Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield, a Labour member of the House of Lords, and Contributing Editor at Left Foot Forward.

The finance industry now controls significant parts of the UK economy. It extracts wealth, destroys jobs and weakens economic resilience. Governments go to extraordinary lengths to promote and protect the finance industry, whilst neglecting other productive areas, such as manufacturing.

Obsession with Finance

Not so long ago, finance industry was mainly about loans, overdrafts, debit/credit cards, insurances and pensions, which we are all accustomed to. But investors wanted more. So, banks gambled on financial horses and committed frauds. The result was a secondary banking crash in the mid-1970s. The state bailed out banks, insurance and property companies. Governments remained besotted with the finance industry. The UK had a banking crisis in every decade since the 1970s with entities such as Johnson Matthey, Barlow Clowes, Barings, Bank of Credit and Credit International and British & Commonwealth Bank making headlines.

In 1986, the government deregulated finance. People continued to be ripped-off by mis-selling of endowment mortgages, investment bonds, split-capital investment trusts, precipice bonds, interest rate swaps, self-invested personal pensions, payment protection insurance, pensions, and other products. Reckless lending, speculation and low capital requirements became the mantra for rejuvenating the economy. Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns led the stampede. Building societies such as Alliance and Leicester, Bradford & Bingley, HBOS and Northern Rock joined the chase for easy profits and converted to banks. All collapsed and in 2007-08 the crisis rapidly spread to the entire economy.

The state provided £1,162bn (£133bn cash and 1,029bn guarantees) to rescue banks, and £895bn of quantitative easing to stimulate financial markets. The economy is yet to recover. The average real wage has hardly changed since 2008. Between 1995 and 2015, the finance industry made a negative contribution of £4,500bn to the UK economy, effectively wiping out 2.5 years of gross domestic product. 

After the crash some reforms were introduced, including higher capital requirements, closer monitoring by regulators, ring-fencing of retail from speculative banking and a cap of bankers’ bonuses. This was not accompanied by any attempt to rethink finance even though some 40% of the world’s dirty money is laundered through London and UK Crown dependencies. Governments permitted unregulated shadow banking, which includes private equity and hedge funds, to expand and devour the economy.

Devouring the Economy

Private equity takes over existing businesses with finance from banks, insurance companies, pension funds and wealthy individuals seeking higher returns. It acquires control but injects little share capital. Takeover targets are loaded with the secured debt, often routed through opaque offshore entities, and are expected to pay it off. Financial engineering, asset-stripping, staffing and wage cuts, dumping liabilities and tax abuse are key elements of the business model. When businesses are collapsed, private equity and banks, as secured creditors, walk away with most of the proceeds from the sale of the business assets, leaving little for unsecured creditors and pension schemes.

The list of private equity victims is long, and includes entities such as Bernard Matthews, Body Shop, Byron Burger, Casual Dining, Cath Kidson, Claire’s, Comet. Debenhams, Flybe, Four Seasons Health Care, Homebase, HMV, Maplin, Monarch Airlines, The Original Factory Shop, Payless Shoes, Poundworld, Silentnight, Southern Cross, Thomas Cook, TM Lewin and Toys “R” Us. Thousands of jobs have been lost, creditors have not been paid, supply chains have been destroyed, workers have lost some of their pension rights, town centres have been decimated and the country’s tax base has been eroded.

Private equity now controls large swathes of the UK economy including AA, ASDA, Bella Italia, the Blackpool Tower, Center Parcs, Legoland, Morrisons, Travelodge and Zizi. It has extensive stake in UK airports, seaports, hospitals, care homes, law and accountancy firms, football teams, housing, GP surgeries, veterinary services, dental services, motorway service stations, energy networks and water companies. 

Thames Water never recovered from its 2006-2017 ownership by a private equity consortium led by Macquarie Group. It extracted annual returns of between 15.5% and 19% a year by dumping raw sewage in rivers and by neglecting investment. To date, Thames Water has paid out £10.4bn in dividends since privatisation in 1989. Despite inflation-busting price rises, it has not built a single new reservoir since 1989. Despite changes in ownership, Thames Water continues with the extractive business model. It is deeply embedded in the water industry. Private equity also has a stake in Northumbrian Water, Southern Water and Yorkshire Water, and the entire sector survives by exploiting customers.

Financialization of Humanity

To appease the finance industry, governments have financialised humanity. Care and compassion have become profit centres and commodities.

Instead of expanding the capacity of the National Health Service (NHS), governments have handed contracts for eye-care to private equity-controlled entities, making profit of between 32% and 43% from NHS work.

With the NHS dentistry in disarray, people are turning to the private sector. Private equity is making inroads into the £8.4bn sector. The initial consultation fee has increased by 23% in the last two years, and the price of a simple tooth extraction has increased by 32%. Gross profit for private equity-owned My Dentist, PortmanDentex and Rodericks Dental, and Bupa Dental Services, rose by 20% year-on-year between 2023 and 2024. Profit margins are in the range of 20%-30%.

84% of children’s homes and over 80% of adult care homes in England are run by for-profit entities, increasingly controlled by financial investors. Private equity is a key player in the sector. Around £1.5bn is extracted  from the care home sector each year in the form of returns to investors. The quality of care is poor.

Since 2015, over 40 fostering agencies in England providing homes for vulnerable children have been taken over by private equity companies. The fees are double the cost of local authority placements. Profit margins for these private agencies average around 21%.

Six companies backed by private equity control 60% of the UK’s £6.3bn pet-care market. Average vet prices rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, well above the rate of inflation. Vets working for large companies are under pressure to hit profit targets by offering repeat appointment and unnecessary treatment at exorbitant prices.

Gifts from the State

Governments bend laws to support the finance industry. Most of the post-2008 banking reforms have been reversed. Shadow banking remains unregulated and almost everything is financialised.

Millions of motorists have been mis-sold car purchase loans. As the case for possible £44bn compensation reached the Supreme Court, Chancellor Rachel Reeves made an unprecedented intervention. The Treasury sought the Court’s permission to contribute evidence to argue that high compensation could “cause considerable economic harm.” Such lobbying was rejected as the Supreme Court is solely concerned about interpretation of law. Undeterred, the Chancellor considered emergency legislation to shield lenders from claims. Ultimately, the court judgment was not severe.

