As heatwaves and drought continue there’s been no cooling of the political temperature, with world affairs, the new PM’s policies, migrants, early release of prisoners and the imminent Clacton by-election taking up a lot of air time and head space. Unprecedented numbers of candidates (34) are standing next Thursday, the more serious than expected ‘Count Binface’ often trends on X and (shameful to many) Nigel Farage left his Manchester mayoral candidate to fend for herself in order to focus on support for his Clacton campaign. Support for Reform has dropped markedly during recent months. The top people in Reform UK are all under investigation for financial wrongdoing and MP for Runcorn and Helsby Sarah Pochin has herself been called out for questionable donations. Rather than face up to these allegations, Reform has gone all out to deflect attention from them by one publicity stunt after another, the latest being Operation Fortress, trumpeted via the usual hyperbolic press conference, aimed at ‘stopping the boats’. Except the plan is clearly unworkable because it breaches the ECHR, ‘agencies of the State’ like the Royal Navy can’t just be commanded to carry out the proposed ‘humanitarian rescues’ and apart from causing a diplomatic incident with a key ally the French would never allow boats to land those people on their shores. The desperate haste with which the plan was put together was evident from its use of AI and the fact that the cover picture featured a vessel which had been sold to Brazil in 2018. It remains to be seen what else they may announce before next Thursday – time’s getting short.
A sinister development has been the discovery that Aaron Banks, the multi-millionaire businessman and political donor, had commissioned investigators to target the Sunday Times journalist Gabriel Pogrund, who was himself investigating Reform UK and its finances. Not only sinister but ironic,since right wing parties campaign for ‘free speech’ but not when it’s contrary to their interests. This is a blatant attempt to suppress professional journalism and intimidate those practicing it. ‘Banks is alleged to have paid for the services of investigators to examine Gabriel Pogrund, editor of the paper’s Insight investigations team.The detail emerged in the New Statesman on Friday. When approached for comment, Banks did not appear to deny it. He is said to have instructed Precision Risk and Intelligence, a firm he once owned, to examine Pogrund.The Sunday Times and the Guardian have broken a series of stories in recent months revealing how cash has poured into Reform and Farage personally from donors and wealthy benefactors’.
Astonishingly, (to me anyway) Banks admitted that Reform has ‘an investigative arm that’s got advanced capabilities’ – but as yet they have no proper policies and have no defence or health leads! This shows us the strange priorities… that is if it’s true about the ‘investigative arm’ and not just bombastic posturing. ‘The Sunday Times last night denied the accusation that its stories were based on illegally sourced information. The paper described the hiring of private investigators to snoop on its journalists as “reprehensible”. This article details the donations which have come under scrutiny and ends, again oddly, with the suggestion that Banks worked alone on this and had not consulted Reform UK about his investigation of Pogrund. It’s all very murky. Meanwhile, it’s been suggested that Nigel Farage had been unaware that the investigation of his finances by the Standards Committee would continue whether or not he was elected, so he could be fighting a bin completely unnecessarily.
Meanwhile, the widely discredited Tory leader Kemi Badenoch is doing quite a bit of deflection of her own, not wishing to face up to how low the Conservatives are polling and following her latest gaffe of supporting the neo Nazi activist for a council seat then doubling down on it. Reminds us of the old adage – when you’re in a hole, stop digging. But no – she’s been trending on X partly for trying to out Reform Reform, saying the Conservatives would end social housing for foreigners. If that sounds rather Daily Mail it would be intentional, to appeal to those feeling hard done by but rather than addressing the actual causes of their discontent (such as billionaires dodging tax and profiteering utilities and big tech corporations) the intention is to blame our ills on ‘migrants’. It’s thought at least 230,000 would lose their homes under this policy, but no need to worry as it’s yet more performative stuff and will never be enacted as it’s highly unlikely the Tories will ever be re-elected. Besides causing unnecessary distress, it’s galling that all these unpleasant policies are immediately seized on by our ghoulish media, calling on every interviewee to comment and taking up air time that could be far more productively used.
It puts me in mind of the widespread BBC cuts announced a few weeks ago – there are programmes like From Our Own Correspondent (Radio 4), which bring us news from parts of the globe we never hear about. This is a media failure – they spend far too much time on promoting a certain political agenda (almost always right wing) and hectic speculating about this or that and not enough on reporting the actual news.
