Nick's Pics

Those on the right of politics (and some on the left), instead of calling for cuts to benefits, should be asking themselves why are so many people claiming benefits in the first place. 

Let’s start with definitions. In UK policy language, benefits are the cash payments, while welfare is the whole system of social support, including benefits plus services like social care, housing support, and public services. Unfortunately, these two terms are used interchangeably in the press, by politicians and social media. 

Dealing with benefits first, the largest group are pensioners. 13.2 million old people receive the State Pension. This alone accounts for over half of all benefit recipients. Despite all the talk that British pensioners have never had it so good, the UK state pension is one of the least generous in both the G7 and Europe.

The UK state pension as a percentage of average earnings comes in at 22%, the lowest in the G7. Italy’s state pension by comparison is 76%, France, 58%, Germany 44%. Put another way, a UK worker retiring on average earnings receives less than a quarter of their salary from the state pension. In France or Italy, retirees receive over half, often three-quarters of their average salary.

As a percentage of GDP the UK spends 4.7% on pensions while France, Italy and Germany all spend in excess of 10%. To make matters worse, the UK is at the top end of G7 retirement ages, with retirement age expected to increase to 68 years of age in coming years.

In summary, pensions may account for half the benefit budget, but they are by no means generous when compared to similar countries. 

The next largest category after State Pension is disability and health related benefits. The UK spends £60bn a year on disability and illness. Unlike pensions, which are the lowest in the G7, Britain’s spend on disability and illness is on track to be the highest. Britain has the fastest rising long-term sickness in the developed world. Why is this?

Long-term sickness in the UK has risen 30-40% since 2019, while most countries rates either remained flat or fell. One reason for this is the difficulty in seeing a doctor when ill, and when finally you do get a GP diagnosis, there  are  long delays for NHS treatment: unacceptable waits for surgery, physiotherapy, mental health treatment and diagnostic tests.

The consequences of this are obvious: conditions worsen, people become unable to work, they become eligible for benefits such as PIP/ESA, and because there are chronic delays in treatment, they are on benefits for longer. Sometimes, prolonged delays in treatment lead to permanent disability.

A secondary factor in health related payments is that Britain has a comparatively older population than many other countries, and the older you are the more likely it is that you will have a medical condition requiring treatment. This not only contributes to longer NHS waiting times, it pushes disability spending up even further.

The third largest category of benefit spending is working age and family benefits such as Universal Credit  (UC) and Child Benefit. Universal Credit, the largest component, tops up low wages, covers housing costs, and disability additions. Because Britain has a shortage of affordable housing the housing element of CU inflates benefit payments, the true beneficiaries of this payment being landlords. This is a headline from the Telegraph:

“Housing benefit bill hits record£39bm under Labour” (10/05/26)

The housing shortage that has led to excessively high rents is not the fault of Labour. It is a structural fault due to neglect of the housing sector by successive Labour and Conservative governments. Another structural fault is the persistence of low wages. Around £25-30 billion per year of UK welfare spending goes to topping up low wages. In effect this is the taxpayer subsidising business.

Rightwing politicians will continue to call for welfare cuts but remain silent on the structural failures and lack of forward planning that make so many benefit payments necessary. The right repeatedly claim that welfare and benefit spending is draining the economy and that Britain cannot possibly succeed economically until drastic spending cuts are introduced.

When listening to this claim it is well to remember that the UK spends about the same or slightly less than most major European countries on benefit and welfare payments a percentage of GDP. We are not a high-spending welfare state by European standards but the right will never admit to this.

UK politicians and media voices who insist that “benefit spending is too high” routinely single out only one slice of welfare expenditure — sickness and disability benefits — rather than acknowledging the state of the system as a whole. They highlight the fastest‑growing component of welfare (health‑related benefits) while ignoring the underlying causes. Both the Conservatives and Reform UK — a refuge for many former Tory MPs seeking to salvage their political careers — omit a crucial fact: years of Conservative austerity hollowed out the NHS long before Covid‑19 arrived.

During the austerity period, the NHS was left with severe staff shortages, too few hospital beds, repeated funding cuts, creeping privatisation, fragmented procurement systems, and chronic failures in long‑term planning. When the pandemic hit, the service had no slack left. Elective surgeries were cancelled, diagnostics stalled, and routine care collapsed. Meanwhile, politically connected firms pocketed billions through emergency PPE contracts, many of which delivered unusable equipment.

The surge in long‑term sickness we see today is not an inexplicable social trend; it is the predictable consequence of austerity and the systematic running down of the NHS. A weakened health service produced delayed diagnoses, untreated conditions, and avoidable deterioration in public health — all of which now show up in disability and sickness‑related benefit claims.

Does Reform UK ever stop whinging and lying? Today we have Robert Jenrick doing the media round. The message is the same but strangely the “facts” have now changed.

Yesterday Zia Yusuf of Reform UK stated the state was “providing no protection whatsoever” (Independent: 13/07/26) for Nigel Farage.

It has since been reported that Nigel Farage had turned down state protection as he thought it “inadequate”. The security package he was offered was the same as that given to Kemi Badenoch and high-profile Cabinet ministers. Like Trump (his self-declared best friend) he is so full of his own self-importance he thought he deserved better, so he refused the offer.

He has a perfect right to decline or accept the states security package but to have his people then claim he had been “provided no protection whatsoever” is playing foot loose with the truth. Technically no security was provided, but only because he had rejected it when offered.

This sort of tactic, - half-truths and lies – is straight out of the Trump playbook and Robert Jenrick has continued where Yusuf left off.  Speaking on the BBC Today programme he argued that Nigel Farage’s security arrangement had been downgraded, that the government had shown a “dereliction of duty” and that Farage’s security was only being taken seriously because of Ann Widdecombe’s murder.

