
If Britain is broken, what is to blame – big money and big tech, or graffiti on your train?
Up to now, the response to Britain's enshittification has, by and large, seemed remarkably fatalistic: Keir Starmer spent the first year in government repeatedly insisting that there just wasn't any money, and so really nothing could be done. Thank God then, one might think, for Looking for Growth, a new campaign group led by young (well, late 20s, early 30s) Londoners Lawrence Newport and Joe Reeve, who have reportedly been advised by Dominic Cummings, and who have taken it on themselves to rid the tube of the scourge of graffiti.
You might have seen the video: riding the Bakerloo line, wearing hi-vis jackets that proclaim they are 'Doing What Sadiq Khant' and accompanied by the GB News presenter Tom Harwood, for some reason, Looking for Growth perform a task that looks so simple only a government might fail to achieve it – apply a bit of spray and a bit of elbow grease – to rid some rolling stock of a litany of ugly tags and scrawls ('It's not even good graffiti!', Harwood exclaims). 'This is shameful. This is not OK. We're done waiting for @MayorofLondon to pull his finger out,' a tweet by Reeve explained.
It's certainly proved an effective publicity stunt, but what exactly are Looking for Growth, and its backers, attempting to drum up publicity for? The campaigners would like to be known as a 'pro-growth' and 'anti-crime'group who defy the traditional left-right political spectrum. However, as a London Centric piece about the group claims, they often reference the French political meme 'Nicolas, 30 ans' that depicts a young professional struggling as he pays taxes toward an older bourgeois couple and a younger immigrant.Reeve is quoted as saying, 'That probably does describe quite a lot of our members.'
Looking for Growth members appear to balance their pessimism about the present state of things with an optimism about what we might broadly call 'tech-driven' solutions: the video displayed on the front page of their website features an image of Michelangelo's God from The Creation of Adam, touching a robot arm. Londoncentric describes many of Looking for Growth's members as 'tech sector-adjacent'; predictably perhaps, their tube clean-up video was retweeted by Elon Musk.
What might we say about all this? Certainly there is a powerful vision here. Britain is crap – and people know it. Mainstream politicians really don't seem to be able to do anything about it: hence why there is clearly so much electoral space for parties not called 'Labour' or 'the Conservatives' to exploit. But the likes of Looking for Growth seem to be entirely mistaken about the nature of Britain's enshittification.
Take graffiti, for instance. TfL has claimed that it's unable to hold back carriages for cleaning and replace them with backups due to government budget cuts, but even if graffiti really were some sort of permanent, intractable problem on the tube – would the mere existence of graffiti be what's making Britain crap? Granted: part of how we know Britain is crap is because it looks crap. Still more profound, surely, is what we might call our sense of institutional crappiness manifested in the fact that all of our transactions are mediated through apps, but then if anything goes wrong you're only able to 'talk to' an AI, never an actual human being. It's expensive and shoddy housing. Crappiness is an elevated utilities bill; crappiness is shrinkflation.
In short, the more we think about how Britain is actually crap, the more we can think about who is actually responsible for its decline. This is stuff being done to us by the venture capitalists who seem to own all our strategic assets; the private landlords we decided to sell all our social housing stock to. It is stuff being done to us by big tech. If anyone actually wants to make anything better, it's those much grander forces we're going to need to find a way of scrubbing off our metaphorical walls.
