Latest news with #NewEconomicsFoundation
The Guardian
17-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
David Boyle obituary
In his 1989 book Building Futures, David Boyle, who has died aged 67 from complications linked to Parkinson's, argued that mainstream economics was failing cities and a new localism could save them. This emphasis on communities rather than large-scale centralised development tied in with the broad theme that David saw as running through his work: 'The importance of human-scale institutions over centralised ones, human imagination over dull rationalism, and the human spirit over technocratic reduction.' Funny Money: In Search of Alternative Cash (1999) explored local economic systems found mainly on a journey through the US. Exchanging services within community systems run by volunteers can be facilitated through 'time banks'. The idea of the 'time dollar', representing one hour of help, whether grocery shopping or preparing a tax return, was popularised by the Washington law professor Edgar Cahn. He saw the principle as akin to a blood bank or a babysitting club: 'Help a neighbour and then, when you need it, a neighbour – most likely a different one – will help you.' David pursued these ideas through the work of the New Economics Foundation, formed in 1986 out of The Other Economic Summit, a body providing a critical shadow to G7 summits to promote radical economic perspectives and voices from the global south. The NEF aims to transform the economy so that it works for people and the planet. From 1987 to 2010, David was the editor of the magazines and newspapers produced by the NEF and his work there also included establishing a UK network of time banks. By 2008 he and Martin Simon, the chief executive of Timebanking UK, were able to produce the report The New Wealth of Time, showing how the multiplier effect of strangers pooling their efforts could extend to improving public services through organisations. This drew on another idea important to David: co-production, with one hour from an unemployed single parent, for instance, counting for as much as one from a surgeon or other professional. The principle could be applied in mental and physical health – such as the Rushey Green Time Bank developed by GPs in Lewisham, south-east London – services for young people and older people, regeneration, housing and social justice. David believed that whenever something is wrong, it is probably too big. He applied his analysis of scale, inhuman and remote organisations to both the state and markets in books including The Tyranny of Numbers (2001); Authenticity (2003), rejecting the corporate and fake in favour of the local and real; two written with Andrew Simms, The New Economics (2009) and Eminent Corporations (2010); The Human Element (2011); Broke: Who Killed the Middle Classes? (2013); and Tickbox (2020), pointing to the pitfalls of dehumanising decision making. The Money Changers: Currency Reform from Aristotle to E-Cash (2002) was a collection he edited viewing money in various ways as a changeable means to an end, in line with John Ruskin's observation that 'There is no wealth but life.' In 2012-13 David led the government inquiry Barriers to Choice, examining access to healthcare, social care and education. His central finding was that: 'Although people welcome choice in the services they use, there is a minority of people who – for a variety of reasons – are excluded from those benefits, often because they lack the confidence, the information, or the advice that they need.' The Guardian applauded it for 'pulling the issue away from the old market v state argument and reframing choice as an issue of user power'. David identified in practical detail what could make systems work better for disadvantaged people. In 2013 he set up the New Weather Institute thinktank with me and Simms to promote a rapid transition to a fair economy that can thrive within planetary ecological boundaries. Born in Paddington, central London, David was the son of Diana (nee Evelegh), who became a magistrate, and Richard Boyle, an investment banker. An ancestor was Sir John Lubbock, the first Lord Avebury, the Liberal politician who introduced the Bank Holidays Act 1871. Childhood illness and hospitalisation may have contributed to David's later sense of drive. He was educated at The Hall school, Hampstead, and Clifton college, Bristol, and gained a degree in philosophy and theology at Trinity College, Oxford (1977-80). His own interest in politics emerged in a wish to align Liberal economic policies with the impossibility of infinite economic growth, and a desire to work with Green politicians. On graduating he became a reporter on the Oxford Star, and went on to edit the Town and Country Planning Journal (1985-88), a pioneering publication that campaigned for planning centred on people and nature. A voice on what from 1988 was the Liberal Democrats national policy committee, he edited the weekly Liberal Democrat News for six years from 1992 and stood in the 2001 general election. He believed that economic education could empower people, and in 2019 co-authored Economics – A Crash Course, a beginners' guide to heterodox