Speaking of right wing agendas, the last blog post discussed the grants that the US were making available to certain UK individuals and organizations seen as promoting conservative values – a bit of a fig leaf for MAGA. Toby Young and Jacob Rees-Mogg were said to be involved in that exercise. Disgracefully, we now hear about much more threatening US interference in our politics via grants of up to half a million dollars for new “public education” programmes – channelled through the US embassy in London. Some could be taken in by the deliberately opaque language, although the last bit is more revealing: the plan alludes to’ a goal of fostering a ‘national conversation about shared civilizational values underpinning US-UK ties’. ..Priority will go to applicants aiming to celebrate “freedom of speech” and “limited government”. This is pure MAGA intrusion and manipulation. ‘It comes after senior Trump officials voiced sharp criticism of British authorities and repeated misinformation on a range of fronts including abortion and digital regulation, and allied with European far-right movements in attacks on hate speech and immigration policies’. The notice, astonishingly, states that the funding ‘is not intended to support partisan political activity or lobbying’ when that’s exactly what it is doing. I wonder what this government can and will do to counter such noxious attempts to influence our politics. It’s already well known that key far right operators in the US like Steve Bannon are working to spread their political philosophy across Europe.
Since Andy Burnham became Prime Minister there’s been no shortage of discussion about him, his approach and likely outcomes. Views are quite polarized, some finally having optimism and hope for our politics after years of the same and others profoundly anti the way he came to power and what they see as his attempts to claim credit for what Keir Starmer had already been doing. Although I didn’t agree with the alleged ‘coup’, I admit to being in the former camp. For the first time in decades of failure to challenge neoliberalism and the damage it’s done this country (the privatized water companies being just one example) it’s immensely refreshing to have someone who’s an excellent communicator and who’s wasted no time in announcing a number of policies which address key issues. The flurry of policies announced during this Burnham ‘bounce’ include capped bus fares, much more devolution, the 20% cut to business rates for pubs and live music venues, shaking up the educational system to focus much more on vocational subjects, relief on energy bills and of course the reform of adult social care.
Despite the sniping of right wing media and politicians, it’s been generally acknowledged that he’s made a good start and has an approval rating higher than any recent PM on coming into office. Recent incumbents have seemed remote by comparison and Burnham has proved how good he is at connecting with people – his forthcoming nationwide tour, particularly focusing on neglected areas like Port Talbot, should be interesting to see this month. Of course there’s the chance that we will be disappointed and of course he won’t be able to do in two years everything he’s cited recently but he’s tackling head on the cost of living crisis and that of adult social care reform – disgracefully abandoned by successive governments for years. This issue is certainly complex and controversial but we’re entitled to expect our politicians, with their power and hefty remuneration, to address it for the benefit of all of us. Instead we’ve just been let down and one of the most disappointing decisions of the Starmer regime was to park it until 2028 when much of the analysis required had been done previously. Apparently 22 attempts to reform social care have been made during the last 30 years but all have failed, leading critics and pessimists to suggest that this latest one will go the same way.
It’s good, then, that Baroness Louise Casey has been asked to present her recommendations by 2027. In the meantime useful work can be done in terms of working through the details and consulting experts and carers. In media coverage there have been heart rending examples of carers often struggling alone at home with their disabled spouse or relative and just as many of rapacious care homes often run by foreign private equity companies prioritizing their profits over the welfare of their residents. And they cost a fortune, often necessitating the sale of a family home. I suspect a key reason for the failure of the 22 reform efforts (besides the impracticability of some of the proposals) is the cowardice of politicians to stand up to the critics and media who have used silly labels like ‘death tax’ and ‘dementia tax’ to shape a negative narrative when we will inevitably have to pay for this somehow. I fail to understand this grossly unfair demonization of tax when taxation is needed to pay for our much needed public services. It is the case, though, that no additional tax would be needed if only we could have a wealth tax, claw back all tax evaded, rescind tax exemptions as with the royal family and other measures which prove unpopular in some quarters, like a tax on leisure flights.
Another refreshing thing about Burnham is his commitment to cross-party working, needed in social care reform perhaps more than in any other area. It would have been better if he’d waited until both the Conservative and LibDem leaders were available in person (as opposed to Ed Davey attending online and Kemi Badenoch sending her health spokesman) but he set a good example by immediately convening a meeting about social care with the other main parties. Predictably, there were complaints about Reform not being invited but this would have been pointless because they have no health policy lead and in any case are committed to a private insurance scheme to effectively replace the NHS as we know it.
