in British history, and disqualifying her for the generous lifelong pension that all ex-prime ministers get so long as they have served a minimum of two months in office — she had addressed a hostile House of Parliament and emphatically declared that she was “not a quitter,” and that she would lead her party into the next general election.
But behind the scenes, the wheels of a palace coup were already in motion. The six weeks of chaos following Truss’s installment as prime minister were, apparently, too much even for the pliant Conservative backbenchers.
A recap:
Last week, Truss fired Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng for pushing a “mini-budget” chock-full of Truss’s own rigidly ideological policy stances — policies that tanked the British bond market, sent mortgage rates hurtling upward, threatened to swamp the British pension system by undermining private funds’ investments and forced a huge Bank of England intervention.
In firing Kwarteng for implementing her vision, Truss simply alienated much of her own parliamentary party. When her far right home secretary resigned — ostensibly for using her private email account to communicate about official matters, but, rumor has it, really because she expressed reservations about Truss’s plans to relax immigration restrictions so as to bring in more workers to fill jobs left empty by the exodus of European Union workers in the wake of Brexit — any semblance of party unity disintegrated. When the Truss team then attempted, yesterday evening, to make a parliamentary vote on fracking a vote of confidence, their own party whip and deputy whip refused to vote with the government and resigned (though the confusion was such that ministers couldn’t confirm or deny the resignations had occurred), and opposition MPs gleefully took cellphone videos of ministers attempting to manhandle MPs into the voting lobby to vote the government’s way.
There is, at this point, more than an element of farce to British politics. The Conservative Party, which for hundreds of years has been widely viewed as the gold standard of “stability” in not just British but European politics, has now run through four prime ministers since Brexit, and by next week will have its third leader in as many months.
On October 11, TheEconomist wrote that Truss had burned through her political credibility in one week, the “shelf life of a lettuce,” as they dryly put it. Since then, the tabloid newspaper the Daily Star has run with the analogy, publishing a picture of said lettuce every day on its front page, along with a framed photo of Truss. Its day one headline, the first of a week’s worth of brutal captions, asked, “Which wet lettuce will last longer?” Today, TheNew York Times answered the question: “The Lettuce Outlasts Liz Truss.”
Now, as a snap leadership election looms, the question is whether Boris Johnson will manage to rise, like a phoenix from the ashes of the Truss disaster, to resurrect his own career. His claims to be riding to the national rescue are, of course, entirely bogus; but, so desperate are the Conservative grassroots for any semblance of charisma and competence that it’s entirely possible that they will turn, once more to “Boris.” If they do, it’s hard to see how the Conservative Party avoids fissuring beyond repair.
LONDON — British Prime Minister Liz Truss announced her resignation Thursday after six turbulent weeks in office, making her the shortest-serving prime minister in British history.
CNBC reported that Truss was in office for just 44 days, making her the shortest-serving prime minister in British history.
For the 10 days of her premiership government business was paused following the death of Queen Elizabeth.
BBC reported that speaking outside the door of her Number 10 Downing Street office and residence, Truss accepted that she could not deliver the promises she made when she was running for Conservative leader, having lost the faith of her party.
In Sept. 23, Truss’ finance minister, Kwasi Kwarteng, announced a so-called “mini-budget” which began a turbulent period for U.K. bond markets which balked at the debt-funded tax cuts he put forward.
Most of the policies were reversed three weeks later by the second finance minister, Jeremy Hunt.
Reuters said a leadership election will be completed within the next week to replace Truss, who is the shortest serving prime minister in Britain’s history. George Canning previously held the record, serving 119 days in 1827, when he died.
Speaking outside the door of her Number 10 Downing Street office and residence, Truss accepted that she could not deliver the promises she made when she was running for Conservative leader, having lost the faith of her party.
Truss said a new prime minister will be selected by her Conservative Party lawmakers in the coming week. But the process by which the decision will be made remains unclear.
The party is bitterly divided by warring centrist and right-wing factions, and there is no clear consensus candidate to take over.