economics, diverse and non-dogmatic, drawing on multiple schools of thought. Quite devoid of ego, he made the discussion of ideas an adventure, and helped make localism a buzzword across all the political parties. Another framework for the exploration of ideas came from his extensive historical writing, with subjects ranging from Caractacus to Alan Turing. Through the imprint that David set up, The Real Press, he published five collections of modern folk tales, niche histories, and fiction. His play Passport to Steyning celebrated the West Sussex town that he lived in declaring independence in the face of global warming, and was performed at the Steyning festival in 2018, with many of the characters playing themselves. Through the NEF he met Sarah Burns, later a textile designer, and they married in 2003. She survives him, along with their sons, Robin and William, his sisters, Fiona, Serena, Kristina and Louisa, and his brother, James. David Courtney Boyle, political economist, environmentalist and writer, born 20 May 1958; died 20 June 2025
BBC News
04-07-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Peckham MP Miatta Fahnbulleh's rollercoaster year
"People will judge me about whether they feel they are better off, whether they feel less ground down, whether life feels less hard."Miatta Fahnbulleh was elected MP for Peckham in the early hours of 5 July 2024, one of 411 Labour MPs returned to the House of Commons in a landslide for Sir Keir Starmer's than a week into her new role, she was asked to become a junior minister in the Department for Energy Security and Net been a rollercoaster year for the 45-year-old, who as well as her constituency and ministerial jobs is mum to three children. A policy wonk – her CV includes a stint at the Cabinet Office and six years as chief executive of the New Economics Foundation – it was during the pandemic that she started her journey into front-line politics."I definitely knew I wanted to go into public policy," she told BBC London."I'm an economist by training. And the reason I went into economics is, I think growing up in my community, you see very viscerally how the economy doesn't work for people."It was actually in the pandemic that I made the decision that I was going to take the leap from policy-making through to politics, in part because, look, it was a sobering time for all of us."I thought the pandemic would be a massive wake-up call and a lot would change - the kind of 'build back better' would be a reality and it just wasn't."I thought, you need people that are agitating, campaigning and (who) come up with ideas outside of politics."You need people in politics who are trying to drive change, because otherwise it won't happen." Fahnbulleh was selected for the safe Labour seat of Peckham ahead of the 2024 election. The seat, in south-east London, had been represented by Harriet Harman since said she was struck by the difference between policy and politics in terms of the reactions of the people she was asking to vote for her."You knock on someone's door, they invite you in, and they are willing to share the ups and downs, the good, the bad, the ugly. "And that's quite a privilege - being able to hear all these stories, and getting a real sense of the amount of hope that people place, and that sense that people desperately want change."Looking back on election night, Fahnbulleh admits she was emotional when Labour won after 14 years in opposition."The polls were good, but you just don't believe it."Labour governments don't come around as often as we'd like, and I remember when the exit poll came out I just burst out crying in a way that really surprised me."I just couldn't believe it, and it was the fact that it looked like we were on course to win, but just the size of the majority and what was possible with that."I remember that really, really vividly. And then from there, going on to the count and just just feeling incredibly proud." Becoming an MP is a step change. On day one there are hundreds of constituents asking for help, special interest groups trying to lobby you, and you have to find staff and an office, as well as navigate the vast parliamentary estate."At the time I was trying to set up a new office, trying to build my constituency infrastructure, trying to not get lost in the Houses of Parliament, which I still do."So you've got all of that - trying to think about how you juggle being a good mum, because you know that is the first job - with suddenly not being around in the evenings. You're in the House until after the kids are put in bed."Then she was contacted by the government's enforcer and chief disciplinarian."I got a message from the chief whip saying that he wanted to speak to me, and I have to say my first reaction was like, 'Oh, what have I done? What have I been up to? What have I got wrong already?'"So the chief got in touch and said, 'Look, the prime minister would like to offer you this job' and I think the first thing I said was 'really?'"But of all the jobs I could have been offered it's a huge privilege - and to be asked so early on, a new MP still finding my feet."Fahnbulleh says her department "is trying to drive the transition to net