Having been buffeted by various political maelstroms in recent weeks, which can tax our sense of mental wellbeing, perhaps we’re now in a phase of digesting and adjusting to the effects of these key events including the new government’s first Budget and the election of Donald Trump in the US. Add to this the far reaching Assisted Dying Bill, the various NHS reforms proposed by the Health Secretary, COP29 once again focusing attention on the climate catastrophe, the election of yet another new Conservative Party leader, the damning expose of royal finances by the Sunday Times and Channel 4 and the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury… – so there’s no shortage of subjects to occupy, confuse and/or rile us.
As always we have to recognize the power of the (mostly) right wing media to set the narrative and a noticeable example regarding the Budget has been the relentless message (promulgated especially by the Conservatives) that ‘tax is bad’. ‘Labour will put your taxes up’ scream the headlines in such predictable organs as the Daily Mail and Telegraph, with zero recognition that major steps were necessary to repair public services after 14 years of cuts and austerity. The latest manifestation is alarm being whipped up about council tax going up – of course it has to because local government has had millions removed from their budgets by successive Tory administrations, at the same time as demands on council services are rising. The reason there’s such a contrast is that Conservative budgets in recent years have perpetuated the pretence that no tax rises were necessary and National Insurance could be cut because we could rely on ‘increased productivity’ – clearly not the case as the threadbare state of so many public services has made only too clear.
Although the government has been praised for some Budget measures, some have come in for severe flak, especially from some vested interests. Besides the Winter Fuel Allowance one we already knew about but which data showed that not many recipients actually needed (and those who do are mostly on pension credit or eligible to apply), there was also the long trailed VAT on private school fees, manipulatively billed by critics like Kirsty Allsop as ‘a tax on education’. An X user observed: ‘Labour ‘going after private schools’ = just making them pay tax. Did you know this is now raising £9 billion? No wonder the Tories wanted to keep it in the pockets of the already rich. This money will now be redistributed into public services’.
Two related issues currently causing much alarm and anger are the inclusion of pension pots in inheritance tax liabilities (only exempt since 2015) and changes in IHT tax relief on agricultural property. The first measure seems sensible to those in favour of tackling inequality because in recent years people have been increasingly using (misusing?) pension pots to hand wealth down to family members rather than the purpose for which pensions are intended. The government also had to tackle the tax dodge increasingly being used by wealthy people like James Dyson and Jeremy Clarkson, who bought farmland to avoid inheritance tax. (Almost half the £1bn cost of APR went to 63 estates of median value £8m). Since the Budget imposed 20% tax (half the normal 40% IHT applying to other assets) on agricultural property worth over £1m many farmers are up in arms, saying that farms handed down over centuries to the next generation will have to be broken up and sold to pay the tax, that the measure will jeopardize food security and that ministers don’t understand the rural economy. A huge protest organized by the National Farmers’ Union is due to take place on 19 November, involving lobbying of MPs at Westminster and there have also been threats to blockade ports and supermarkets. And today at the Welsh Labour conference in Llandudno Keir Starmer has been greeted by a noisy farmers’ protest, alongside a massive convoy of tractors.
While Environment Minister Steve Reed insists that the government won’t backtrack on this and that three quarters of farms won’t be affected, farmers say that Defra’s own figures suggest that 66 per cent of farm businesses are worth more than the £1m threshold at which inheritance tax will now have to be paid. Tax experts have advised farmers to take out a life insurance policy to cover the IHT but this strategy is much harder the older the individual is. Useful contributions to this controversy are two episodes of Radio 4’s Farming Today (5 and 6 November) which featured, respectively, Steve Reed and an agricultural tax expert who has developed a ‘traffic light’ model to determine the best way to deal with the new policy depending on the age of those involved.
In defence of the change, it’s been pointed out that Agricultural Property Relief was only introduced in 1986 (complete exemption only since 1992) and prior to this the full amount of IHT would have been due; that the reason the price of agricultural land has risen so much is the increase in wealthy hobbyists buying up the land, which is then farmed by tenants and that the IHT payment can be spread over 10 years. What’s also fuelled those annoyed with farmers is that ‘farmers voted for Brexit’. This situation doesn’t look like being resolved any time soon. Urban dwellers shouldn’t think this won’t affect them: we will soon feel effects of protests and shortages in the shops and in our pockets.
The lack of action on a wealth tax and on social care was seen as disappointing to say the least and the government should have immediately addressed the Tory rot at the core of the BBC. The right wing bias constantly emanating from this once admirable organization will only continue to undermine the government. As an X user tweeted: ‘Sadly, the BBC is now playing an active role in undermining the health of the country due to its assumed combative approach to news-making. It’s not measured, it’s not informative, it’s not impartial’.