Jenrick repeatedly said ministers “chose” not to give Farage the security he needed. Putting to one side the fact Farage was offered security but declined it, this statement by Jenrick is incorrect on other counts. RAVEC, an independent committee of MI5, police and Home Office officials, set security levels for MP’s. Ministers cannot order close protection, remove it, or “downgrade” it. Jenrick suggested the Home Secretary could of arranged a RAVEC meeting “a year ago” if she had so wanted. Untrue: Ministers can only request a review, not dictate timing.

Jenrick was later forced to admit that Farage had turned down the standard security package of a close protection officer, and a secure car with a trained driver. A package cannot be “downgraded” if the MP refuses it and the experienced parliamentarian Jenrick knows this.

Jenrick suggested that Farage was only having his security reassessed because of the murder of Ann Widdecombe. Again this is factually incorrect. Security reviews are triggered by threat intelligence, not by political events. RAVEC assessments are ongoing and independent of politicians, not reactive to a single event.

Jenrick also claimed that Reform UK MP’s face higher threats than other MP’s because they “raise issues others shy away from”. This is utter nonsense, and there is no evidence to suggest that Reform MP’s face any greater threats than others.

In summery, Jenrick deliberately over-stated ministerial power regarding security decisions. He lied about a “downgrade” that did not happen. Seeking to use Widdecombe’s death to Reform's political advantage , he linked security actions to her murder without evidence.  Again, he asserted higher levels of threat to Reform MP’s without any backup data. Finally, he deliberately misrepresented how and when RAVEC meeting can be arranged.

Like all Reform UK spokesmen and women Jenrick talked over the interviewer during the programme, pressing home his misleading claims despite their inaccuracy being pointed out. This is the age-old tactic of shouting lies loud enough in the knowledge some of them will stick.

You have to applaud Reform UK’s self-serving, blatant immoral efficiency at exploiting Ann Widdecombe’s murder to their own advantage. Not only has Farage called it a “premeditated murder” (which it may of may not be) despite the police calling for people to stop speculating, but Zia Yusef, has accused Parliament and the police for not caring about Reform UK’s MP’s security.

According to Yusef, the state provides “no protection whatsoever” to Reform MP’s. This is blatantly untrue – ALL MP’s are covered by the UK’s official parliamentary security system. Reform MP’s get a home security assessment, protective installations, (alarms, reinforced doors, CCTV), police led risk assessments, and guidance and support from the Parliamentary Security Department.

Lets be generous and assume Yusuf doesn’t know this. After all, he isn’t an MP. His ignorance might explain outbursts like:

“Zia Yusuf claims that neither the Government nor the police care about the safety of Reform MP’s… The state is providing no protection whatsoever.” (Express 12/07/26)

The problem with assuming Yusuf is simply ignorant of the extensive security measures afforded ALL MP’s is that Richard Tice (Reform MP and Deputy Leader of Reform UK) is spreading the same self-serving rumour.

“Richard Tice accuses police and parliamentary authorities of failing to protect MP’s.” )Telegraph: 11.07/26)

Not missing a trick they are linking the death of Ann Widdecombe to the Parliamentary investigation into the £5 million undeclared donation to Nigel Farage. They argue that if donation caps were introduced, as is proposed, they would be unable to fund security for Reform MP’s since “none is currently available from the state”. 

Despite this assertion being absolutely untrue, this has not deterred Reform UK claiming:

“Capping donations ‘will put Reform MP’s in danger’…Death of Ann Widdecombe proves need for security funding, Farage’s party argue.” Telegraph: 12/07/26)

Interestingly Reform UK seem to have NO concern for the security of MP’s other than from their own Party. But then again, they seem to have little regard for their own party members either. Using Reform UK member, Ann Widdecombe’s awful murder to further their own political agenda and to distract scrutiny from Farage’s failure to disclose multi-million pound donations is typical smoke and mirror tactics employed by the populist right.

Yusef has not only denied Reform MP’s receive any security from parliament or the police but has gone on to attack the Speaker of the House, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, as a “bully” and a “coward” in the way Reform UK’s so called security concerns have been handled.

When Hoyle confronted Reform’s chief whip over Yusuf’s tirade, Yusuf is said to have responded with he “has no jurisdiction over me” and taunted Hoyle by saying “I am not afraid of him”.

While we wither in the third heat wave of the year ponder these wise words of Nigel Farage concerning climate change.

“This complete obsession with carbon dioxide… the alarmism that comes with it, based on dodgy predictions and science.” (desmog: 03/06.25)

“I cant tell you whether CO2 is leading to warming or not, ...there are so many other massive factors.” (The London Economic: 18/02/25)

“Nigel Farage Dubbed “A Con Artist For Suggesting Climate Change May Nor Be Man Made” (Huffpost:23/04/25)

“The one thing I hear that drives me absolutely potty is that carbon dioxide is a pollutant! That’s what they tell us! That clearly is absolutely nuts.”  ( Ark Conference: 17-18 February 2025)

Other Reform UK members have support Nigel Farage’s position.

            “There is no climate crisis” June Mummery Reform councillor)

Carbon dioxide has no zero impact on temperature” (Philip Crook, Reform councillor.)

The problem with being in denial of either climate change itself or the causes of climate change is that you have no effective policies for countering the problems overheating brings. So while Farage and Reform UK continue to reject the role of CO2 in climate change, the old and vulnerable will continue to die in ever greater numbers.

It is estimated that 2,700 UK heat related deaths have already occurred between May and June of this year. (Studies by, Imperial College London, the Met Office, and LSHTM) If Reform refuses to recognise the problem then they cannot produce a solution.

The Office for National Statistics estimates that hot days cost the UK economy £1.2 billion per year through falling productivity, infrastructure failure, agricultural collapse, retail and hospitality turndowns, school closures, energy grid strains, and household financial losses. Yet for Reform UK there is no climate crisis.