zero, which I believe in".She is responsible for dealing with fuel poverty, the warm homes plan, the energy price cap and smart meters. Her brief concerns "how we drive down energy bills so that we have an impact on the cost of living, how we upgrade people's homes, making them warmer and cheaper to run".She says these "bread-and-butter issues" are what she sees when she walks around her Peckham constituency."You're going into people's homes, you can see the impact of that. People are struggling, they're under pressure. Homes are not of a good enough quality. "And I'm like, well, if I have the opportunity to have an impact on that, I'm just going to run it."Her department is led by Ed Miliband, a fervent believer in the net-zero is a fan, calling her boss "a genuinely good guy, and he treats his team with such care and decency, and he's hilarious. He does it with so much energy and love for the job. And it's infectious." Housing, safe and accessible spaces for Peckham's youth and creating economic opportunities locally are the three issues she wants to be judged on at the next election."Sixty to 70% of my casework is housing, and that's both affordability of housing, but it's also overcrowding. We don't have enough homes. People are stuck in homes where you've got lots of, you know, growing family and one or two-bedroom flats."Some of our homes here in Peckham, people let you in and it just breaks your heart."In the sixth-richest country, this is what we're providing. So housing and improving housing is number one."Fahnbulleh says young people tell her that "we don't feel like we have places that are our own where we can go, we can grow, we can feel safe".She adds: "I want every kid to be able to walk to provision when they're not in school, so they have somewhere to be." Fahnbulleh says ultimately voters "judge us by our actions"."I'm aware that politicians don't have the best of raps and the thing that has been warming is the amount of warmth that you get in the community."If people recognise me, they give me a big hug and they'll say thank you. And that keeps you going. So when it feels hard, you think: 'I'm doing it for these people.'"While it's a question rarely asked of male politicians, Fahnbulleh acknowledges that handling both a career and parenthood is a challenge."At least my constituency is in London, my family is in London, so I get to see them."Throughout my career, I have never missed any sports day. I've never missed any of my kids' plays, I've never missed any prize-giving, and I made a promise to myself that I would always do those things."And a year on, I've kept that promise and I intend to continue keeping it. And then it's just you just have to do the juggle and it is hard."But all of the jobs are a privilege and you have to keep reminding yourself of that when it all feels quite a lot - you just keep juggling."
The Guardian
24-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Europe's pledge to spend more on military will hurt climate and social programmes
Europe risks choosing militarism over social and environmental security, economists have warned, as the head of Nato said all 32 members had agreed to increase weapons spending. Analyses drafted in anticipation of a Nato summit beginning on Tuesday warned of the opportunity cost that higher military spending would pose to the continent's climate mitigation and social programmes, which are consistently underfunded. The alliance's leading member, the US, and its Dutch secretary general, Mark Rutte, expect members to agree to proposals to dramatically raise defence spending targets from 2% to 5% of GDP. But critics say the focus on military spending, which comes on top of big hikes by European countries over the past few years, overlooks the risks to security posed by environmental breakdown and social decay. 'Europe's public finance debate has never been about what we can afford, but what governments choose to prioritise,' said Sebastian Mang, senior policy officer at the New Economics Foundation (NEF). 'Having already committed to higher defence budgets, plans to raise spending even further expose the double standard applied to investment in climate, housing and care. 'If extraordinary sums can be mobilised for the military, with far lower economic returns and much lower social benefits, then the refusal to fund a just transition and stronger public services is clearly political, not economic.' According to the Nato proposals, members would increase spending to 3.5% of GDP for 'hard defence' such as tanks, bombs and other military hardware, while devoting a further 1.5% to broader security, including cyber threats and military mobility. An analysis by NEF found the 5% GDP target would require Nato's EU members alone to increase spending by €613bn a year – a sum considerably higher than the annual shortfall in meeting the bloc's green and social goals, estimated at €375bn to €526bn. Even to meet just the 3.5% target, EU Nato members would collectively need to find an additional €360bn each year for military spending. Justifying the increase, Donald Trump and other voices in the US have complained repeatedly that European allies rely too heavily on US military support, while Rutte warned of a 'significant and direct threat' from Russia. But NEF said it made little sense, either in terms of economics or security. 