Rumors were swirling on Thursday that Johnson, 58, who delivered the Conservative Party a whopping majority in 2019 – only to be brought down by a series of scandals – is mulling over a return to Downing Street.
The Times of London reported that Johnson was considering it. Steven Swinford, the paper’s political editor, said that Johnson was “taking soundings but is said to believe it is a matter of national interest.”
Conservative lawmakers have increasingly called on Truss to step down after she was forced to junk most of her economic programme which when delivered on Sept. 23 sent the pound and government bond markets tumbling.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and other opposition parties called for an immediate general election following Ms Truss’s resignation speech.
On 20 October, prime minister Liz Truss announced her resignation after just 44 days in office. Blaming the “situation” of social and economic instability, the prime minister said: “I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected”. This comes after a month of political turmoil and increasing pressure on her to step down.
It’s just embarrassing
Oh dear. I can feel the buzz wearing off. I need another resignation to keep me going. Used to be just the one could get me through a whole week. Now I need a couple a day to get the same high
Indeed, Truss replaces George Canning as the country’s shortest serving PM. Canning died 119 days into his premiership in 1827.
Meanwhile, writer Louis Staples shared his concerns for the authors of a book on Truss’ ‘rise to power’, which hasn’t even had the chance to hit shelves yet:
Britain has a long history of violently invading nations under the guise of offering support during moments of political turmoil. Proponents of British imperialism often argue that Britain spread liberal democracy through colonial rule.The UK-backed Iraq war was launched under the guise of promoting human rights and democracy. Perhaps now is the time for formerly colonised nations to return the favour?
In this line of thinking, World Politics Review associate editor Chris O. Ògúnmọ́dẹdé quipped:
Alright Britishians. I have heard all of your appeals for help and have decided to take action. I have met with the rest of the West African delegation, and after careful consultation, we shall convene a new stabilization mission to rescue your troubled little island. Stay tuned. https://t.co/Tu9wrjt2ED
On 19 October, Suella Braverman resigned from her role as home secretary. This came during a night of absolute chaos in Westminster, with reports of manhandling, bullying, and shouting over a Commons vote on fracking. Following a month of political turmoil and mounting pressure, Liz Truss resignedas prime minister on 20 October after just 44 days in the role.
Pride comes before a fall
According to the official story, Braverman was caught sending a policy document about migration to a non-ministerial MP from her personal account, and was subsequently forced to resign. However, her forceful letter to Liz Truss in which she airs “concerns about the direction of this government” and states that ministers had broken “key pledges” suggests a breakdown in internal relations due to the prime minister’s failure to toe the home secretary’s line.
Either way, this makes Braverman the UK’s shortest-serving post-war Home Secretary. Braverman is also the second holder of a great office of state to resign in less than a week, with former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng being forced to resign on 14 October after the government’s mini budget triggered a plunge in the pound.
Braverman’s fall came the day after she told the House of Commons:
It’s the Labour Party, it’s the Lib Dems, it’s the coalition of chaos, it’s the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati, dare I say, the anti-growth coalition that we have to thank for the disruption we are seeing on our roads today.
The home secretary was referring to ongoing Stop Oil climate protestors who were blocking bridges while calling for an end to new oil and gas licences. Braverman was urging MPs to support the draconian Public Order Bill, which passed through the Commons later that day. If it passes through the House of Lords, it will give the government and police more power to clamp down on our right to protest.
Responding to the news of the short-lived home secretary’s departure from office, writer Jason Okundaye tweeted:
Nah this Suella departure is funnier than the Kwasi sacking because she was talking the HARDEST yesterday
In her attempt to have the last word, Braverman hit out again at ‘selfish protesters‘ in her letter to the prime minister. It’s telling what else Braverman brought up on her way out. In her resignation letter, Braverman stated:
I have serious concerns about this Government’s commitment to honouring manifesto commitments, such as reducing overall migration numbers and stopping illegal migration, particularly small boat crossings.