Another missed opportunity, in my view, is levying a steep rise in aviation tax for frequent flyers: research showed that a relatively small group of people account for a substantial number of flights. And maybe a separate tax for private jet travel: data showed that besides the US (top at 69% of flights) the UK, alongside Canada and the US, was in the top 10. A private jet takes off every six minutes in the UK.
Two further tweets which capture the nature of this Budget, in my view:
‘Reeves deserves enormous credit for committing to settle compensation for the victims of the Infected Blood and Post Office scandals four months after inheriting ZERO set aside for it. The right wing media ignore it – obviously – but well done folks’.
‘Kudos to the Chancellor for investing for the long term. The payoffs are beyond the political cycle and great to see her bucking trend of the past when such long term considerations have given way to short term politics’.
And in Starmer’s own words pre-Budget, conveying the difference between a real budget and a pretend one: ‘It’s time to choose a clear path, and embrace the harsh light of fiscal reality so we can come together behind a credible, long-term plan. It’s time we ran towards the tough decisions, because ignoring them set us on the path of decline. It’s time we ignored the populist chorus of easy answers … we’re never going back to that.’
Meanwhile, following a long drawn out contest which the media relentlessly covered but which only 31% of voters cared about according to a poll, Kemi Badenoch was declared victor and immediately made a series of risible, barrel-scraping appointments such as Chris Philp as Shadow Home Secretary, followed by poor performances at Prime Minister’s Questions. Moving further and further to the Right, as they have, will only condemn them to years of Opposition. Tories have been keen to portray this win as an indicator of how progressive they are – first black leader of a major UK political party, second Tory leader from an ethnic minority etc – but none of this is relevant when it’s her intellect, ability and acceptability (or otherwise) of her small state, low regulation Britain views that really count. Meanwhile, the increasingly irrelevant Conservatives continue to snipe at the government from the sidelines, manufacturing causes for outrage on a daily basis,
The hearts of so many of us collectively sank at the news of Donald Trump’s victory in the US election, a victory that included the popular vote, House of Representatives and the Senate. Although we’re now aware of so many reasons for the Democrats losing, there were certainly times when a victory for Harris looked possible. It’s astonishing that a convicted criminal was even allowed to run and Trump’s sexism, racism and mental instability have been plain to see. But (as in the case of Boris Johnson, which took some of us a while to see) narcissists see such qualities not as a cause of shame, a normal reaction, but as a badge of honour, with some sections of the electorate viewing them as indicators of strength.
Of course the US election is a very important event but the excessive amount of media coverage has been striking, going back even before the primaries, when other world news was also pressing. The BBC already has many staff based over there but the US-obsessed Today presenter Justin Webb has spent several weeks there and was given hours of airtime to speculate about this or the other aspect of it. The other channels weren’t that different. Many were appalled that Boris Johnson was invited to participate in Channel 4’s coverage and one of the best pieces of tv I’ve seen in ages is when the charlatan, after ignoring requests to stop plugging his book (Unleashed was constantly shoved at the camera) was first shredded by Emily Maitlis then sacked. No surprise that he later slammed Maitlis on X and said he had to leave early to catch a plane. Forever the liar.
In the (Radio 4) Today podcast, the US election Q&A one dated 7 November) it seems to me that the three presenters made an extraordinary admission: something many listeners have long thought about their ‘journalism’ but one which seemed to strike these BBC veterans for the first time. This was in response to a key question as to why the Democrats lost and it was suggested, based on CNN broadcaster Scott Jennings’s theory, that they, like much of the media, were obsessed with the polls and focused on things that seemed important to them (in what could be seen as a media/political bubble), like ‘the isms – sexism, racism, transgenderism etc’ – but NOT issues of concern to most voters. Voters’ main issue was seen to be rising inflation, which the Biden administration was seen as not sufficiently reacting to.
Generally acknowledged factors cited in the Harris failure include Biden stepping down far too late, meaning that the primaries were omitted; Harris herself seeming to lack impact; Democrats seen as being out of touch with voters’ real concerns, Harris getting celebrity endorsements and the strength of Trump’s messaging. A friend recently said the voters of ‘middle America’ had put two fingers up to the East and West coast ‘elites’. Trump made the most of this scepticism about politicians by branding himself as a non-politician.