Posing as the party of the people why is Reform UK prepared for literally thousands of UK citizens to die of heat associated deaths? Is it because they don’t care? No, it’s not that. It is far worse than mere indifference. About 67% of Reform UK’s total declared funding comes from donors with direct financial interests in fossil fuels.

Fossil fuel donors do not give away their money for free. They expect Reform UK to protect their interests and than means denying carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel usage has any noticeable effect on climate.

Innocent men do not resign. The news that Nigel Farage has just resigned as MP for Clacton says it all. Instead of being a passive subject of scrutiny, he becomes an active candidate “asking the people” to judge him. This reframes the story from “Farage under pressure over finances” to “Farage seeks fresh mandate”.

Farage is reframing his failure to declare his acceptance of £5 million from a British-Thai crypto billionaire from one of “Is he guilty?“  to a “people vs establishment” narrative. By resigning and then immediately re standing as MP for Clacton, if he wins he can claim a renewed mandate from the people, positioning voter support as validation of his possible illegal conduct. Such a move also takes scrutiny away from George Cottrell, a convicted criminal, who also gave undeclared financial funding to Farage. 

This is straight out of the Trump playbook where misguided voters have supported a man who has made $2 billion since being elected President. Farage was recently in the US to celebrate 250 years of American independence, where his hero Trump has repeatedly faced credible allegations of corruption.

Like Trump, Farage feeds on publicity but only on his own terms. He can now take control of the political narrative by organising a political campaign, mobilising his supporters and pumping out his populist messages on a daily basis. His fate will no longer rest with the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner but with he people of Clacton.

This political power play gives him control of the timing, narrative and of his own future rather than letting investigations, party pressure, or media framing dictate events. More importantly, if he wins and then the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner finds him guilty of misconduct he can claim he has the peoples mandate. This gives him a stronger political shield and he can spread the lie that “the establishment is trying to silence me”.

Donald Trump, a man greatly admired by Farage, uses these tactics all the time. He has repeatedly turned vulnerability into a political weapon, forcing a new contest  on his own terms, reframing investigations as persecution, and using high-risk moves to seize control of events.

We all know Trump to be a liar, a bully, vindictively intolerant of criticism,  and totally inept when it comes to foreign policy. Perhaps more worrying still is Trumps petty mindedness. When a star US footballer was given a red card during a World Cup match - meaning he would automatically miss the next match_ Trump intervened, using his position of power to get the decision reversed. He verbally attacked the referee accusing him of unfair treatment of Americans, biased officiating, and of being too “woke”. In short, he turned an isolated sports incident into a symbol of national grievance.

Today’s business headlines are predominantly centred on Sir Charlie Mayfield’s review, “Keep Britain Working”. It focuses on the role employers can play in helping people stay in work or return to work during and after illness. Mayfield’s report argues that Britain’s economic recovery depends on tackling long‑term sickness by reshaping employer responsibilities, improving workplace health systems, and restoring the dignity and purpose of work.

Speaking on the BBC’s “Today” programme he argues that if the current workforce of 33 million could be increased by just 1% then this would help solve the problem of Britain’s slow economic growth. He argues that if we could get 1% of the sick into work,

“ the equivalent of a city the size of Cardiff, then you would not have to build a single new house, open up new channels of immigration, you wouldn’t have to wait for a cohort of young people to join the workforce – this is basically growth hiding in plain sight”. (03/07/26)

Employer responsibilities towards the sick certainly need to improve; especially as UK worker conditions are worse than the EU average. British workers have weaker labour protection laws, lower job security, more restrictive union laws, and less protective working-time rules than most EU countries.

The policies Mayfield is proposing may improve economic growth temporarily but it is a very one-sided argument. What his report neglects to mention is that HALF of Britain’s productivity slowdown is due to a lack of investment not an absentee workforce. Although productivity and economic growth are distinct they are mathematically and causally linked. Productivity is the engine; growth is the speed. You can have one without the other but SUSTAINED economic growth depends on productivity NOT the size of the workforce.

What Mayfield isn’t telling us is the failure of British  businesses to invest in their  own enterprises. Instead, the shareholders of British companies have been allowed to pocket massive dividends at the expense of long-term company investment.  While other countries maintained investment levels to enable growth, the UK business community did the exact opposite.

Since the financial crash of 2008 UK employment grew strongly – the very thing Mayfield is calling for now. Immigrant labour played a major part in this growth as employers found it cheaper to hire migrant workers than British citizens. Despite employment growth productivity barely grew at all (0.3-0.5% per year.) This was because increases in workforce numbers alone are insufficient to guarantee sustainable growth. The overall result  of this low wage, low investment strategy was  that GDP grew very slowly and wages stagnated.

The core problem of Britain’s slow economic growth has been WEAK PRODUCTIVITY not lack of workers. Mayfield’s solution of increasing the workforce by facilitating the return to work of the sick is only a temporary solution. Without increased investment, (improving the engine) there can be no sustained improvement to GDP.

Yes, highlight the number of sick people of employable age, yes suggest ways their position can be improved but please don’t pretend this is only solution to the problem of slow economic growth. Mayfield’s solution implies it is the sick that are RESPONSIBLE for Britain’s sluggish economy: this is clearly not the case.

Britain has one of the lowest investment rates in the industrialised world. The UK average business investment is 10% of GDP whereas France invests 23%, Germany 20%. The UK has been bottom or second to bottom of the G7 investment table for over 20 years.

Many of Britain’s wealthiest families send their children to private schools where fees can be as high as £63,000 per year. These schools have four major functions: to reproduce social networks, to convert family wealth into educational and social advantage, to provide a prestige-based signalling mechanism, and to offer an educational environment tailored to very wealthy families expectations. In short, the purpose of Britain’s top private schools is the reproduction and reinforcement elite social/power structures.