This reflects the former home secretary’s cruel stance on immigration, which followed in the footsteps of her cartoonishly evil predecessor Priti Patel.
In October, Braverman proudly told Tory Party Conference attendees that it is her ‘dream‘ and ‘obsession’ to see a flight traffic asylum seekers to offshore detention sites in Rwanda. This scheme comes alongside the inhumane and discriminatory Nationality and Borders Bill, which seeks to criminalise vulnerable people seeking refuge in the UK. The European Court of Human Rights is questioning the lawfulness of plans to ship asylum seekers to Rwanda, a country with a poor human rights record.
Responding to the news of Braverman’s departure, one Twitter user shared:
Please spare a thought for Suella Braverman who has been forced to resign without trafficking a single human being to Rwanda. This must be incredibly hard for her
Following a series of humiliating U-turns, Braverman’s exit and a night of absolute chaos in Westminster, people spent the morning on high alert waiting for the prime minister to resign.
Foreseeing Truss’ departure, cross-party advocacy group Best for Britain tweeted:
Suella Braverman was the shortest-serving Home Secretary for 188 years.
Kwasi Kwarteng was the shortest-serving Chancellor for 52 years.
Liz Truss can beat that. If she goes before Christmas she'll be the shortest-serving UK Prime Minister ever.
On 20 October, the prime minister made a statement outside Number 10 announcing the abrupt end of her short premiership. It now appears that the Tories will have to go through yet another leadership election to determine Truss’ successor. Over the course of writing this article, this chaotic government has stumbled into yet another catastrophe in record time. In fact, Suella Braverman herself is said to be in the running for leader – Rajeev Syal, home affairs editor of the Guardian, reported:
Suella Braverman is widely expected to stand to be Tory leader, although Sir John Hayes, the former minister who is a confidante and adviser to the former home secretary, declined to say if she plans to stand.
“Suella has clearly got a big future in the Conservative party and is widely recognised as a standard bearer for authentic traditional Toryism,” he said.
We’re all about to be even more fucked than we already are.
You can’t have missed the Conservative government nearly imploding on Wednesday 19 October. From resignations to ‘don’t give a fuck’s‘, via bullying and a collapse in comms – the Tory party is eating itself alive. While this may seem very entertaining, this Westminster soap opera is just that. Because back in the real world, for the rest of us, life is as difficult as it was before this latest Conservative clusterfuck.
The Ladybird Book of Chaos Volume 2
Liz Truss’s government had its own political Black Wednesday on 19 October. The day started innocuously enough, with a predictable mauling for the PM at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs). Keir Starmer’s Labour honed in on Truss’s now-infinite U-turns – with the opposition benches chanting “gone” as he read out a list of her backtracking. Bad dad jokes from Starmer followed, along with the thinly-veiled notion that somehow his right-wing party would be better than the far-right one we currently have in charge. Truss may have thought that was bad enough, but PMQs was just a taster of things to come.
Out of nowhere, in the mid-afternoon, home secretary Suella Braverman quit after she said she broke ministerial rules. Of course, she didn’t really quit because she broke the rules – it’s almost in the Tory Party job description to do that. What Braverman was actually doing was piling the pressure on Truss to do the same. From here, the PM and the government’s day spiralled. She had to appoint arch-critic and expertfuckwit Grant Shapps as home secretary – a perfect fit for Truss’s equally clusterfucking government, you might think. However, even Shapps couldn’t have cocked up as much as the Tory Party did for the rest of the day. His appointment, along with Jeremy Hunt’s, is looking more and more like a coup in the making.
A very Tory farce
The moment everything spun out of control for the government was the vote on fracking. It seems that the Tories tried to make it a confidence vote in the PM. They did this by enforcing a three-line whip, meaning that any MP who didn’t vote with the government could face the party booting them out. However, just before the vote a minister said it wasn’t a confidence vote – leaving parliament in chaos. Right-wing Labour MP Chris Bryant alleged that he saw senior Tories using “bullying” and physical manhandling to get Tory MPs into parliament to vote. Bryant claimed two of the MPs doing the manhandling were time-travelling Victorian Jacob Rees-Mogg and cigar-smokingprescription sharer Thérèse Coffey.