Tax laws are bent to appease the finance industry. Wages are taxed at marginal rates of 20% to 45%, and earners also pay national insurance. In opposition Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that these arrangements should apply to private equity bosses too. However, the promised reform has not been delivered. The income of private equity bosses continues to be taxed as a capital gain, with maximum tax rate of 34.1%. No national insurance is charged.

Banking frauds are swept under dust-laden carpets. HBOS frauds, dating back to 2002-2007, provide an example. The Financial Conduct Authority, the Serous Fraud Office and the City of London Police were unwilling to prosecute.  In February 2017, the Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner decided to prosecute and secured six criminal convictions, including a senior ex-HBOS banker. Despite that there has been no detailed regulatory investigation. The Commissioner said, “I am convinced the cover-up goes right up to Cabinet level. And to the top of the City.” In this vacuum, Lloyds Bank (owner of HBOS since 2008-2009) appointed former High Court judge Dame Linda Dobbs to investigate and publish a report by 2018. No report has been published and ministers dodge questions in parliament. Victims await compensation which could run over £1bn.

The Financial Services and Markets Bill now weakens the role of the Financial Ombudsman Service to secure redress for complainants and imposes a ten-year limit within which complainants can secure redress. Compliance with rules rather than whether companies acted reasonably and fairly is the proposed rule.

Finally …

The above is brief indication of the capture of the UK state by the finance industry and its consequences. The economy has been devoured. Low wages and tax abuse have been normalised. Town centres have become economic deserts. Wealth extraction is prioritised. Unprecedented resources are devoted to financial engineering and tax abuse. The UK has over 405,000 professionally qualified accountants, the highest per capita in the world and more than the rest of Europe combined. Inevitably, other sectors are denied graduate talent.

Appeasement of the finance industry hasn’t delivered the promised investment in productive assets. For the last 30 years, the UK has languished at or near the bottom of the G7 and OECD league of investment. When the financial bubble bursts, large tracts of the economy will be washed away and there won’t be enough money to bailout the infected sectors.

The post The finance curse is devouring the UK appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Wera Hobhouse is the Liberal Democrat MP for Bath

Abortion has always involved deeply-held personal, ethical and religious beliefs. But for decades there has been a broad political consensus in the UK that decisions about pregnancy belong to women, their families and their healthcare providers, not politicians looking for a new culture war battleground. That non-partisan consensus is now under pressure.

Recent reporting has revealed a growing effort by Reform UK figures, anti-abortion campaigners and far-right activists to make abortion a new frontier in Britain’s culture wars. The language is becoming increasingly familiar: inflammatory rhetoric, misinformation, moral panic and attempts to portray established reproductive rights as somehow radical or extreme.

We should not dismiss this as political noise. Many people look at what has happened in the United States and assume it could never happen here. They point to our different political traditions and our strong public support for abortion rights.

But rights are rarely lost overnight. More often, they are gradually politicised before they are challenged.

The rollback of abortion rights in America did not begin with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It began years earlier, with a deliberate effort to make reproductive rights a political dividing line. Issues that had previously been treated as matters of healthcare or personal opinion became tools in a broader political ideological campaign. That should serve as a warning.

Only recently, Parliament voted overwhelmingly to decriminalise abortion for women in England and Wales – the biggest step forward for reproductive rights in six decades. I was proud to support that change. The reform was not about expanding access to abortion or changing time limits, it simply recognised that women should not face criminal investigation, prosecution or imprisonment because of circumstances surrounding their own pregnancies.

Since 2020, around 100 women have been investigated by police following pregnancy loss or suspected abortion offences. Some investigations involved women who had suffered miscarriages. Six women faced court proceedings and one woman was imprisoned under legislation rooted in the Victorian-era Offences Against the Person Act 1861. No woman experiencing pregnancy loss should have to fear becoming the subject of a traumatic criminal investigation.

Yet even before decriminalisation has had time to take effect, there are already calls from some Reform UK figures and their allies to reverse it.

What worries me is not simply disagreement over policy – healthy democracies will always contain disagreement – it is the deliberate attempt to import the tactics and language of America’s abortion wars into British politics.

Open Democracy reported that the UK arm of The Alliance Defending Freedom, an organisation closely associated with anti-abortion campaigning in the United States, has received more than £2 million in funding from its American parent organisation while campaigning against abortion clinic safe access zones.

Its analysis also found a significant increase in abortion-related content among Reform-linked and far-right social media accounts over the past two years. These posts generated hundreds of thousands of interactions and frequently relied on inflammatory language designed to provoke outrage rather than inform debate.

The objective is not simply to oppose abortion, it is to make reproductive freedom politically toxic again. Once that happens, rights that once seemed secure become negotiable. The lesson we need to learn from America is that complacency can be dangerous. 

That does not mean every disagreement about abortion is an attack on women’s rights, nor does it mean Britain is on the verge of following America’s path where 17 states enforce near-total bans. But it does mean we should be alert when politicians seek to reopen settled questions, import foreign culture wars, and turn women’s bodies into political battlegrounds.

One of the most striking features of this debate is how far it appears to be driven from the top down, rather than from public demand.

Polling consistently shows overwhelming support for access to abortion in the UK, including among Reform voters. In fact, around 86% of Reform voters support a woman’s right to choose. The public understands that these are deeply personal decisions. They understand that criminalising women does not solve difficult situations. They understand that healthcare works best when it is guided by evidence, compassion and clinical expertise, rather than political ideology.

That raises an obvious question: if this is the settled view of the electorate, why is it being reopened as a political battleground at all?

The answer lies in the growing influence of a small but organised network of politicians, media figures and campaigning groups who have made abortion a central cultural and ideological cause.

Open Democracy reported that Paul Marshall, the co-owner of GB News, which has paid Nigel Farage nearly £370,000 since he became an MP, is on the board of the anti-abortion ARC forum alongside JD Vance’s “intellectual mentor” James Orr and Reform MP Danny Kruger. Farage has himself spoken at events in the United States where restrictions on abortion were being promoted, and has previously described the UK’s 24-week time limit as  “ludicrous”.

None of this reflects a clear public mandate to change the law. Instead, it reflects a process of political agenda-setting in which minority positions are amplified through social media platforms and transatlantic alliances until they begin to appear more mainstream than they are.

Rights are not usually removed in a single dramatic moment. They are eroded gradually through the normalisation of once-fringe arguments, the reshaping of political debate, and the steady expansion of what is considered reasonable to question.