ALL of Britain’s elite public schools are registered as charitable trusts. Forming the backbone of the nation’s ruling class for centuries, these schools are not just educational institutions – they are the oldest, richest and most politically connected educational systems in the UK. As well as being the most expensive schools in the country they are the institutions that sit at the very centre of Britain’s educational, social and political hierarchy.

The question must therefore be asked: why do these schools retain charitable status when their patrons are among the richest people in the country and the institutions themselves possess vast wealth?

There is no single official valuation of private schools as a whole but the top ten schools alone are worth £4 - 5 billion: together with the wider sectors holdings this rises to re £9 – 13 billion.

Until recently, (2025) charitable private schools received 80% off business rates, which saved them £140million per year. This was money that should have gone to the Treasury to help pay for public services. Instead, it subsidised the education of the very rich.

Since 2025 private schools must charge VAT on tuition fees. Up until then parents saved around £1.5 billion per year: again, money that should have been going to the Treasury.

Private schools are exempt from paying capital gains tax when they sell their assets – land, buildings, investments. This saves them an estimated £20 – £50 million per year. What is more, money and land “gifted” to private schools is exempt from inheritance tax. This is estimated to save them £250 - £400 million per year.for

Not only are elite private schools extremely wealthy, they are not inspected by Ofsted, do not have to follow the national curriculum, have lighter regulatory burdens and have more flexible governance structures. This reduces compliance costs compared to state schools.

In 2026 private schools will receive £2 - £2.3 billion per year in total tax advantage and subsidies. If these schools were not registered charities, then this money would be available for public services not the private education of the very wealthy.

The Independent Schools Council (ISC) Annual Census found that private schools received £11.6 billion in fees in 2024. Land Registry and ISC estate surveys show that member schools collectively hold 12,000 acres, while adding in non-member private schools increases total acreage to 15,000 – 20,000 acres. Combining land, buildings and investments it is estimated that the private school sector is valued at £12 – £20 billion. Eton, for example, has an economic value of between £1.0 billion and £1.5 billion.

The shocking truth is, the British taxpayer is subsidising the rich and powerful to the tune of £1.5 billion per year: £2,600 per private school pupil. Unsurprisingly, other countries are not so generous: no other country in the world gives the combination of tax privileges and tax exemptions to private schools that we do here in Britain.

And so it begins.

“Where is the money to come from Andy? Reality check for new PM as figures show Brits getting poorer. Andy Burnham was hit with a brutal reality check today after laying out his left-wing vision of a council housing bonanza and state ownership”. (Daily Mail: 16.06/26)

The sad fact is, Britain’s have been becoming poorer for the past 5 years. In 2022, under the Tory premiership of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, inflation hit 11.2%, real wages fell for seven consecutive quarters, and energy bills doubled. In 2023, under Tory PM Sunak, food inflation hit 19%.

But what do the Tories care for facts?

Kemi Badenoch is reported by the Express (29/06/26) as saying:

“The man who will be Prime Minister in a couple of weeks wants a three-month summer holiday because he needs time to work out what he thinks…Andy Burnham clearly doesn’t have a plan, beyond telling Britain’s mayors to go and sort it out”.

Clearly Ms Badenoch and the Daily Mail are at odds. The Mail says Burnham has a left-wing vision for Britain, while she says he has no plan.

GB News,29/06/26) reports that Nigel Farage “savaged” Burnham’s “bombshell plan”, warning it would do nothing for ordinary Britain’s. Furthermore, and predictable, they went on to say Burnham was expected to:

“Hand more power to trade unions, prompting accusations he is surrendering authority to left-wing union barons”

Jeremy Clarkson, that multimillionaire man of the people - reportedly worth between £55 - £65m) - is never shy when it comes to putting people down and was emphatic in his belief that Burnham would be worse than Starmer.

The Telegraph, warns of economic disaster for UK families:

“Families brace for a Burnham double death tax hit on homes” (29/06/26)

Not to be left out, the Sun newspaper carried this headline:

“The Sun says Andy Burnham is a man with no plan and no proper mandate who could make things even worse for an already fed-up country”. (22/06/26)

They are right, Britain’s are fed up. The purchasing power of the average Brit has been stagnant for about 15–16 years, with no meaningful growth since the 2008 financial crisis and outright decline since 2021–2022.

During the majority of this period we had a Tory administration who imposed austerity on the working class – from wage freezes to massive cuts in funding to vital social services such as the NHS. Strangely, the rich became significantly richer during the exact same period when the average Brit’s purchasing power was either stagnant or falling.

This increase in wealth for the already rich is staggering. Between 2008 – 2019 the top 10% gained between 40-60% more wealth, while the top 1% saw an obscene increase in riches of between 80-120%. These trends are continuing and the already wealthy are enjoying a bonanza of increased income. Meanwhile, the purchasing power for the average British worker has gone into decline and has been FALLING over the last 5-6 years.

It is notable that commentators and political figures (like the above) who previously advocated for austerity policies, including some who later aligned themselves with Reform UK, have not expressed comparable concern regarding the widening disparities between high‑wealth households and ordinary working families.

This is unsurprising. The Daily Mail is owned by Lord Rothermere, a British aristocrat billionaire. The Express, formerly owned by the multimillionaire Barklay family, is now owned by institutional shareholders, who took over the newspaper in 2017. GB News is owned by Legatum and Sir Paul Marshall through their company All Perspectives Ltd. Legatum, a Dubai investment firm, is owned by the New Zealand billionaire Chandler brothers. Sir Paul Marshall is also a billionaire with a hedge-fund empire. The Telegraph, like the Express, was formerly owned by the Barklay family (see above) but is now owned by the German company Axel Springer SE. Mathial Dopfer, a billionaire, controls this company. Finally, the Sun is owned by News UK, and is controlled by the Murdock family, who also happen to be billionaires.