All this led to the chief and deputy whips resigning. The latter apparently walked out of the Commons screaming “I am fucking furious and I don’t give a fuck anymore!”. Meanwhile, Truss apparently grabbed the chief whip Wendy Morton to stop her resigning. Except no-one, including Downing Street, seemed to know if they had resigned or not. This was probably because they hadn’t actually resigned – as Truss’s comms team confirmed later that evening. Confused yet? You should be – the Tories clearly were. Just to finish off this farce, at 1:30am on Thursday 20 October, the government confirmed that the fracking vote was indeed a confidence vote – after it was, then it wasn’t.
Back in the real world…
So, as of 12:30pm on Thursday 20 October, it’s looking like the Tory Party might sack Truss as she’s meeting with the 1922 committee boss; parliament will investigate MPs’ behaviour, and everyoneelseoutside the Tory Party is calling for a general election. The EastEnders and Hollyoaks scriptwriters must be seething in jealousy. Even the most extravagant of soap operas couldn’t match the Westminster bubble on 19 October. But for the rest of us, all this is a world away from what’s going in our lives. Amid the Tory omnishambles, we found out inflation has hit 10.1% – with the rate on food hitting nearly 15%. Some mortgage rates have hit 14-year highs. More people were skipping meals than at the start of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. To top it all off, almost 11 million households, one in three, could be in fuel poverty next year.
The Tory chaos may be entertaining for Westminster bubble journalists and Labour MPs looking to score quick dad-joke wins. But behind the awful behaviour, devious agendas, and narcissistic power-struggles lies a democracy and a political and economic system that has collapsed around us. It’s one that never really worked for most of us, anyway. But now, as the Tory Party implodes, the rest of us have to continue to pick up the pieces of our own shattered lives, while Westminster spirals out of control.
At the beginning of October 10,000 people marched in central Cardiff calling for Welsh independence. Marches like the one on 1 October are becoming a more frequent occasion. An increase in support for an independent Wales went alongside the UK’s final exit from the European Union.
The thousands that marched in Cardiff on 1 October show that the movement is still strong. Many supporters of independence tweeted out pictures of the march:
"The Tory government has left working people like us behind. Towns across Wales have been left to rot. People are growing up without hope."https://t.co/CwAAKTiwBT
We asked Welsh think tank Melin Drafod why the Welsh independence movement is growing in popularity. Talat Chaudhri, chair of Melin Drafod, commented:
It’s clear, not only from the success and popularity of the recent rallies in Wales, but also other events here and elsewhere, that change is afoot in these islands. For us, independence is an inevitable consequence of the end of Britain’s imperial project – a completely unjust and exploitative endeavour. Wales’s part in that project and the evils committed in its name cannot be denied. As we forge a new, free Wales, we have a moral duty to learn from the lessons of our past and the experience of other countries.
Given that sooner or later Wales is going to gain its independence, as a group our focus is on how we as a society with those new freedoms can make choices that are progressive and rooted in the left-radical traditions in our communities. After all, Wales gaining its independence will be a reflection of a desire to see a very different way of life from the UK establishment’s hegemonic, hyper-capitalistic, militaristic consensus.
Talat explained that Melin Drafod’s priority was preparing the way for a “progressive independence”. He said:
Given that the United Kingdom is unravelling apace, there is a real need for us as citizens to thoroughly prepare for Welsh independence. Our priority is promoting progressive independence, not independence for its own sake. That’s why we are discussing solutions to the major crises of our age – from climate change and language minoritisation to the scourges of poverty and racism – both here and around the world.