That process is already clearly underway. We should have the awareness to say so, and the vigilance to ensure it goes no further.

The post Wera Hobhouse MP: Reform UK is importing America’s abortion culture war into Britain appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The UK’s mainstream legacy press is predominantly right to extreme right wing. Despite reductions in physical newspaper sales and the shift online, right-wing media (RWM) still dominates the news arena with a significantly larger reach than left and centre news publications.

This right-wing ascendancy has been further boosted by the GB News “soapbox” which, together with the usual suspects (the Express, Sun and Mail), provide Reform mouthpieces. There’s also been a shift further right in previously more neutral publications, notably the Telegraph and Times. 

Adherence to standards of impartiality and scrutiny is now often token and in “power struggles over our ears and eyeballs” shared by influencers like Mr Beast. 

Unsurprisingly, the UK now ranks a rather shameful 18th in the 2026 World Press Freedom Index with uncomfortable similarities to Orban’s Hungary. Around 70-80% of UK press media is owned by right-leaning wealthy oligarchs, as was Orban’s. Journalists have been censured using SLAPPS, regulatory appointments, digital surveillance and smear campaigns. And just as Hungary’s media became promotors of Orban’s party, Fidesz, so IPSO’s infamous toothlessness has hastened the corrosion of editorial neutrality, paving the way for the RWM to become ‘left-bashing’ Reform cheer leaders.

The heavily concentrated ownership of our news media by right-wing oligarchs is well documented. But we should look closely at how the RWM manipulates social attitudes and how we should respond.

Playtime and construction industries

The leading social media platforms (X, Facebook and Tiktok) enjoy a symbiotic relationship with the RWM in which news is mutually amplified and mediated. But despite algorithmic tailoring, much online content still flows from what the RWM decides to headline. It’s a primary, more authoritative lens through which we experience our political world on a day-to-day basis. We understand politicians not so much through what they do in the raw, or through social media noise, but through how the RWM frames them. 

Framing is central to the RWM’s gladiatorial “sport” of making or breaking politicians their audacious profession renders them ‘fair game’. 

This nihilistic modus operandi is common amongst the political commentariat. It’s perhaps inevitable though in a culture whose contributors, often from the same privileged education stables, are relegated to the side-lines. If their professional purpose is to comment rather than act, what’s left except to gameplay, exercising their tribal power over the actions of others? 

This sport isn’t confined to the RWM, but the effects are proportional to its considerably greater reach; furthermore, its pernicious influence spans the RWM spectrum from the more subtle Times to the explicitly rage-baiting Daily Mail. 

A good kicking in the name of scrutiny 

RWM framing is powerful where we lack independent experience for comparison. We are generally dependent on the media for shaping our understanding of figures like Andy Burnham, Nigel Farage and Zack Polanski. With a clean slate, the RWM is largely free to construct political reality around these figures. 

Polanksi’s popularity, like Burnham’s, is a RWM ‘red flag’. Their popularity is an excuse to set them up as able to ‘take the hit’. It affords a licence to discredit them under the guise of ‘extra hard-hitting scrutiny’, i.e. Trevor Phillips style ‘rottweiler attacks minus balance’. 

Such grillings, delivered to a public who know little about either man, create impressions, piece by suspect piece, strongly predisposing them to negative evaluations. 

Display stand labels

RWM framing relies heavily on labelling. ‘Hypnotist’, used as an early identifier for Polanski, formed a basis for further understanding, solidifying into beliefs about ‘untrustworthiness and inauthenticity’ through repetition and familiarity, and attracting other consonant labels which together formed a consistent mental ‘Polanski’ map.

Related high frequency descriptors used were: ‘actor, tax dodger, antisemite, drug legaliser, ‘narcissist’. This spicy wordplay assembled a mesh of attributes, lodging itself within social discourse and further shaping ‘Polanski’ as a faulty political type. Even as a debate, seeds were successfully planted. Such labels, splashed daily across supermarket and garage forecourt display stands, are the only prompts for some people on how to vote.

With ‘Polanski’ thus sculpted, counter-information can’t then land. Humanitarian concerns about Gaza or wealth inequality can legitimately be discussed by bodies like the UN. But out of Polanski’s mouth they are dangerous rantings. 

Similarly, the Times’ strenuous efforts to portray Burnham as an unprincipled shapeshifter, minimally sows doubt amongst voters whose beliefs about him are less than rock solid.

Both politicians are ‘press clay pigeons’ – brittle flyers projected high into the political arena ready to be shot down. 

Artistry

Other key tactics are reinterpretation, information suppression, selective exposure and normalisation.

The Times and others present the self-confessed ‘sexism’ of Robert Kenyan, not as the outright disqualification for becoming an MP it should be, but as showing he’s the ‘kind of normal bloke we need in politics’. 

Similarly, the RWM’s interpretive dance around Farage’s alleged antisemitic behaviour and dodgy donations as ‘boyhood japes’ and ‘innocent gifts’ presents him as a blameless victim hounded by the left. 

Meanwhile, behind the staggering level of voter ignorance about Reform’s ‘‘Great Repeal Bill’ is the RWM’s wilful determination not to spell out its implications for worker’s and women’s rights. 

In covering the recent stabbings in Southampton and Ireland, the RWM ignored the data on ethnic crime rates and differential policing. Instead, the stabbings were presented as damning proof of the dangers posed by non-white ethnic groups, woke 2-tier policing and immigration controls, with the Mail, amongst others, treating Farage’s call for “cold rage” as a fair. These incendiary RWM narratives act like instruction manuals, shaping social comprehension about what the stabbings signify.

All the portrayals outlined above are just a tiny sample of the relentless brush strokes via which impressions of key politicians and events are drip fed and fleshed out.

Some consequences

The riots triggered by the stabbings were incited by Tommy Robinson and Musk-led online rhetoric. But the RWM fomented the violence by using its own more authoritative voice to ratify, rather than challenge it; also by attacking critics who ‘condemn the valid tinderbox of public rage’ as themselves the ‘real danger to society’.   

Similarly, whilst the RWM’s response to Farage’s £5mn donation from Christopher Harborne was sluggish, they feasted on Raynor’s minor tax issue for months. The “tax scandal” caused a “tangible fall” in her popularity. Despite being found not guilty, the damage was done – the media assault worked.