When billionaires and major investment groups control so much of Britain’s media landscape, it’s hardly surprising that coverage tends to mirror elite economic and ideological priorities. So when a figure like Andy Burnham appears — someone who might genuinely challenge that status quo — it’s equally unsurprising that those outlets move quickly to undermine him.

Reform UK and the Conservative Party both campaign for a restoration of “traditional British values”. Reform UK’s social agenda includes “patriotic history” and a values-driven reinterpretation of British heritage. The Tory’s emphasise traditional institutions that protect heritage, such as respect for the monarchy and defence of the Crown as part of British identity.

There are, of course, other factors to do with “traditional British values” and “British heritage” that both parties subscribe to, but I want to concentrate on the Monarchy and the class aspect of being British.

The reason this is important is because the British people have always been portrayed, and in many ways correctly, as being subservient to the upper class. I don’t believe we Brits are inherently subservient, but Britain has long-standing institutions, norms, and hierarchies that encourage deference. The result is a society that often acts deferential even if at a personal level they don’t feel inferior.

Britain has a historically entrenched hierarchy. We had monarchs claiming divine authority, a landed aristocracy controlling political power, and a rigid class system tied to birth, accent and schooling. Our traditional institutions - private schools, the Oxbridge pipelines into politics, law, and the civil service, land ownership patterns where aristocratic families still hold vast estates, and the monarchy as a symbolic apex – all bolster and normalise upper-class dominance and working class compliance.

Many will argue that this view is outdated and no longer describes the realities of modern Britain. There would be some truth in this criticism. There is a strong anti-elite sentiment among the population, cynicism towards politicians, distrust of institutions, and the rise of populist movement such as Reform UK. These factors, critics would argue, all point to the opposite of what I am arguing.

Reform UK may use populist rhetoric but none of its policies is anti-monarchy or anti- upper class. In fact, its economic policies, donor networks, cultural stances and institutional loyalties place it firmly within the pro-monarchy, pro-establishment, pro-upper-class tradition of British right-wing politics.

Independent reporting shows Reform UK is heavily funded by millionaires, hedge-fund figures, fossil-fuel investors, offshore linked donors and high-net worth individuals. This donor profile is upper class, financial–elite and establishment aligned. Is it any wonder that Reform UK’s cultural message defends traditional institutions, opposes radical structural change, and frames elites as “patriotic” if aligned with Reform’s worldview, and targets bureaucratic elites and not economic elites?

Heading this hierarchy of privilege and protected interests is the Royal Family. Let us take the decision of Prince William and his wife the Princess of Wales to send their son Prince George to Eton. By sending their son to Eton they are unapologetically embracing and promoting elite reproduction.  They are telling Britain that the monarchy intends to remain socially anchored in the traditional upper-class institutions that have historically produced the country’s ruling-class.

Eton College is Britain’s most famous elite boys’ boarding school — a 600‑year‑old institution that functions as a training ground for the country’s ruling class. Fees are in excess of £60,000 per year and this pays for an environment where the male off-spring of the super-wealthy can socially network and acquire the cultural capital of their class  - accent, mannerisms, confidence, entitlement – before moving on to Oxbridge and from there to an elite career.

The decision to send Prince George to Eton has been broadly welcomed by the British press and politicians. Sky News has framed the move in terms of a carefully deliberated decision based on Prince Williams’s own experience at Eton and its convenient closeness to Windsor Castle. (news.sky.com: 16/06/26) The Independent follows the same line of argument. (16/06/26) GB News reports it as a natural continuation of elite royal schooling, and emphasised Eton’s role in preparing Prince George as a future king. Needless to say the Express is strongly supportive of the move, framing it as sensible and traditional.

None of this is surprising. Wealth buys privilege, and Britain’s ruling elite has long used their resources to ensure their children inherit the same entrenched advantages and positions of power as their parents. But does it have to be this way?

In Finland charging tuition fees for compulsory schooling (ages 7-16) is illegal and banned by law. Finland’s constitution demands equal access to education. Charging fees creates class-segregated schooling, which the Finish people explicitly reject. Finland’s educational system is built on the principle that children should not be segregated by parental income or position in society. Schools cannot compete for customers – the goal of Finish education is cohesion, not segregation.

All schools follow the same national core curriculum, preventing “elite vs sink” school stratification. Comprehensives must accept all local children and selection by wealth or ability is banned. Finland, unlike Britain, sees education as a public investment NOT the private purchase of privilege. They argue that a highly and equally educated population leads to higher productivity (Britain take note). This in turn leads to higher tax revenues and therefore more money to spend on public services and welfare.

Whereas Britain has 20+ distinct school systems – ranging from private fee-paying schools like Eton to faith schools – Finland has only one. The Finish model is built around uniformity, equality and simplicity. Britain’s educational system promotes and protects differences, breeds inequality and is structurally complex.

Is it any wonder that we are reading headlines like this today?

“White working-class children failed by England’s school system, inquiry finds”  (Guardian: 29/06/26)

Until we treat education as a shared, unifying experience rather than a system that divides society, nothing will change.

With Andy Burnham widely discussed as a potential future Prime Minister, sections of the right‑leaning press, broadcast media, and political class have issued warnings about what they describe as substantial increases in welfare expenditure. For example, the Daily Express (21/06/26) reported Conservative MP Mel Stride’s claim that a Burnham government would introduce “reckless tax hikes and welfare spending.” Similarly, the Daily Mail argued that Burnham’s programme risked “a return to Labour’s tax‑and‑spend chaos,” even suggesting the prospect of “Corbyn‑style spending on steroids” (21/06/26).

The accompanying policy narrative asserts that significant welfare reductions for low‑income households, tax cuts for higher earners, and deregulation of finance and business are the only credible means of stimulating economic growth. According to this view, only once growth is restored can the UK afford to maintain the NHS, pensions, and other welfare commitments.