A danger of “creating a smaller version of the British state”
One of the speakers at Melin Drafod’s event was Leanne Wood, the previous leader of the Plaid Cymru parliamentary party. She spoke about how she thinks the independence movement has progressed over time. She argued that:
She continued by saying that a progressive independence for Wales is:
somethingthatweallwant.It’ssomethingtangibleandit’sdoable,butit’snotgoingtojusthappenautomatically.AndIthinkthere’sadangerofcreatingjustasmallerversionofthe British state… andwhatwouldbethepointofthat?Wehavetobuildsomethingthatenablespeopletobebetteroffthantheyarenow.Wehavetobuildsomethingthatenablespeople’slivestobetangiblyimproved.Otherwise,we’rewastingourtime.SoIthinkwehavetothinkverycarefullyaboutthekindofindependencemovementweare,andthekindofWalesthatwewanttobuild.Idon’tthinkwecandivorceourselvesfromotherstrugglesliketheclimatecrisis,andthecostoflivingcrisis.
“Analternativeeconomicsystemtocapitalism“
Wood spoke about her involvement in creating a plan for a new type of economy in the Valleys. Wood said the plan argued:
foranalternativeeconomicsystemtocapitalism,sothatwecouldputthecontrolinthehandsoftheworkersortheownersofenergyandfoodproductioninWalessothatitwouldstayinthosecommunities… Atthetime,lotsoffactorieswereclosingdownandrelocatingtoAsiaandEasternEurope.Ifwehadworker-ownedcooperatives creating renewableenergy,feeding the benefits backintolocalcommunities,thatwouldcreateawholesystemthatcouldpotentiallyprovideaneconomicbase,aswellasaresponsetotheclimatecrisis.
“Culture, history and language are being destroyed”
Speakers at the 1 October march echoed the calls to renew Welsh independence efforts. One of those speakers was Agit Ceviz. He is a Kurdish resident of Cardiff, who has been organising for Welsh independence for many years. Described as “a proud Kurdish man who has adopted Wales into his heart”, Agit said:
Underground and above-ground resources are being plundered. Welsh culture, history and language are being destroyed. Colonial nations put their own culture, history and language in [its] place. We want to develop our culture, history, language, freely.
According to Agit, people:
have to unite in our common interests. We are fighting for our right to live, to exist. We will not vanish without fight.
The need to create something different
Now is the time for radical ideas to blossom within the independence struggle. If the Welsh independence movement – and other similar ones – are going to move us toward real freedom, then ideas and visions are of paramount importance. We don’t need movements which are going to recreate the inequality and oppression of the British state. To be truly liberatory, these movements need to decolonise themselves. They need to create an economy that is based on co-operation not capitalism.
Ultimately they must critique the concept of the state itself, and its repressive institutions. Otherwise Welsh people’s dreams of independence may become just another form of domination by a new parliament and a new political class.
Chronically ill, disabled people have once more taken to protesting. They’re calling for funding for medical research into their disease, known as ME. It’s one that the state, medical professionals, and society have neglected for decades. So, ‘millions of missing people’ came together online and in person to demand change. And they were also asking for support from one specific organisation: the Wellcome Trust.
ME: widely misunderstood
Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is a debilitating and poorly-treated chronic, systemic neuroimmune disease that affects every aspect of the patient and their loved one’s lives. For many, the worst part is a worsening of symptoms brought on by physical activities, mental activities, or both. This is called post-exertional malaise (PEM). The latest research says it affects at least 65 million people worldwide and around 250,000 people in the UK. However, the numbers could be underestimates. Some research puts the number of undiagnosed cases at 80%. Meanwhile, other studies show a prevalence rate in the population between 0.2% and 3.48%.
Medical professionals generally claim there is no known cure. Some doctors have managed to get patients better. However, only around 6% of people with ME have remission from the disease. The cause of it is often clear – in up to 80% of cases, people get ME following a viral infection. It’s almost as if the virus never leaves them. Some studies have shown that people with ME have a constant, increased immune system response. It’s like the person’s body thinks it’s constantly fighting a virus which isn’t there.