It also worked against Polanski. Even if repeatedly kicking someone in the head is police protocol, Polanski’s reaction, if politically hasty, was probably natural, humane concern about brain-damage. But the RWM instead briskly spun it as ‘anti-police’ and, by initially omitting the other Muslim victim, absurdly, also as ‘antisemitic’. The ‘antisemite’ and ‘anti-police’ tags then caused Polanski’s approval to plummet 14 points, shifting from positive into the red overnight. 

The RWM spots attack fissures in the left and leap in with the zest of piranhas.

The doorstep fallacy

The RWM can’t claim to mirror political reality since it constructs chunks of the content in the first place that it then allegedly ‘reflects’. Much of the doorstep Corbyn hostility it ‘found’, for example, was its own regurgitated narrative. Starmer has, in reality, made serious mistakes that aren’t simply conjured from press manoeuvres. But the RWM sets the agenda. 

Starmer’s sticky ‘lame duck’ persona was consolidated by prioritising negative labels (weak, indecisive) and by pointed silence on positive achievements: knife crime down 10% in the last year, the stock market outperforming the US, NHS waiting lists lowest in 3.5 yrs, GDP up every quarter since 2024, the new Renters Rights Act, 30 hours weekly of funded childcare.

This suppression is why voters, when asked to list good Labour policies, famously stare blankly, struggling to answer.

Doorstep antipathy is also because Starmer has made monumental mistakes (and, arguably, should go). But ruthless RWM manipulation of success and failure narratives have massively intensified voter contempt. Labour’s 2026 local election performance would have been poor anyway. But media puppeteering turbo-charged the preposterous fall of Starmer’s popularity below Trump’s, and the catastrophic election results.

Weaving social understanding

Starmer is just another in the latest round of left-winged clay pigeons. This isn’t a Starmer endorsement, just an observation that our media could have played it very differently. 

Starmer’s opponents, Johnson and Farage, are notorious censure escapologists. But it was the RWM that carefully curated the unscrutinized, charming, Teflon personalities we’re familiar with, and who orchestrated their success by cultivating fear narratives that shoved immigration to the top of the social issue league table. 

The key point is that Like Orban’s media, our RWM shapes political understanding by labelling, redefining, insinuating, and quietly eviscerating whatever it wants to obliterate. 

RWM narratives like those outlined here penetrate our social consciousness daily. By entrenching certain views whilst undermining others, they widen the right-wing demographic and hence work supremely well in furthering Reform’s trajectory as the new preferred political tribe. 

This isn’t information delivery, or even ‘mildly politically biased’ news. It’s social engineering – on a massive scale, with deeply dysfunctional consequences.

Stop the sane washing 

Yet we continue excusing our media because we assume it must somehow be working in our interest. Consequently, we despair when it keeps failing, as it does, every day.

It took Hungary 16 years to remove Orban, a process greatly assisted by their independent media. For UK politics to start functioning, we must turn away from our dominating RWM towards independent political journalism. 

This largely Impress-regulated ecosystem, though economically fragile, speaks truth to power with integrity, producing responsible, exacting investigation and analysis. We must start fostering this vital independent voice because it belongs to us, not oligarchs, and has our human rights and our democracy as its lode stars. 

Claire Jones writes and edits for West England Bylines and is co-ordinator for the Oxfordshire branch of the progressive campaign group, Compass.

Image credit: Alex Muller – Creative Commons

The post Ending the stranglehold of right wing media is key to fixing our politics appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Shaun Roberts, Director of Campaigns, Unlock Democracy

Big money donations to political parties are doing huge damage to trust in our politics. 

And when a politician claims that the donor expects nothing back for their millions, it simply doesn’t pass the sniff test for the average voter. When Unlock Democracy polled the British public on this last month, fewer than 1 in 14 voters believed the donor didn’t expect anything in return.

Despite Labour’s election promises to clean up politics, the Government is refusing to implement a cap on political donations from individuals and companies in the UK. 

While it might be Reform UK’s mega donors grabbing the headlines right now, all of the major British parties, with the exception of the Green Party, have benefited from multi-million pound donations.

In the first quarter of 2026, three individuals gave over £8 million. Those three people were responsible for £2 out of every £5 received by political parties. 

To the public it looks like our politics is for sale and that the interests of ordinary voters come in a poor second place.

Which brings us to Steve Reed, the Minister in charge of the Representation of the People’s Bill. Amendments calling for the implementation of a cap on donations have been submitted, but the Government seems likely to whip Labour MPs into voting them down. 

We wonder what the voters will make of that? 

Steve Reed himself has said some interesting things on this subject. The Government has at least accepted the need for a cap on donations from overseas voters following the recommendations of the Rycroft Review into foreign interference in our politics. 

Steve Reed described the overseas donations cap of £100,000 as ‘pretty generous’. He went on to point out that Rycroft had said that UK voters living overseas shouldn’t be allowed to make ‘game-changing donations into British politics’.

Which then begs the question – why should anyone be allowed to make game-changing donations to British politics?

That’s something Steve Reed is yet to answer.

The Government’s donation cap on overseas voters has already been exposed as hopelessly ineffective – one billionaire Reform UK donor who lives overseas has already said he’ll move back to the country so he can keep on giving to Reform UK.

It’s not even clear if the Government’s new rules on company donations will prevent Elon Musk from making the kind of mega-donation that’s been threatened in the past. 

The only solution to this is a cap on all political donations. 

There is overwhelming public support for this and very little public opposition. YouGov polling in December showed that barely 1 in 8 voters support the current system of allowing unlimited donations to political parties. 

Yet that’s where Steve Reed and the Government currently stand. 

We hope he and they will think again. 

The lack of trust in our politics is corrosive. Capping donations is a concrete measure that will show the public that things are changing. 

Politics should not be for sale – let’s get big money donations out of our politics once and for all.

The post It’s time for a cap on donations: Will Steve Reed and the Government act? appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield, a Labour member of the House of Lords, and Contributing Editor at Left Foot Forward.

The UK has been in the grip of neoliberalism for the last 45 years, enriching a few and impoverishing many. Social problems have multiplied. Unaffordable housing is one such problem, manufactured by a relentless drive to cut wages and forcing councils to sell social homes.