However, existing comparative data indicate that the UK already spends less on welfare than most G7 countries, particularly once pension expenditure is included. While the UK is close to the G7 average for non‑pensioner benefits, it ranks at the bottom of the group for pension generosity. This is worth bearing in mind when commentators argue that the pension triple lock is excessively generous.

Critics on the political right also attribute the UK’s economic difficulties to allegedly burdensome employment protections and restrictive regulatory frameworks. Yet international comparisons suggest otherwise. The UK has weaker employment protection than most EU states and falls below the G7 average in areas such as dismissal rights, working‑time rules, collective bargaining, and trade union protections. According to the OECD’s Indicators of Employment Protection (2021), only the United States offers consistently less protection. The Trades Union Congress reached similar conclusions in its 2024 report Falling Behind on Labour Rights.

Despite this, claims persist that strong worker protections reduce labour‑market flexibility or that working‑time regulations undermine productivity. Such arguments frequently deflect attention from a more substantiated explanation for the UK’s productivity challenges: comparatively low levels of business investment in plant, technology, and innovation.

A similar pattern emerges in debates about business regulation. The OECD’s Product Market Regulation Indicators (2023) found that UK regulations are not unusually stringent by G7 standards, though their complexity and administrative burdens may impede efficiency. Nonetheless, the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index (2019) ranked the UK 9th out of 141 countries, ahead of France, Germany, and Japan, indicating that the UK remains highly competitive internationally.

SPOILER ALERT!

Now that he has won the Makerfield by-election so emphatically, expect the right wing press to step up their portrayal of Andy Burnham as a hard-left ideologue who will introduce radical socialist policies that will ruin the country.

The Telegraph  and Express have already started their disinformation campaigns as these quotes demonstrate.

“Is this the proof Burnham is far more dangerous than he’s letting on? That hard-Left MPs are said to be considering defecting to the Greens if he doesn’t win in Makerfield says a lot about his real politics”  (Telegraph: 26/05/26)

“Andy Burnham breaks silence on Labour leadership with very Left-wing new policy.” (Express: 16/05/26)

Jeremy Corbyn was left wing. Andy Burnham is not.

Burnham never aligned himself with Corbyn and never supported Corbyn’s leadership. After Corbyn was expelled from the Labour Party, Burnham refused to support his reinstatement. The Independent had this headline at the time:

“This is what Andy Burnham really thinks of Jeremy Corbyn: 'he will be a disaster'” (11/09/15)

Whatever else Burnham is, he is not far left. Political scientists and Labour historians generally place Burnham as “soft-left” or “centre-left”, describing him as a social democrat.

More misleading comment from GB News.

“Britons to subsidise French energy bills as 'wasteful' rules mean £16bn sold off for cheap overseas.” (17/06/26)

This is what is really happening. The UK (Scotland and the North of England in particular) sometimes generates excessive wind power. Because the national grid cannot moved this electricity south very easily it is often sold off cheaply to France via interconnectors.

Meanwhile, to make sure demand in the south is met, expensive gas generating plants are turned on, which UK consumers must pay for through “grid-balancing” charges. It is estimated this could cost an extra £770 million per year.

So France buys our cheap wind powered electricity while we pay for the more expensive gas-turbine generated electricity. This makes it look like we are subsidising French households or the French government who own most of Frances electricity generation.

This brings us to the real problem. The national grid in the UK is a privately owned, privately traded company listed on the London Stock Exchange. Much like the publicly owned water companies, National Grid has under-invested in infrastructure. Concerned only with making profits for its shareholders, it has effectively refused to build the necessary transmission lines to link the cheap electricity of the north to the south where it is most desperately needed.

It is this under-investment in connectivity that has led to cheap wind power going to France while we pay for the higher priced gas generated electricity. The simple fact is when essential national infra-structure is allowed to be owned by private enterprise, the  profit incentive often rules out long-term investment.

Major north-south transmission lines have been delayed time and time again. Successive free-market supporting governments have not pushed for infrastructure upgrades as they are ideologically opposed to “regulation” and “interfering” in business decisions. And private companies saw no profit in building additional connectivity.

As I have been contesting the claim that welfare benefits are one of the main reasons for Britain’s failing economy it is interesting to note an article at the weekend penned by the former Tory Health Secretary and Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt.

In his Sunday Times article Hunt claimed that welfare spending is so high it is undermining the incentive to work. This is just a rehash of the “”entrenched worklessness”, “welfare dependency” and a “culture of entitlement” argument which claims a life on benefits is a “life-style choice” : basically, a cultural explanation for an economic problem.

According to Hunt, welfare claimants can receive as much as between £31,000 and £49,000. Framing massive welfare payments as a major driver of the UK’s fiscal pressures, he blames benefit culture for the States inability to fund other priorities.

This is the same Jeremy Hunt who became Secretary for Health in 2012 and used the same excuse while presiding over very low NHS funding as part of the Tory Austerity measures. A cross-party committee found Hunt had “broken his pledges on NHS funding” and that claims of extra funding were overstated.

Hunt’s under-investment in the NHS led to staff-shortages, increased waiting times to both see a GP, and ever longer delays in receiving hospital treatment. This resulted in  increased mortality and worsening health inequalities.  A&E delays surged, with reports that delays were “killing 500 per week”. (opendemocracy: How austerity cause the NHS crisis”; 04/01/23). Pay freezes under Austerity cut £5billion from the NHS wage bill. Cuts to local authority social care budgets meant older patients could not be discharged from hospital, leading to “bed-blocking”. This resulted in a 5% rise in mortality in 2015, which Hunt and the Tory government tried to blame on  flu: such a rise was not seen elsewhere in Europe.