Tom Whyman is an academic philosopher and a writer
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
When you can retire as state pension age rises in 2026
The state pension age will officially rise next year, meaning millions of workers will have to wait longer for retirement. Increasing from 66 to 67, an individual's exact date of birth will affect when they can start claiming, with some having to delay their retirement by a month compared to someone born just a day earlier. The planned changes have been set since 2014, and will affect men and women equally. While people can choose to retire earlier than this date, and may choose to do so if they have a private pension, the state pension age is the earliest anyone can begin claiming the government-supplied pension. This also won't be the last state pension age increase most UK workers see in their lifetimes. Current legislation will see the age rise from 67 to 68 between 2044 and 2046. However, there is speculation that this could be brought forward following Labour's upcoming pension review. Announced by work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall in July, the statutory review must give ten years' notice of any changes to the state pension age. With at least 18 years to go until the next one, this gives the government scope to bring forward the point when state pension age hits 68. Understanding how the state pension age changes is vital for workers to plan for their retirements. Since 2015, campaigners for the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) group have called for successive governments to provide compensation due to the inadequate communication of state pension changes for women born between 1950 and 1960. In 2026, all workers born after April 1960 that will start to see their state pension age rise. Here's what that could mean for you: The exact date of birth is important, with 5 April 1960 the last birthday to keep the 66 years retirement age. For those born on or after 6 April 1960, this will rise to 66 years and one month, and will continue to rise by an extra month on the 6th of every month. This will continue until 6 March 1961, with those born on or after that day having a retirement age of 67. Under current plans, this will apply for those born before 5 April 1977 – the last date of birth with a retirement age of 67. After this, it will increase monthly in a similar process to what is planned next year. However, this is liable to change at any upcoming pension review. When workers can retire in 2026 based on when they were born: 5 April 1960 and before – 66 years. Retirement date: 5 April 2026 6 April 1960 – 66 years, one month. Retirement date: 6 May 2026 6 May 1960 – 66 years, two months. Retirement date: 6 July 2026 6 June 1960 – 66 years, three months. Retirement date: 6 August 2026 6 July 1960 – 66 years, four months. Retirement date: 6 November 2026 6 August 1960 – 66 years, five months. Retirement date: 6 January 2027 6 September 1960 – 66 years, six months. Retirement date: 6 March 2027 6 October 1960 – 66 years, seven months. Retirement date: 6 May 2027 6 November 1960 – 66 years, eight months. Retirement date: 6 July 2027 6 December 1960 – 66 years, nine months. Retirement date: 6 August 2027 6 January 1961 – 66 years, ten months. Retirement date: 6 November 2027 6 February 1961 – 66 years, 11 months. Retirement date: 6 January 2028 6 March 1961 – 67 years. Retirement date: 6 March 2028


BBC News
15 minutes ago
- BBC News
'Stranded' east coast villagers call for better buses
People living in a coastal village say they feel "stranded" and have welcomed national proposals to improve bus Greening, 79, from Aldbrough, East Yorkshire, said he had "well and truly lost" his independence due to poor services and relied on neighbours to take him Commons Transport Select Committee has urged the government to support councils "to grow their bus networks" and ensure there is funding for "socially necessary services". Local bus firm East Yorkshire said rural areas were "very challenging to serve" and called for "longer-term commitments around funding", while the government said its Bus Services Bill would prevent rural routes being scrapped. Aldbrough is about 12 miles (19km) from the city of Hull and seven from the seaside town of Lorraine Styles uses buses to travel into Hull and Beverley, but she said she could not rely on limited connections from Aldbrough. Despite living by a stop, she first drives to Hornsea, or the five miles to the village of Sproatley, before catching a bus."If I want to go to Beverley, I have to drive into Hornsea. If I want to go to Hull, I drive to Sproatley to get the bus into Hull because it's the quickest one," she added.A report by the Transport Select Committee, published on Wednesday, said many communities, especially those outside of major cities, had suffered a significant decline in their local bus networks over the past decade, leaving many without access to reliable committee wants to see a five-year funding settlement that "would enable local authorities to make sustainable improvements to their networks". CPRE, the countryside charity, said transport inequality in the countryside was holding back the economy, with more than half of England's small towns now "transport deserts"."Outside large urban areas, people who can't afford a car face social isolation as well as reduced access to education and work," the charity said in a Secretary Heidi Alexander previously said the Bus Services Bill would "overhaul how bus services operate – better connecting communities across the country".A spokesperson for the Department for Transport said it had "also stepped in to prevent a fare hike for passengers by extending the £3 fare cap until March 2027".Ben Gilligan, of East Yorkshire buses, said the challenges of serving rural communities included scattered populations and the number of destinations customers wanted to travel had been provided for some additional services in the county, such as extra evening journeys from York to Pocklington, via Stamford Bridge. "These services have been well received," Mr Gilligan said. "However, it is also important to recognise that as an industry we have additional costs of operation from wage inflation, extra National Insurance payments, as well as generalised increased costs of operation.""We would like to see longer-term commitments around funding which would allow us to invest and take a longer term view about services that are less commercially viable." Listen to highlights from Hull and East Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here. Download the BBC News app from the App Store for iPhone and iPad or Google Play for Android devices