The crisis

In 1975, at the height of trade union membership, workers share of gross value added (GVA) was 71.9%. After 50 years of economic growth, and introduction of statutory minimum wage it has declined to 59.3%. Since 2008, the average real wage has stagnated and hardly changed. With annual median employee gross wage at £31,524 (£26,217 after income tax and national insurance), millions struggle to access good food and housing. Buying a home is beyond the reach of millions.

In 2024-25, in England alone, some 330,410 households needed support to prevent or relieve homelessness. Around 134,760 households were living in temporary accommodation as of September 2025. 175,990 children are homeless. Three in ten households (41,250) have been moved to temporary accommodation away from their home area, severely affecting links with family and friends, children’s education and exerting pressure of local services.

Social housing can alleviate some of the problems, but it is in short supply. Social housing is not based upon the principle of private profit. Therefore, rents are typically 50% to 60% of market rent. It protects people from profiteering landlords. It enables local authorities to address homelessness; provide secure accommodation instead of temporary accommodation for families, provide affordable housing to millions of people, relieve pressure on private housing sector and reduce cost-of-living crisis

Since the 1980s, governments have systematically depleted social housing stock by selling homes at knockdown prices. The depletion of social housing stock has forced families to enter private rented sector, which is expensive and forces people to live in overcrowded conditions. The number of households privately renting has more than doubled since 1980. Some 4.7m households (11m people) rented their home from a private landlord in 2024/25. The average monthly rent is approximately £1,320, higher in major cities. In the last three years, the average annual rental cost has risen by around 28%. 

After the Second World War, good affordable housing was considered to be vital for alleviating social problems. By 1980, some 4.4m new social homes, or around 126,000 a year, were built. By 1983, social housebuilding declined to 44,240 a year. In 2023/24, in England only 9.866  new affordable homes for social rent were completed.

The Tory legacy

Since the 19th century, governments have encouraged council tenants to buy their rented homes, subject to conditions. However, a big change came in 1980 when the Conservative government sought to bolster its popularity by offering council tenants a Right to Buy homes at massive discounts. Council tenants of at least three years could buy their rented home with at least 33% discount, and increasing by 1% for each year of tenancy, subject to a maximum of £50,000. In 2012, the maximum cap on the Right to Buy discount was fixed at £75,000 or 60% of house value , £100,000 for London properties.

By March 2025, 2.8m social homes were sold across the UK. The discounted sales generated £62bn. The total includes 1.9m council homes in England sold to tenants for £51bn at an average discount of 44% of market value. A study by Common Wealth estimated that the homes sold-off by England’s councils were estimated to be worth £430bn in 2024 prices. It added that “Of the £430 billion total since 1980, £194 billion corresponds to the equity that was effectively given away for free through the discount. Only £236 billion corresponds to the equity that was compensated at market value at the time of sale, for which councils received £51 billion in nominal terms, or £104 billion in today’s money”. 

The government constrained councils from using the sales proceeds to build new homes. Only around 50% of the proceeds of the sale of social homes were paid to the local authorities. Money had to be used to repay debt. There were also borrowing restrictions. Councils lost the expertise to deliver mass housing schemes. Planning, design, construction and maintenance departments had to be closed. Since 1988, governments have backed housing associations to build social homes with private finance, boosting profits for the finance industry. Their tenants can buy homes at a discount. Insufficient social housebuilding, plus too many homes being sold or demolished, has resulted in a net loss of social housing nearly every year since 1981. Since 1981, the proportion of UK households living in social housing decreased from 31% to 17%. The number of social homes has declined from 6.8m to 5.4m, with 4.5m in England.

In some years, more council homes have been sold than built. For example, in 2023-24, only 2,850 council homes were constructed. In 2024-25, 2,260 council homes were built. There were 13,966 sell-offs of council houses through right to buy in 2023-24 and 8,656 in 2024-25. Around 18,500 council homes were planned to be sold off in 2025-26 – eight times more than the number built in 2024-25. Altogether, 21,436 social homes were lost in England.

The UK social housing waiting list is around 1.5m households. With the current level and quality of stock, people will have to wait for over 100 years for family-size social home. In 2023-24, the City of Liverpool had 12,764 households on its social housing waiting list whilst it had just five “additional social rent dwellings.” In 2024/25, local councils in England spent £2.8bn on expensive private sector temporary accommodation to accommodate homeless households.

The Conservative policies, also adopted by the subsequent Labour governments, did not increase home ownership. Too many tenants resold the cheaply acquired homes for massive profits. Some ex-council tenants made profit of over £200,000 by selling homes back to the council just a few years after the Right to Buy purchases. Nearly 41% of council homes sold under the Right to Buy are now being let on the private market. The home ownership rate has declined from nearly 71% in 2003 to about 64.5%.

Labour government’s response

The Social Housing Bill, currently going through parliament, takes small steps to protect social housing stock and prevent profiteering. Its main provisions are as follows:

• Over the years, the Right to Buy rules have changed and the Bill increases the minimum tenancy required to be eligible for the Right to Buy from 3 to 10 years.
• Discounts for tenants start at 5% of the property value and go up to a maximum of 15% or the cash discount cap (whichever is lower) which can vary for areas.
• New social homes cannot be sold under the Right to Buy for 35 years after they are built to ensure that councils can recover the construction costs.
• Rural properties, which are hard to replace will be exempt from the Right to Buy schemes.
• Tenants who have previously benefitted from the Right to Buy scheme cannot buy another property.
• The Bill increases the period of time for which the council has the right to ask for repayment of all or part of the discount on the sale of property from 5 years to 10 years.
• Local councils will be able to retain 100% of the receipts from the Right to Buy sales and build new homes.
• When a property previously bought under the Right to Buy is to be sold, local authority must be informed and it will have the right of first refusal.
• The Bill contains measures to protect social tenants who are victims of domestic abuse by providing greater housing security and stability

The Social Housing Bill does not build new social homes. That is part of another government announcement. In July 2025, it announced a 10- year £39bn Social and Affordable Homes Programme to build 300,000 social and affordable homes (180,000 homes for Social Rent). Delivering 18,000 social homes a year is way short of the public need. Civil society organisations have called for social housebuilding in the range of 90,000 to 150,000 new properties a year.