The sad truth is we are a sick nation, but not because of a “sick-note culture” or Brits being inherently unwilling to work: much of the sickness we see today is the direct result of Tory austerity measures, especially those enacted by Jeremy Hunt regarding the NHS. George Osborne used the lie that British workers are work shy and prefer living on over-generous welfare payments than in seeking employment to introduce spending cuts and to hold down wages. Hunt is continuing that lie.

Far from benefit claimants pocketing between £31,000 and £49,000 per year, as claimed by Hunt, the average Universal Credit pay out is just below £1000 per month and that includes rental support. Given that the average rent in the UK is £1366 per month, (OFS: Private Rent and House Prices: 17/12/25) Clearly, many people on benefits are struggling to survive, and rather than the Sate being over generous, they have to rely on friends, family, foodbanks, and debt to get by.

According to oecd.org: OECD Employment Database (04/01/24) the UK spends less on unemployment benefits and has fewer people receiving them than most Western European countries. The data shows that the UK has lower unemployment, lower benefits generosity and lower welfare caseloads. We do however have greater long-term sickness rates.

The cost of living crisis and growing poverty we are all experiencing here in Britain could have been avoided if UK workers had received the wage increases seen across other developed countries. Rather than being work shy and lazy as many on the right have suggested, and therefore not deserving of wage rises, corporations and business have greedily pocketed the money for their own short term monetary gain rather than investing in the long-term economic future of the country as a whole.

Remember this statement from George Osborne, one of the champions of Austerity measures?

“The shift-worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, looks up at the closed blinds of their next-door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits.” (Conservative Party Conference 08/10/2012)

This speech set out the moral justification for Austerity and massive benefits cuts. Forget the financial crash of 2008 caused by greedy bankers and financiers, forget about under investment by British business, it was lazy workers/benefits claimants who were responsible for economic stagnation caused by a lack of work ethic. Austerity (massive public sector cuts, including skills training) were needed, so the argument went, to fix this default position of British workers character.

The right-wing press - Daily Mail, Express and Telegraph - backed this line of argument by repeatedly publishing headlines that contrasted “hard-working families” with “scroungers”. Their articles implied widespread fraud of the benefits system and they portrayed welfare as a lifestyle choice, rather than as a necessity. Simultaneously, Tory politicians such as Osborne, Ian Duncan Smith and David Cameron made comments about “entrenched worklessness”, “welfare dependency” and a “culture of entitlement”.

How true were these claims?

By 2012-2014 over 60% of households receiving benefits had at least one person in work. Tax credits and housing benefit overwhelmingly went to low paid workers, not the unemployed. The unemployed made up only 2–3% of welfare spending. The truth was (and still is) LOW WAGES drove people to claim welfare benefits, not laziness. What is more, the amount of welfare fraud was a mere 0.7% of total welfare spending and not the problem it was made out to be.

What about the claim that people “chose benefits over work”? - very unlikely. The UK has one of the lowest unemployment benefit levels in the OECD. Visual Capitalist’s ranking (using OECD data) shows the UK in the lower tier of OECD countries for unemployment support after one year, far below high generosity systems like Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Switzerland, etc. (visualcapiltalism: “Where Unemployment Benefits are the Highest, in OECD Countries”: 17/06/24)

What is more, during Austerity, strict conditionality, sanctions, benefit caps, and the five week wait under Universal Credit before were made all reduced effective income security compared with more insurance style systems in continental Europe.

In short, Britain’s persistently and deliberately low system of benefits – roughly half the average OECD replacement rate – was not and is not the reason for poor UK productivity, slow economic growth or unemployment. Jobseekers Allowance was far below any plausible “life-style” choice and studies showed no evidence of a long-term "culture of worklessness”. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation investigated the “three generations who have never worked” myth and found zero evidence it existed.

The reality is that the UK’s capitalist model relies on low wages and low productivity: wages are deliberately suppressed, skills training is minimalised, and long term investment in modern plant and technology is sacrificed in favour of short term profits rather than the long term health of the British economy.

The evidence strongly suggests that welfare payments, rather than being too high, are in fact some of the lowest in the OECD and therefore do not encourage worklessness. On the contrary, it is workers on pitifully low wages that are the majority of welfare claimants because their income is insufficient to keep pace with cost of living increases.

The third argument used by the right to explain away economic stagnation is “sick-note culture”. What they mean by this is that too many people are off sick, with people exaggerating their illnesses, and GP’s handing out sick-notes too easily. This moral explanation for the failure of the economy - and by default the excuse given by employers and government for not paying higher wages – is as false as the claim that benefits are too high, thereby disincentivising the work ethic.

It has to be admitted that UK long-term illness is rising but for structural reasons not cultural ones. First NHS waiting lists have been rising. During Austerity, funding was held below demand, and severe pay restraint led to many NHS staff leaving the sector, creating a workforce crisis. Rising waiting lists mean people are suffering ill health for longer, and are therefore unable to work.

Far from suffering a “sick-note culture”, data shows that UK workers take fewer days off than most European countries. Eurostat and OECD data consistently show UK workers take fewer sick days than workers in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. UK sickness absence is below the EU average, and if anything, the UK has a presenteeism culture - people working while ill. One reason for this is because benefits for the unemployed are so low!

As for the claim that GP’s are issuing sick note like confetti – it simply isn’t true. The UK is almost unique in its use of GP’s as the sole certifiers of almost all work absences. In Europe, they have planned back to work schemes for employees returning to work after an illness. No such flexibility exists in the UK. The UK has weak occupational health schemes compare to other countries in Europe, while Britain has much higher numbers of genuine sickness.

Across almost every major health metric, the UK under performs and this has the inevitable consequence that we ARE a sicker country. Life expectancy is lower in the UK than in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, and is falling.