Reuters
15 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump offers hope on security guarantees as Ukraine braces for Putin meet
LONDON/PARIS/KYIV, Aug 14 (Reuters) - Ukraine's allies said President Donald Trump was willing to back security guarantees for Kyiv, a potentially significant but as yet vague offer that could give some hope to Ukraine on Thursday with one day to go until a U.S.-Russia summit on ending the war. Trump had shown willingness to join the guarantees at a last ditch virtual meeting with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Wednesday, leaders said, though he made no public mention of them afterwards. Zelenskiy and his allies have voiced some optimism as they intensified efforts to prevent any deal between Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin at a meeting in Alaska on Friday that would leave Ukraine vulnerable to further Russia attack. Friday's summit comes at one of the toughest moments for Ukraine in a war, the largest in Europe since World War Two, that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. Speaking after Wednesday's meeting, French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump insisted that the transatlantic NATO alliance should not be part of security guarantees that would designed to protect Ukraine from future attacks in a post-war settlement. "President Trump also stated this clearly, saying things that I find important: namely, that NATO should not be part of these security guarantees - and we know this is a key point, particularly for the Russian side - but (also) that the United States and all willing allies should be part of them. That is what we are committed to," Macron said. "And for me, this was an important clarification today." German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who hosted Wednesday's meeting, also said there would be robust security guarantees. "President Trump also confirmed this today and said he is on board," he told reporters. Expanding on those statements, a European official told Reuters that Trump said on the call he was willing to providing some security guarantees for Europe, without spelling out what they would be. The official, who did not want to be named, said this was the first time he has been so explicit about providing some guarantees since the Coalition of the Willing talks led by Britain and France began in March. It "felt like a big step forward", the official said. However, it was not immediately what such guarantees could mean in practice. "We have no details of his (Trump's) view on this but now he is more open for some kind of U.S. support for the guarantees," a source familiar with the matter said, adding Trump understood that a U.S. backstop was needed for guarantees to be workable. "So he mentioned it (on the call) and maybe everyone will work on it," the source said. A European Commission spokesperson also welcomed Trump's offer but said the details were up to the White House to answer. Zelenskiy met British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to build on momentum from Wednesday's talks. Zelenskiy and Starmer embraced before heading in to their meeting in Downing Street. On Wednesday, Trump threatened "severe consequences" if Putin does not agree to peace in Ukraine and while he did not specify what the consequences could be, he has warned of economic sanctions if his meeting on Friday proves fruitless. However, Russia is likely to resist Ukraine and Europe's demands strongly and previously has said its stance had not changed since it was first detailed by Putin in June 2024. To gear up for the Alaska summit, Putin held a meeting with top officials and representatives of Russia's leadership, the TASS state news agency reported, citing Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. A Kremlin aide said Putin and Trump will discuss the "huge untapped potential" for Russia-U.S. economic ties as well as the prospects for ending the war at the meet, the first summit between their countries since Putin met Joe Biden in 2021. A source familiar with the matter said Russian Special Envoy Kirill Dmitriev will participate. Dmitriev, who heads up Russia's RDIF sovereign wealth fund, has previously held talks with Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy, and has spoken of possible business cooperation between Moscow and Washington. Zelenskiy confirmed this week that Russian forces had advanced by about 9-10 km (6 miles) near the town of Dobropillia in the Donetsk region. Ukraine, suffering manpower challenges, was forced to move in reserves to stabilise the situation. Trump described the aim of his talks with Putin in Alaska as "setting the table" for a quick follow-up that would include Zelenskiy. Trump has said a deal could include what he called a land swap. Russia controls around a fifth of Ukraine and a land swap within Ukraine could cement Moscow's gains. Zelenskiy and the Europeans worry that would reward Putin for nearly 11 years of efforts to seize Ukrainian land and embolden him to expand further west in Europe. Trump's agreement last week to the summit was an abrupt shift after weeks of voicing frustration with Putin for resisting the U.S. peace initiative. As conditions for a ceasefire and the start of talks, Putin has demanded Ukraine withdraw its forces from four regions that Russia has claimed as its own but does not fully control, and formally renounce plans to join NATO. Kyiv swiftly rejected the conditions as tantamount to surrender.