The UK housing crisis has been manufactured by government policies. The post-war social housing policies were abruptly reversed by the Conservative government in the 1980s. Local councils were forced to sell social housing stock at massive discounts and prevented from building new ones, as governments sought to empower private sector housebuilding. As part of social engineering, housing stock worth some £194bn (2024 prices) was given away. It did not increase home ownership. Housing waiting lists have lengthened. In the absence of social homes, councils have been forced to spend billions to house needy families in temporary accommodation.

The Social Housing Bill, opposed by the Conservative Party, takes small steps to protect housing stock. It does not end the Right to Buy. Successive governments boast fiscal rules for managing economy but none are accompanied by any specific targets to reduce poverty, homelessness or increasing social housing.

Equitable distribution of income and wealth is a key requirement for building household economic resilience but governments are not committed to increasing workers’ share of GVA or progressive taxation. 

The post The housing crisis is manufactured. We can end it. appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield, a Labour member of the House of Lords, and Contributing Editor at Left Foot Forward.

The King’s Speech has laid out the Labour government’s legislative agenda for the current session of parliament against the background political uncertainty. Following a poor showing of the government in local elections in England and parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales, there is intense pressure on Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to resign. Depending on the outcome, the policies announced in the King’s speech may not survive.

It will take time for any government to undo the effects of 50 years of neoliberalism, but the King’s Speech shows that on too many fronts the government’s ambition is not matched by actions. 

The King’s Speech outline thirty-seven new bills focusing on economic growth, energy independence, national security, housing, public services, and transport to build what the Prime Minister called “a stronger, fairer Britain.”

In an increasingly uncertain world, the proposed European Partnership Bill will seek to build a closer relationship with the European Union (EU) by eliminating barriers to trade. The UK will adopt EU rules in selected areas, such as food, drink, carbon emissions, and energy supply. This won’t fully undo the damage inflicted by Brexit but will improve the UK’s trade with one of the biggest trading blocks.

The Energy Independence Bill which seeks to accelerate investment in home-grown renewable energy and speed up infrastructure delivery is most welcome. The Electricity Generator Levy Bill increasing the windfall tax on generators from 45% to 55% is also welcome. However, there is no comprehensive attempt to curb profiteering by energy companies. Since 2020, their UK operations have made profits of £125bn. Over 120,000 Britons die in fuel poverty annually.

The disastrous Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is being promoted through the Highways (Financing) Bill to enable what the government calls “a new financing approach to fund large-scale road schemes.” Previous PFI schemes resulted in £6 repayment for every £1 of private investment. Though such schemes the state effectively guarantees corporate profits. Government borrowing is always cheaper than corporate borrowing. The government can also fund infrastructure by issuing public bonds, but such alternatives have been ignored.

The 129 pages of background notes make no mention of the word “manufacturing” even though every £1 of manufacturing activity supports a further £1.8 through indirect and induced multiplier effects. Despite the economic wars, the King’s Speech is silent on boosting manufacturing of semiconductors, rare earth minerals, bricks, cement, auto, medicines and other essential items to build a resilient economy. 

The regulator consolidation offered by the Enhancing Financial Services Bill may save duplication and costs, we are being framed around phrases such as “competitiveness” and “regulatory simplification” They are code words for further deregulation. Between 1995 and 2015, the UK finance industry made a £4,500bn negative contribution to the UK economy. Despite that governments have abolished the post-2008 crash restraints. The regulator’s duties to protect customers have already been diluted. They have a secondary duty to promote growth and competitiveness of the industry. Conflict of interests abound. The government’s briefing notes make no mention of the social costs of deregulation. There is no attempt to regulate private equity which is devouring hospitals, care homes, veterinary services, supermarkets, water, energy, retail and more.

The so-called “industry friendly” reforms of the Financial Ombudsman Service are a cue for deregulation and dilution of consumer rights. There is silence on institutional cover-up of bank frauds. There is still no investigation of the 1991 closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce (BCCI), the biggest banking fraud of the twentieth century. In the House of Lords, I have raised questions about the failure to tackle HSBC after it was fined $1.9bn in the US in 2012 for money laundering for criminals. The then Chancellor George Osborne and regulator secretly urged the US authorities to go easy on the bank as it was too big. The response to my questions has been ministerial silence.

On numerous occasions, I have asked questions about HBOS frauds (dating from 2002-2007) in the House of Lords. Regulators ape the three unwise monkeys, and Ministerial indifference means that the victims have not received compensation even after the courts have established criminality of managers at the bank. Again, all I get is excuses and ministerial indifference. What good is an Ombudsman system when Ministers and regulators ignore financial crimes?

There are mixed messages from the government about privatisation and nationalisation. For years, the steel industry has received public subsidies. Companies keep the resulting assets and income streams. In return for free money, Governments have not taken an equity stake or a seat on the boards of the entities. The free cash is not repayable. In April 2024, the government intervened to seize control of British Steel’s Scunthorpe plant to prevent its Chinese owners from closing its blast furnaces and damage UK steelmaking capacity. The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill will renationalise British Steel to safeguard jobs and vital industry capacity. This begs the question why the entire steel industry has not been nationalised, especially as other operators, such as Tata Steel, also receive subsidies.

There are two major bills for transformation of railways. The Northern Powerhouse Rail Bill will provide investment of up to £45bn to deliver faster, more reliable and more frequent services between the North of England’s key cities. This is welcome and would help to boost jobs and the economy.

The Railways and Passenger Benefits Bill will establish Great British Railways (GBR) and unite track and train management under a single body. Passenger services are already being nationalised, as when the franchise contracts end. However, there is no attempt to bring lucrative freight and rolling stock companies (ROSCOs) into public ownership. For passenger services, GBR will rent carriages from three offshore-based companies. They have an average profit margin of up to 41.6% which is a huge burden on customers and the public purse.

We are told that that nationalisation of rail passenger services and British Steel is in the public interest. But so is nationalisation of water, energy, mail, social care, and other essential services. But they are ignored.

Sustained economic growth cannot be achieved unless people have good purchasing power. That can be achieved by curbs on profiteering. But that is missing from the King’s Speech. It can be achieved by improving workers’ share of the economy, but that receives little attention.

Some 25.3m people, including 14.9 working age adults and 7.7m children live in households below the minimum income standard. A major cause is the erosion of workers’ share of gross value added (GVA). In 1975, workers’ share of GVA was 71.9%. By 2025, it declined to 59.7%. This includes the remuneration of fat-cat executives. So, the share going to workers is much lower.