A writer who attended over 100 Trump rallies since 2016 said: ‘Travelling many miles across multiple states, I saw Republicans united in their disdain for facts – and a Democratic party far too relaxed about challenging them’. The phrase ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’ comes to mind with just one example cited by this writer – a woman emblazoned with ‘Arab Americans for Trump’ apparel, a senior figure in the Michigan Republican party’s outreach to Muslim voters. She accurately predicted that Detroit’s majority-Arab suburbs would swing decisively for Trump. And yet…… ‘This is the same Trump who has pledged to reintroduce a travel ban for several Muslim-majority countries. The same Trump who has urged Israel to “finish the job” in its war with Gaza and who will block any refugee resettlement from the region. ‘He promised he would end the destruction and end the killing…He’s going to end all wars’.
This syndrome not only illustrates the gullibility of so many American voters but their preparedness to lap up Trump’s extravagant and unrealistic promises to ‘end inflation and make America great again’. Why did they not stop to consider whether his policies actually run counter to the specific needs and desires of sections of the electorate? Why did they not stop to reflect on the extent to which his 2016 promises were kept? And why are they so intellectually lazy that they allow themselves to be seduced by someone they want to see as a saviour? Part of the answer will be the same that applies here – political ignorance and the power of right wing media but it’s also thought Trump’s messaging was clever.
‘It is telling how little “stolen” elections have been mentioned since Trump’s second victory. But it is within these lies that Trump’s chaos calibrates itself, inside a unified and powerful ecosystem of rightwing news, online content and viral disinformation that has grown more powerful throughout this era, spewing the same falsehoods in unison day after day, on repeat, for years. It is the “political technology” by which swathes of the population have voted in effect to anoint a king in the belief it will amount to more freedom’.
Meanwhile, Trump is making a series of weird and disastrous appointments, including Elon Musk tolead the new department reviewing government contracts, including, ‘in an arrangement open to spectacular corruption, contracts with his own companies’;vaccine sceptic and conspiracy theorist Robert Kennedy Jnr as Health Minister (‘He’s gonna make America healthy again)’;Matt Gaetz for Attorney General (for two years under federal investigation for child sex trafficking and statutory rape, with a separate House of Representatives investigation into allegations of underage sexual abuse, illicit drug use, displaying to colleagues nude photos and videos of previous sexual partners, converting campaign funds for personal use and accepting gifts banned under congressional rules); and the list goes on. Says Jonathan Freedland: ‘He wasn’t kidding. Donald Trump really does want to rule as an extremist strongman, with contempt for the planet, for America’s allies and for the rule of law’.
One of the latest: ‘As director of national intelligence, overseeing 18 separate intelligence agencies including the CIA and NSA, Trump has turned to Tulsi Gabbard, a fringe Democratic congresswoman before she defected to the Republicans, best known for meeting Bashar al-Assad while the Syrian dictator was busy slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his own people, and for parroting Kremlin talking points’. All these appointments have yet to be approved by Republicans in the Senate but the writing is clearly on the wall, the ‘direction of travel’, to use that annoying phrase. Trying to establish Trump’s rationale, there are several possibilities, a key one being Trump valuing loyalty over qualifications. ‘Some hope it’s no more than an opening bid by Trump, the arch-negotiator: offer the Senate something obviously unacceptable, then haggle from there. Others wonder if it’s part of a dark, deliberate strategy, by which Trump, the agent of chaos, appoints those who are not so much disruptors as wreckers, men and women who can be relied on to make the agencies they lead collapse in failure. When the federal government is a smoking ruin, then all power will have to reside in the single man at the top’. It will be interesting and frightening to see what happens. As one X user said: ‘Some very awful people will feel empowered in America today. It will be a country of bullies and misogynists and racists all feeling legitimated by this election’.
Back in the UK, many have been shocked (why, like the Post Office Horizon scandal, does it take television to make common knowledge what should have been known before?) by the Channel 4 Dispatches expose of the royal family’s exploitation of tenants and public sector organizations, profiteering from the Duchy of Lancaster (King Charles) and the Duchy of Cornwall (Prince William). These two, forever protected by the mainstream media and the armies of hangers on, have particularly been exposed by the joint work undertaken by Channel 4 and the Sunday Times, revealing them as slum landlords and ones which presided over charging cash strapped public sector bodies like the NHS and charities like RNLI massive amounts for use of Duchy land. Until now many have not understood that besides the sovereign grant, which was raised substantially this year, the royals also benefit directly from the duchies, which are termed ‘private estates’, income not going initially to the Treasury and on which no capital gains tax or corporation tax are paid. Amounts raked in by the King include £28 million alone from wind farms because of a feudal right to charge for cables crossing land belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster.