However, funding for this chronic disease has been scant. As the Canary previously reported, between 2007 and 2015, UK funding (including government-based) per patient, per year was just £4.40 – compared to £82.20 for multiple sclerosis. The government itself directly funded a mere £558,333 a year between 2012 and 2017 for ME research. Meanwhile, people with ME are disbelieved, stigmatised, given incorrect treatment, or told it’s ‘all in their heads’. So, one campaign group has once again challenged this chronic underfunding.
Millions still missing after all these years
ME Action UK held its latest ‘Millions Missing’ event on Parliament Square on Tuesday 18 October. The name ‘Millions Missing’ is significant. It references the millions of people living with ME who are effectively missing from life. This year, the focus was on research funding – when in previous years it had been on raising awareness of the disease. Given that the campaign has severely chronically ill people at its heart, who are often house-or-bedbound, the physical turnout on the day was good
Various guests spoke to the crowd of about 50 people, plus the online audience. Hayley Valentine-Howard is a midwife whose daughter lives with ME. She explained how it affects pregnancy, and its implications on delivery and the postnatal period – including the fact that there is hardly any research into this aspect of the disease.
As one protester showed, ME can often affect whole families – hence the importance of genetic research.
Professor Douglas Kell is an academic from Liverpool University. He spoke about his microclot research and the links between ME and long Covid. Kell said:
If you want to solve scientific and medical problems you need to invest in the necessary scientific and medical research. If adequate research funds had been invested in ME research in previous decades, as people with ME have asked for, we would have been in a much better position to help people with Long Covid. Funders really need to come forward now to help us find the causes of the various flavours of ME and consequently effective treatments for them.
People at one point formed a red ribbon arc that linked everyone at the protest:
The point of this was to show that the ME community is connected and as one, despite geographical restrictions and so many members of it being house or bedbound. However, it needs far more support from those outside it.
Wellcome Trust: people with ME need you
Overall, the day was crucially centred around funding. Denise Spreag of ME Action said:
We are asking all our supporters, people with ME and people with other complex chronic conditions to start this campaign by lobbying the Wellcome Trust, the biggest funder of medical research in the UK, to commit significant funding to ME. The Wellcome Trust have approximately £29 billion of funding available.
Decode ME is currently performing a genetic study on ME. It needs 25,000 participants with the disease to take part, and is still looking for people. You can find out the details and apply here. Claire Tripp from Decode ME said:
Doctors can’t tell you much about ME. They can’t tell you why you have it, why you can’t get better or even if you’ll ever recover. Without more research into ME we’ll never have the answers we need.
The Canary asked the Wellcome Trust for comment. We specifically wanted to know if it would consider meeting with ME Action to discuss funding, whether it would consider funding ME research, and how such money could be made available. It had not responded at the time of publication.
The real-world impact of ME
The real-world impact of ME is perhaps the most heart-rending reason why so much more funding is needed. Maeve Boothby-O’Neill died of ME in 2021, aged just 27. There is currently an inquest into her death after alleged failings by medical professionals. Her mother, Sarah Boothby, spoke at the Millions Missing event. She said:
My daughter died. The system does not work…. We have had four decades of very good political support. MPs who know about this situation fully support us. We don’t have a problem with the politics. We have a problem with the medical establishment.
Boothby said that as a movement and individually, people with ME:
For decades we’ve been asking for change. And why has it not come about?
She continued, talking about Maeve:
She was my only child. [Doctors said] there was nothing wrong with her – she was ‘too healthy to be treated’… I can see she’s dying. She knows she’s dying. How can that be? I want the medical establishment to answer that question.
The protest was a quiet and lowkey affair, contrasted by a Just Stop Oil roadblock that was going on at the same time. But it’s results that matter – if ME Action can engage with the Wellcome Trust, and hopefully secure funding, then perhaps answers will eventually come for the millions of missing people and their loved ones before it’s too late for anyone else.
Watch the full livestream of the UK Millions Missing event:
Featured images and additional images via the Canary