Britain has fewer doctors per capita, (UK – 2.8 per 1000 vs EU average of 3.9) Unsurprisingly, with fewer doctors we have the longest waiting times for health treatment in Western Europe. The NHS has a backlog of 7.5 million treatment delays, thereby keeping many people off work for longer. A shortage of GP’s means delays in being diagnosed and long hospital waiting lists means delays in treatment.

The UK has the highest anti-depressant use in Western Europe suggesting British people genuinely are feeling more depressed and anxious than in other countries. Workplace stress is significantly higher due to long hours, low job control, low pay, higher job insecurity and weaker employment protection laws.

Ironically, the right-wing claim it is the existence of excessive employment protection laws that is one of the major causes of our low productivity and economic demise.

Forget immigration, racism, wokism, taxation, social media, etc etc, the real reason Britain feels, and is, so broken is because of poverty caused by greed. Yes, this is going to be another rant about greedy UK capitalists but at least it will be a rant backed up by referenced evidence.

Britain as a country is by no means poor. In fact we are the world’s fifth largest country by GDP, with only the USA, China, Germany and Japan above us. This means the UK is still a major global economic power with a global ranking by total GDP of $4.26 trillion. (Worldometer: GDP by Country (2026)

Despite having the fifth largest economy in the world, GDP per capita is only ranked between 20th - 25th in the world, depending on which database you use. (IMF, World Bank, Worldometer.) When it comes to actual purchasing power per person, we rank lower still, coming in at 29th in the world. (newshub: United Kingdom economic snapshot 2026, gdp,per capita and forcasts) In other words, Britain’s substantial economic wealth is very unevenly distributed among the population.

The Gini coefficient is a statistical measure of inequality for distribution of income or wealth. A figure of 0 equals perfect equality, a figure of 1 equals perfect inequality. Britain has a Gini coefficient of 0.59, which is extremely unequal by rich country standards. This is because the top 20% of the population hold 63% of all the wealth while the bottom 20% only own 0.5% of the wealth. (commonslibrary.parlianment uk: Wealth in Great Britain, 03/11/25)

One reason for this inequality is stagnant wages. The UK ranks near the bottom of advanced economies for real wage growth, with almost zero real wage increases over the past 14 years: one of the worst post - 2010 performances among high-income countries. So when right-wing pundits, media outlets and politicians condemn increases in the minimum wage as being unaffordable and harmful to the economy  they are being deliberately deceitful and complicit in a massive lie.

While Iceland enjoyed a +40% increase in real wage growth, Lithuania a 66% increase and the USA a 16% increase, British workers have only received a paltry 4%  rise since 2010. This makes Britain one of the weakest performers in the OECD for real wage growth. (oecd.org: Real wages regaining some of lost ground; 08/03/24)

Brits are repeatedly told we cannot have real wage increases until the economy grows, yet we are the 5th largest country in the world. How big to we have to be before British workers are given a fairer slice of the economic cake? The sad truth is we are being conned. We have the wealth, but it is concentrated in the hands of the few.

Economists will argue that we could have real wage increases if only we improved our productivity levels and they have a point. UK productivity has averaged out at 0.4% per year between 2010 and 2024, while the average for OECD countries as a whole is 1.5% per year.  Why is Britain’s productivity so low?

Those on the right of politics - Conservatives, Reform UK, GB‑News‑aligned commentators, free‑market think‑tanks – tend to cluster their arguments around five main explanations.

First, the British are lazy, work-shy and are not prepared to “put in the hours”. Second, benefits are too high and discourage people from working. Third, Britain has a “sick note” culture where GP’s sign off too many people feigning illness.  Forth, too many employment protections, rules and red tape hold back growth. Fifth, high immigration keeps wages low, disincentivising firms to invest in productivity enhancing technology.

What they don’t blame is low business investment, poor infrastructure, regional inequality, the impact of Austerity on public investment, or Brexit-related trade frictions.

Business investment as a share of GDP has been one of the lowest in the OECD since the mid‑2000s. At the same time, public investment was cut sharply during 2010–2017 austerity years , hitting transport, skills, and R&D outside the South East. Lower investment led to outdated machinery and IT, slower adoption of automation and weaker innovation.

Not only has UK business under-invested in plant and IT, it has also refused to invest in its workforce. Multiple analyses show that both the state and employers have cut skills investment over the past decade, leaving the workforce less adaptable and less productive. Employer investment in skills fell 19% per employee (2011–2022) in real terms, with even sharper declines in large firms (‑35%), primary industries (‑44%), and public services (‑38%). (neweconomics.org: Solving the UK’s Skills Shortage; 20/03/24).

A major study by the London School of Economics (LSE) found that about half of the UK’s post‑2008 productivity slowdown is due to under investment in capital and skills. While other countries maintained investment, the UK cut back hard and longer. The US, for example, now produces 28% more value added per hour than the UK, while  France and Germany  are 13-14% more productive. (lse.ac.uk: Chronic under-investment has led to productivity slowdown in the UK: 27/11/2023)

The consequences of skills under investment are visible across the economy. Skills shortages have grown significantly across sectors, including manufacturing, digital, health, construction, and clean energy. Young people lack confidence in meeting future skills requirements. The education system is under‑resourced and struggles to respond to labour‑market needs. (Edge Foundation: Skills shortage in UK economy; 2025) The governments own skills report highlights systemic challenges in matching supply and demand across priority sectors of the UK economy. (gov.uk: Skills England Annual Skills Report and Sectoral Skills Needs Assessment 2026: 01/06/26)

So, rather than being lazy as right-wing pundits often suggest, maybe they should be looking at the failure of greedy corporations who have made the deliberate decision to pocket the money they should have been spending on skills training, investment in new plant and digital innovation. Available evidence suggests that British industry has “saved” between £20-£30 billion over the past decade by cutting back on workforce skills training, and tens of billions more by persistently under‑investing in capital and inward investment.

This short-term greed of the few has led to the impoverishment of the many, both economically and in terms of skills.