'Increasing military budgets at the same time as cutting green and social spending, risks fuelling a public backlash, widening inequality and eroding trust in democratic institutions,' NEF said in its analysis. 'Asking citizens to tighten their belts while defence budgets and arms investors' profits surge undermines the very social resilience that security depends on.' The UK on Monday committed to raising its target from 3% of GDP spent on defence to 5% by 2035 after weeks of diplomatic pressure. The Common Wealth thinktank found that an increase in military spending to 3.5% of GDP would cost the UK an extra £32bn annually. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion That is enough in one year to fund the entire life cycle of 620 terawatt-hours of onshore windfarms, equivalent to 88% of the power Britain is projected to consume annually by 2050. 'Demands for further increases to military spending have a stark opportunity cost – prioritising clean energy would deliver the energy security whose absence was so painfully exposed in 2022,' said Chris Hayes, chief economist at Common Wealth. Not only is there an opportunity cost, increases in military spending imply vast increases in CO2 emissions, with fossil fuel-hungry tanks, warships and aircraft built and operated at scale. Earlier this month the Guardian reported that the military buildup planned by Nato members excluding the US could increase greenhouse gas emissions by almost 200m tonnes a year. Nato was contacted for comment.
ITV News
09-06-2025
- Politics
- ITV News
Moment of truth for Labour on 'cliff edge' housing crisis
For the past 45 years Britain has been on a mission - to sell off as much affordable housing as it possibly can without replacing it. And in that mission, we have been extraordinarily successful. According to the government's own data, the number of social homes - the most affordable housing for rent - has dropped by 25% since 1980, while the population has grown by 14%. We have sold off 1.9 million social homes largely under the Right to Buy scheme, which allows tenants to buy the property they rent at a generous discount. It has transformed the way Britain is housed. When Margaret Thatcher came to power, a third of the country lived in a council house, while the number of people who privately rented was just 10%. Today, that trend has almost exactly reversed - millions more people rent from private landlords at a time when rents are at historically high levels. Thatcher started this trend, and every government since has stuck to the plan - a plan which has proven foolish and short-sighted, and the consequences profound. Today, the number of homeless children in England is at the highest level on record. The number of families stuck in temporary accommodation is also the highest since records began. There are 1.3 million households on a waiting list for a social home. Most will have to wait years to get one, many won't ever get one.I will never forget sitting on the grass in a park in north London with a homeless family who were living in a temporary budget hotel after they were unable to find anywhere affordable to rent. I asked eight-year-old Callis what his dream was - footballer, astronaut, doctor? His response: 'Somewhere to live, and to stay there.' This all comes at an enormous cost. The government spends more than £20 billion a year on housing benefit, subsidising the rent of people who cannot afford to pay it. That has doubled since 1997. The state is spending more on helping people pay unaffordable rents than it is building homes. Those living in a social home are increasingly made to feel they should be grateful for owning one, even if this means living in a run-down, mouldy, damp, or even dangerous home in desperate need of repair. I have spent four years reporting on the crisis in housing conditions, and the state of some of Britain's housing stock is a stain on the country, homes that would not look out of place in a Dickens novel. Complaints too often go ignored. Where else are they going to go? Last week, a report by the Housing Ombudsman found 45% of Britain's social homes were built before 1964. And what happened to those homes that the state decided to sell at a heavy discount? Forty per cent are now private rentals, according to the New Economics Foundation, let out at maximum market price to the same kinds of families who 40 years ago would have rented from the state at a much more affordable rate. It isn't getting better either. Last year, England sold and demolished more social homes than it built. At a time when affordable housing is in desperate need, the country is still in negative equity. Successive governments have prioritised home ownership at the expense of everything else, but that's no longer working out either. The number of homeowners has been in steady decline since the early 2000s. Enter stage left: Rachel Reeves. The chancellor is under enormous pressure to halt five decades of decline and offer up cash to build more social homes, and fast. The