The huge transfer of wealth from labour to capital has coincided with lower rates of corporation tax. The headline corporation tax rate was 52% in 1974, compared to 25% now. The increase in capital’s share has not resulted in higher rate of investment in productive assets. In 2025, the UK invested 18.9% of GDP in productive assets, the lowest amongst G7 nations. For most of the last thirty years, the UK has been at or near the bottom of the OECD league of investment. Inevitably, productivity and economic growth is low. Yet there is no coherent strategy for increasing workers’ share of GVA. There is no reform of corporate governance or short-termism in the City of London. There is no plan to emulate EU countries and put worker-elected directors on the boards of large companies to ensure that they have a say in how the wealth is to be shared.

People’s purchasing power could be boosted by progressive taxation, but that is not on the agenda. The poorest 20% of the population pay a higher proportion of their income in direct and indirect taxes compared to the richest 20%. At the same time dividends and capital gains, mainly accruing to the well-off, are taxed at lower marginal rates than wages.

Problems are compounded by freeze on income tax personal allowance. In April 2021, the Conservative government froze the annual personal allowance at £12,570. Labour continued with it. If the personal allowance of £12,570 had increased in line with inflation, it would have been £16,048 for 2026/27. Due to the freeze, someone earning £20,000 a year will pay additional income tax of £696 in 2026/27 alone. None of this aids household resilience. Redistribution is not on the government’s agenda.

The government has some good policies, but it is hard to discern a transformative plan for society. The King’s Speech tinkers at the edges and is unlikely to deliver sustained economic growth or household resilience.

The post The King’s Speech wasn’t the transformative plan for the country we need appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Tom Brake is CEO of Unlock Democracy

With passage of the hereditary peers bill earlier this month, we see the House of Lords for what it is – and what it isn’t.

For years, defenders of the upper chamber have leaned on a familiar set of arguments. The Lords, they say, performs a vital revising function. It brings expertise that is too often absent from the Commons. It is less tribal, less dominated by party machines, and therefore better placed to scrutinise legislation on its merits. There is truth in all of this. At its best, the Lords can and does improve legislation, asking detailed questions that elected MPs, constrained by time and party discipline, often do not.

But this is only half the story. Even the most expert and diligent peers recognise the Lords lacks legitimacy. 

Over the last century, hereditary privilege in the Lords has gradually given way to prime ministerial patronage, culminating this month in the long-overdue removal of the remaining hereditary peers. Yet the composition of today’s House of Lords owes no less to powerful connections than it did in the days of a landed aristocracy. Successive prime ministers have treated life-long seats in our Parliament as rewards for loyalty or fundraising prowess. At least in earlier times, the shape of the Lords made some sense – it was not democratic, but it ensured certain key interests in the country had a stake in government. No such defence can be made of the cronies who comprise so much of the chamber’s current membership. So strong, indeed, is the “whiff of corruption” their presence in the Lords exudes that it tarnishes the entire House, with damaging political consequences.

Because peers know they lack legitimacy, they are constrained in how far they can push back against the government. The Lords may advise, suggest, and occasionally delay, but it cannot decisively challenge. Its influence depends on the willingness of the government to listen – and governments, unsurprisingly, are selective in when they do so. 

This suits those in power. A second chamber that offers the appearance of scrutiny, without the capacity to enforce it, is politically convenient. It allows ministers to claim that government legislation has been carefully examined, while ensuring that ultimate control remains firmly in the executive’s hands. In this sense, the weaknesses of the Lords are not a bug; they are a feature. On the rare occasion the Lords does try to assert itself, its very lack of legitimacy is turned back against it.

The next general election could bring all this to a head. Reform UK has held a consistent lead in the opinion polls for over a year. It has zero representation in the Lords. The Greens, on the rise and vying in recent polls for second place, have two peers. 

In the event either party were to lead the next government, the Lords would be in an impossible position. It could defer completely to the elected government, reducing itself to an advisory body in all but name. Or it could assert itself and risk accusations of thwarting the will of the electorate, inviting calls for its abolition or reform. Neither path is sustainable. The more the Lords resists, the more illegitimate it appears; the more it complies, the more redundant it becomes.

Most likely, to try to redress the party imbalance, will be the creation of yet more new peers – to a chamber second only in membership size to China’s National People’s Congress. Keir Starmer has paved the way, already appointing 96 peers – more than any Prime Minister since David Cameron – with a larger share going to his own party than ever before. It is a blueprint Prime Minister Farage, with no party backing in the Lords and plans to bring business leaders in as ministers, could readily follow.

For the Lords to play a meaningful role in scrutinising legislation and holding government to account, it must have the legitimacy to match. Removing 84 hereditary peers alone will not provide it. Prime ministerial patronage cannot provide it. Continue without it, and the House of Lords may not stand much longer.

Image credit: Diliff – Creative Commons

The post The House of Lords is increasingly illegitimate appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield, a Labour member of the House of Lords, and Contributing Editor at Left Foot Forward.

In a democracy people reign supreme and governments are expected to increase their prosperity and happiness. So, how democratic is the UK? 

There is universal suffrage but a cross on a ballot paper every 4-5 years does not necessarily lead to representative governments, equitable distribution of income and wealth, rule of law or political accountability. All too often people are subjected to policies advanced by the super-rich.

Did you vote for any of these policies?

Cuts in real wages – The average real wage has barely moved since 2008. 37% of all universal credit claimants are in work. 

Wages taxed at higher rates that return on wealth – Wages are taxed at marginal rates of 20%-45%. In addition, national insurance contributions (NIC) are levied. In contrast, dividends are taxed at rates of 8.75% to 39.35%; capital gains at marginal rates 18% to 32%. No NIC is levied.

Poverty is endemic – 24m people live below the minimum living standard. Just 50 richest families have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population combined. The poorest 20% pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the richest 20%.

Want to buy a home, dream on – Wages have not kept pace with house prices. In February 2026, the median gross annual wage of an employee was £31,056, £25,880 after income tax and national insurance. The average house priced at £300,000 remains beyond the reach of most people.

Unchecked profiteering – Profiteering is rife in most sectors as there is little effective regulation. For example, energy companies have made over £125bn profit since 2020. Around 120,000 people a year die in fuel poverty.