For me one of the most promising announcements was the creation of 200 walk-in community based mental health centres across England by 2029 (another reminder that health services are devolved). NHS mental health services have been in a dire state for some time, so that many needing counselling and therapy have to seek private help. Because this area is not statutorily regulated it can be a bit of wild west, with very varying standards of competence and professionalism amongst practitioners.
‘The aim is to give those experiencing a mental health crisis or significant distress somewhere to go to get help when they need it – with plans to open dozens of the hubs in high street locations like banks and libraries. One in five people struggle with their mental health and thousands of people turn up at A&E when they get to crisis point because they cannot find help elsewhere’. That first sentence is of particular interest to me because, as a librarian prior to becoming a therapist, I remember articles in professional journals going back decades which discussed the potential use of public libraries for other community purposes including this kind of mental health service. Patients had indicated to researchers that they would far rather use a service based in a community setting, seen as less stigmatizing than the usual often rather bleak and clearly identifiable NHS buildings.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpd76e737ljo
But it was then odd, just days later, to see news that two thirds of NHS trusts were making cuts to their mental health services and half expected job losses – this on top of the fact that the NHS spend as a whole on mental health has gone down this year. It doesn’t make sense. The NHS Alliance, which carried out the survey, said: ‘We welcome recent announcements on capital funding for community mental health centres and the confirmation of targets to improve access to mental health care. But in the face of rising demand, the share of national NHS spend on mental health is expected to reduce for the third year in a row.It is essential that mental health investment is not allowed to fall behind, as the consequences of underfunding mental health for the wider NHS, the economy and public services will be significant’.
Andy Burnham’s devolution plans have called into question an issue some of us have urged attention to for years – that of our unwritten Constitution. I doubt whether this was ever appropriate but it certainly isn’t now, for the 21st century. ‘Andy Burnham has said his programme of devolution strengthens the case for a written constitution for the UK, a move that would fundamentally alter the workings of the state that have developed over centuries. The prime minister has long believed the UK’s “antiquated” political system needs a dramatic overhaul if opportunity is to be shared equally across the country.The UK is one of only a few major democracies without a written constitution, a document that codifies how a nation is governed within a set of fundamental rules.In his 2024 book Head North, written with the Liverpool city region mayor, Steve Rotheram, Burnham said deep inequality had become entrenched in Britain partly because it had not evolved from a ‘feudal state’ in which power is largely concentrated in Westminster’. It’s also a ‘feudal state’ because of the continuing existence of the monarchy and having the established Church of England as part of our state apparatus.
‘Our unwritten and murky constitutional arrangements have had the effect of hoarding power in a small number of hands – in Whitehall and Westminster and, by extension, in the powerful networks of institutions and vested interests that surround them’. Too true.
‘Dr Hannah White, the chief executive of the Institute for Government, said: “Adopting a written constitution – of the kind almost every other country already has – would represent a very significant constitutional shift for the UK and be a major exercise. A fully codified constitution would need to go far beyond devolution to encompass all the rules which structure the UK state. Yes, this would be difficult to do but the country does need ‘a fully codified constitution…. to encompass all the rules which structure the UK state’ rather than the current rather vague and sloppy web of arrangements based in some cases on ‘gentlemens’ agreements’ which are a recipe for rule breaking and aren’t fit for purpose.
Finally, we hear a lot from influencers but now we have some ‘enoughfluencers’ – influencers who are keen to stop us buying new. They reckon there are seven lessons on how to live a happier and simpler life. The rise of the enough-luencers feels timely, we’re told. One says ‘Economically, we’re all feeling the squeeze. But also, many of us have reached a point where you realise that ‘more is more’ consumerism hasn’t brought great happiness. People are looking for a different way to feel fulfilled. She insists there’s nothing ‘hairshirty’ about this. ‘It’s all very doable. No one is going to laugh at you for being unfashionable or different – nobody will notice. They may spot that you’re happier, though’. The lessons are titled: be bolder about borrowing; rewrite the rules around gifting; resist the comparison trap; practice slow shopping; make it yourself; care and repair; and less having, more doing. Around here our WhatsApps group members often advertise items they no longer want and they’re usually snapped up very quickly. Besides being an excellent way of recycling it’s also great for community relations because members then meet others they may not have known previously. And this will be happening in plenty of other neighbourhoods, too. Long may it continue!
Politics and mental health - the missing link? 