Starmer government has promised to build 1.5 million homes by the next election. I can't find anyone across the housing sector who thinks they can achieve that, even with its plans to overhaul the planning system, but if they do, it will only be by building more social housing. The last time Britain built more than 300,000 homes in a year was 1977, when half were built by the state. This, of course, means money. Housing campaigners have been relentless in their lobbying of the Treasury to put money in the pipeline to ensure tens of thousands of new social homes are consistently built every year. The last government committed £11.5 billion to the affordable housing programme between 2021 and 2026, but 'affordable' includes shared ownership and rents at 80% of market value (social rentals are typically at 50%), which the vast majority of people on waiting lists cannot afford. The programme hasn't touched the sides when it comes to social housing delivery. Housing charities want to see billions more on top of that £11.5 billion figure. One chief executive told me an extra £12 billion is needed, but £6 billion would be a good start. An extra £12 billion would allow, charities estimate, around 45,000 social homes to be built each year. Last year, England built 9,866. Across the sector, it is widely agreed that 90,000 are needed each year just to keep up with current demand. 'For too long, governments have allowed thousands of social homes to be lost each year, while funnelling public money into so-called 'affordable homes' which are priced far out of reach for many,' Mairi MacRae, Director of Campaigns & Policy at Shelter, told me. 'The result has been record homelessness, and families, young people, and key workers priced out of their communities. 'Social homes are the only genuinely affordable homes by design because rents are tied to local incomes and are around two thirds lower than private rents…the government must commit to building 90,000 social rent homes a year for ten years.' One major bugbear for campaigners is the reluctance and/or refusal by Labour to say how many of the 1.5 million will be social homes. They want the Spending Review to be the moment where that changes. They want to see targets, and any money accounted for the affordable housing programme must, they say, stipulate how much is specifically for social housing. Matt Downie, chief executive of Crisis, told me: 'The spending review must be an opportunity for investment in new social homes to see homelessness levels come down. 'We need a clear commitment on the 90,000 new social homes required each year and a level of investment that starts the process of delivery to get there. Only then will we tackle head on the huge problem of temporary accommodation we currently face.' My colleague Robert Peston has reported the last few days on a stand-off between the chancellor and the Housing Secretary Angela Rayner, who herself grew up in social housing in Manchester. Before she entered government, she and I talked a lot about the desperate need for social homes, what it meant to her personally to have that safety net as a child and how she wants that for others. Rayner knows all the arguments laid out here, knows the statistics and the stories behind them. She understands them perhaps more than any minister that has ever worked in government. She is now in that age-old battle with the bean counters at Number 11, who, for decades, whichever party has been in charge, have not stumped up the cash to build houses. The country is now paying an enormous cost. In economic terms, building social housing is a smart use of public money. It is infrastructure that will last decades and in the medium to long term would save money, reducing that big housing benefit bill while dragging families out of poverty and unhealthy homes that are making them sick. Britain has undergone a 45-year experiment. By every measure, it has failed. Even the last Conservative government and its Housing Secretary, Michael Gove, said the failure to build social homes has been a mistake. There is now a political consensus on the need to end the experiment and build. Charities warn Britain is on a cliff edge. Refuse to intervene and the government risks ever-rising homelessness and councils going bankrupt trying to house those without anywhere to live. Wednesday's spending review has become D-Day for the housing market and for millions of families with nowhere to go.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
DWP accused of 'misleading' universal credit and PIP claimants over welfare cuts