Sewage in rivers, lakes and seas – Sewage was dumped for 4.7m hours was into UK rivers in 2024. Despite record increases in customer bills since privatisation, water companies have not made adequate investment in infrastructure. They paid £85.2bn in dividends to shareholders.

Healthcare neglect – 6.17m individuals in England await 7.29m hospital appointments.  Around 300,000 people a year die prematurely whilst waiting for a hospital appointment. 

The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 empowers the state to 24/7 snoop on bank accounts of recipients of universal credit, employment & support allowance, and pension credit. The poor are denied financial privacy whilst the same does not apply to accountants and lawyers designing tax abuse schemes.

The above are a tiny sample of policies made in a supposedly democratic society. It is hard to recall any mass petitions or marches demanding any of the above.

People could change their voting patterns but that cannot produce a representative government. Under the First-Past-the-Post system (FPTP) governments are elected by a minority of the electorate. In the 2024 general election, with just 34% of the vote Labour Party secured 411 of the 650 House of Commons seats. 

Despite an annual salary of £93,904 plus expenses 236 out of 650 MPs have second jobs, mostly contrived corporate consultancy contracts. Conflicts of interests are inevitable. MPs are also under pressure to toe the party line. Those resisting, risk loss of the party whip which can damage their parliamentary career. In July 2024, Labour government decided to continue with the two-child benefit cap introduced by the previous Conservative government. It condemned nearly 450,000 children to poverty. Seven Labour MPs voted against the government. In response, Labour withdrew the party whip from them, effectively a warning to others in case they were thinking about exercising independent judgements.

The whipping system results in perfunctory scrutiny of legislation and bad laws. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced indefinite sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP sentences) for offenders considered to pose a significant risk of causing serious harm to the public. Between 2005 and 2012, 8,711 people were given an IPP sentence . The IPP sentence was abolished in 2012. In December 2025, 924 people were still held in prison for indefinite periods. One person has spent over 11 years in prison for stealing a mobile phone. Another has spent over 20 years for the same offence. Many are psychologically damaged and can’t easily be reintegrated into society. Was it worth having a government with a huge majority, or a whipping system that pressurises legislators to vote for laws that destroys lives?

People have the power to remove MPs, but they cannot remove the 800+ unelected members of the House of Lords. In principle, the Lords are supposed to provide independent scrutiny of laws, but the House is stuffed with faithful former MPs, advisers and party donors to tip the scales. Most rarely dissent. Conflicts of interests abound. For example, 10 of the 13 members of the House of Lords financial services regulation committee, which scrutinises effectiveness of regulation, were on the payroll of the industry.

Self-disclosure: I am a member of the House of Lords and long for the day that I can vote to replace it with an elected chamber.

Democratic deficit has disconnected governments from the people. The state is unable or unwilling to provide people with clean water, timely healthcare, decent housing, pension, affordable education, energy or transport but welfare of the rich is a priority. Privatisation of public assets, Private Finance Initiative (PFI), outsourcing of public services, bailouts and subsidies are major policies for transferring wealth to a few. Instead of expanding the capacity of heath and care services, governments are handing more to corporations. They are making profits of 32%-43% from cataract surgery. Fostering services for children have been commodified and corporations have profit margins of up to 21%. Companies providing residential care for children have profit margins of around 19% – 25%.

Governments demonise people for receiving social security benefits, but subsidise highly profitable energy, auto, water, steel, shipbuilding, internet, engineering, and other companies. Rolls Royce made £6.9bn profits in 2025. It handed £1bn to shareholders in 2025 and has promised another £7bn-£9bn by 2028. Its CEO has demanded free money from the government for its £3bn new product with the threat that it will shift production abroad if the cash is not forthcoming. It is not alone. AstraZeneca and other pharmaceutical companies demanded 25% price rise in drugs supplied to the NHS with the threat of pausing or cancelling major expansion of R&D facilities. AstraZeneca paused a £200m expansion of its research site in Cambridge. The government capitulated. AstraZeneca CEO hailed NHS drug price deal but the £200m UK investment has not materialised.

People spend a large part of their life at work, but there is no industrial democracy. Unlike most of Europe, UK workers are not permitted to elect directors. They have no say in how wealth generated with their brains and brawn is distributed. It takes a typical FTSE100 CEO just two days to collect the median UK worker’s full time annual salary. Some CEOs collect 1,110 times the average worker pay. Governments preach pay restraint to workers but do nothing to curb executive pay, dividends and share buybacks.

It is one law for the super-rich and another for normal people. Workers pay income tax on their earnings but that doesn’t apply to private equity managers, whose income or share of profits is taxed as a capital gain. The Chancellor promised to end the anomaly. Private equity bosses threatened to move abroad. The government capitulated and gave them a tax perk worth about £500m a year.

Thousands of unpaid carers have been prosecuted for inadvertently breaching the benefit rules, but the same does not apply to corporations or their controllers. The Post Office knowingly falsely prosecuted hundreds of postmasters. After 30 years, neither the post office nor any of its directors have been fined or prosecuted. In 2017, 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire. A public inquiry drew attention to government failures and “systematic dishonesty” of manufacturers of building materials as the main reason. One manufacturer “deliberately concealed” the fire risks its cladding posed. No one has been prosecuted.

Around £1bn of frauds occurred at HBOS (bought by Lloyds Bank in 2008-09) between 2003 and 2007 as bankers intentionally forced struggling small businesses into bankruptcy and stole their assets. No regulator wanted to investigate. Finally, the Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner took action. In February 2017, six miscreants, including two former HBOS employees were jailed for a total of 47 years. Still, no one fully investigated the frauds. In 2017, Lloyds Bank appointed a former High Court judge to investigate and publish a report by 2018. No report has been published, and victims are still waiting for compensation.

The above analysis highlights a crisis of democracy. The state apparatus is increasingly subservient to corporations and the super-rich though occasionally some crumbs are thrown to pacify the masses. The choice is stark; we can have powerful corporations and oligarchs or democracy but not both. Major political, economic, and social reforms are needed, but no major party wants to undertake them. Against all the odds, our predecessors secured a modicum of rights by awakening people through protests, civil disobedience, oratory, seminars, leaflets, theatre, songs, music, boycotts and by building communities. The same is necessary for long-term prosperity and happiness.

Image credit: Diliff – Creative Commons

The post How democratic is the UK? appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.