One of the most telling aspects of this documentary (since taken down from the C4 streaming platform – due to Palace pressure?!) were the interviews of the duchy managers by the Commons Public Accounts Committee, both men demonstrating a haughty level of disengagement. One even said ‘I don’t see why this (the Duchy’s affairs) should be anything to do with this Committee’!!
Of course this prompted the usual amateurish fightback from the Palace PR machine, feeding the complicit media stuff about Prince William’s absurd homelessness campaign and Earthshot gig, the Princess of Wales’s appearance (from a balcony) at the Cenotaph remembrance service, Queen Camilla’s interestingly timed ‘chest infection’ preventing her own appearance, further attacks on Meghan Markle, and the latest: King Charles marking his 76th birthday by visiting a food hub in South London, where the children of that poor community were got to sing to him and donate cards. Just utterly sickening – feudalism in plain sight which this country can ill afford.
The Guardian’s investigation of these issues about 18 months ago (The Cost of The Crown) also found exactly what this team has just found – a huge lack of transparency. It took all three organizations months to build up a picture of the duchies’ holdings. The very least that should happen now is a reassessment of the cost of this family besides procedures to bring these two duchies under Treasury control so that their modus operandi can be properly investigated and changed. Ultimately this archaic institution of monarchy needs to be abolished, but that will take a bit longer.
Royal scandals don’t end there, of course: the media are constantly telling us how under pressure Prince Andrew is – determined to stay put in the dilapidated Royal Lodge on the Windsor Estate when the King has now withdrawn his brother’s allowance because he wants to eject him to a smaller property while allocating Royal Lodge to Kate and William. Now we suddenly hear that after all this time someone has stepped forward to support the cash-strapped prince and the archaicly titled Keeper of the Privy Purse has okayed it and with it, of course, the secrecy surrounding its provenance. Of course they would – but what this journalist points out is that it could compromise the UK’s security because of what the donor would expect in return.
‘But in a world awash with dirty cash and decidedly murky geopolitical interests, not to mention billionaires looking for back-door ways into the British establishment – well, let’s just say parliament might like to make some urgent inquiries, and make them more strategically than usual. The mistake MPs have made in the past is to follow public money, demanding to know what taxpayers are being forced to spend on the royals’ upkeep in a cost of living crisis, rather than following the strategic interest and asking who exactly is now bankrolling them instead’.
Two weeks after the appearance of reports of MPs calling for the statutory regulation of counselling more articles have appeared. ‘MPs with experience in mental health have urged the government to introduce statutory regulation for all psychotherapists and counsellors, warning that the current system is leaving people vulnerable to harm. Unlike most other healthcare roles, “psychotherapist” and “counsellor” are not protected titles nor statutorily regulated professions in the UK. Only art therapists and art psychotherapists, drama therapists and music therapists are protected titles. This means that anyone can set themselves up as a therapist without qualifications, and can continue to practise after misconduct’.
So many people don’t know this and because of shortage of NHS mental health services they seek private help and it’s a wild west because the only ‘regulation’ is not statutory and enforceable but so-called ‘accredited registers’ of practitioners maintained by the professional bodies. (Who don’t want to lose their authority in this profit making area). As a former therapist I pressed for statutory regulation years ago but came up against a brick wall, the then Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, saying that this was not ‘in the public interest’. Of course it was….and is. Current Health Secretary Wes Streeting must respond to MPs pressure – many of us have cause to watch closely.
On a lighter note, it’s very good news that the former farmhouse home of Ronald Blythe, author of the famous Akenfield, ‘a classic account of rapidly changing rural life in the 1960s, was left to Essex Wildlife Trust. It will take some time for the house to undergo all the repairs needed (on the author’s death last year it was found he’d left quite a lot of money in various accounts which could be used for this) but the plan is for ‘Bottengoms, an overgrown garden home to badgers, hornets and the occasional singing nightingale, to be opened up as a sanctuary for people and wildlife – a place of education and inspiration for writers and artists, young and old’. Parts of the house date back to the 15th century. Both house and its owner sound very interesting. ‘Blythe was born in 1922 and grew up in grinding rural poverty – so poor his family relied on straw from their cousins to stuff their mattresses. Lacking a university education, he read voraciously, and became friends with a lively bohemian artistic set including EM Forster and painters John Nash and Cedric Morris, whose home, Benton End, is nearby.
Akenfield, Blythe’s stark and poetic portrait of a Suffolk village at the time of the second agricultural revolution, was a smash hit: 15 million people watched the film adaptation when it was broadcast in 1975’. I’ve not read the book or seen the film so these are omissions I must rectify in the not too distant future!
Politics and mental health - the missing link? 