The government has used a 'misleading' accounting trick to assess the impact of its welfare cuts on ill and disabled people, meaning 100,000 more people will be plunged into poverty than its figures suggest, researchers have claimed. In March, the government announced sweeping cuts to benefits payments for claimants in the UK, sparking widespread criticism from campaigners. These included limiting the assessment criteria for PIP and freezing incapacity benefits for those claiming universal credit. According to the government's own impact assessment published by the department for work and pensions, the measures would push up to 250,000 people into poverty, including 50,000 children. It also said some 370,000 people currently on disability benefits would lose on average £4,500 per year in 2029/30, as a result of the changes. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the benefits cuts would save the government £4.8bn and said she was 'absolutely certain' the welfare reforms would not push people into poverty, claiming the changes would result in more people being in work. However, analysis from the New Economics Foundation (NEF) seen by Yahoo News shows that cuts to PIP and the incapacity benefit element of universal credit will take almost £2bn more out of the welfare budget for ill and disabled people than the government claims. It says that, in fact, up to 340,000 people face being pushed into poverty once the cuts are rolled out - 100,000 more than the government figure. The impact assessment was published alongside Reeves' spring statement on 26 March. Crucially, according to the NEF, it included the potential impact of plans announced by the previous Conservative government to reform the work capability assessment (WCA) announced in autumn 2023. This policy would have changed the WCA to make it harder for people to qualify for a higher rate of universal credit on the basis of illness or disability. This would have saved the government £1.6bn and potentially pushed 100,000 people into poverty. These proposals were ruled unlawful by the High Court in January 2025. However, Labour has been accused of including in its spring statement assessment that it has effectively "spent" £1.6bn by scrapping potential savings that never existed - and, at the same, downplayed by 100,000 the number of people projected to be pushed into poverty. "To put it another way, using this phantom policy to offset the scale and impact of actual cuts happening in the real world is akin to suggesting that you should feel better off because your boss had thought about cutting your wages but then decided against it," the NEF said. After the NEF made revised calculations, it estimated the full scale of the cuts by 2029-30 will be £6.7bn, not £4.8bn a year by 2029-30. Tom Pollard, head of social policy at NEF, told Yahoo News: "Although the government may need to account internally for its decision not to proceed the last government's proposed changes to the work capability assessment, it is misleading to suggest that this materially offsets the scale and impact of actual cuts the government plans to implement. "Ill and disabled people will feel no tangible benefit from a potential cut not being taken forward, but the £6.7bn of cuts that are due to take place will have a very real impact on their lives - potentially pushing an additional 340,000 people into poverty by the end of this parliament. "The government claims this will be mitigated by more people moving into work, but has not yet been able to produce an assessment of the likely employment impact of their planned reforms." Other groups have been similarly critical of the government's approach. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation came to a similar conclusion as the NEF. However, it has estimated that up to 400,000 could be plunged into poverty in total - even higher than the NEF. Iain Porter, senior policy adviser at the JRF, posted on Bluesky: "The 250k net poverty rise in impact assessment is extra to an assumed 150k rise that previous Conservative plans would have created - even they never happened. But DWP has assumed that increase was already on the books and added to it. Real poverty impact is 400k." James Taylor, Director of Strategy at disability equality charity Scope, warned that "the full extent of the government's catastrophic welfare cuts are being laid bare." Scope has been supporting disabled people losing out on benefits like PIP after the government said it would be limiting the assessment criteria to restrict the number of people who can claim the benefit. He told Yahoo News: 'Massive cuts to disability benefits are worse than first thought, and will lower the living standards of disabled people and push even more into poverty. "It is obvious these cuts are simply about saving money and not by the "moral" desire to get more people into work. "The government needs to listen to disabled people and understand the catastrophic impact these decision will have on their lives." A DWP spokesperson told Yahoo News: 'Helping people into good work and financial independence is at the heart of our Plan to Change, but the broken social security system we inherited is failing people who can and have the potential to work, as well as the people it's meant to be there for. 'That's why we're delivering a £1 billion employment support package to break down barriers for disabled people into work. We're also rebalancing universal credit payment levels, so the benefit's main rate rises permanently above inflation for the first time, in a boost for low-income families. 'The OBR will give their assessment on the labour market impacts of our package at the autumn statement, having already concluded 730,000 people are forecast to be receiving the new lower rate of UC health.'
