Dear Priti Patel: There's no such thing as 'low-skilled' labour

The government's plan to overhaul Britain's immigration system has more holes than a Swiss cheese. According to a briefing document released by the Home Office yesterday, "non-skilled" workers will be unable to live and work in the UK and anyone wanting to move here must have a job offer on a salary of at least £25,600.

There are obvious issues here. Business leaders have already warned of labour shortages in vital sectors such as food and agriculture. Stores on the high street could close down as a result of the plans. The repercussions for social care would be unthinkable. With unemployment at a record low, how is the government expected to fill the gaps?

Priti Patel says there are 8m people aged 16 to 64 in the UK who are currently "economically inactive". Given the fact there are only around 1.5m people classed as unemployed at the moment, where are the others going to come from? Students? The elderly? The disabled? David Cameron used draconian welfare measures to force vulnerable people into low-paid work during his time as prime minister. It is alarming to think what measures Boris Johnson might take when faced with actual labour shortages.

But consequences aside, the government's immigration reforms are built on outdated notions about the workforce anyway. By setting a minimum salary for migrants to be permitted to work in the UK, Downing Street and the Home Office are attempting to block what they see as an influx of "low-skilled" labour.

But "low-skilled" labour doesn't exist. Jobs people tend to see as low-skilled or unskilled – high street retail, hospitality and care work – are in fact highly demanding and require skillsets many people simply don't have. Workers in customer-facing roles require empathy; the ability to multitask; in many instances a level of patience most couldn't muster if their lives depended on it. Waiting staff in busy environments need to be physically fit and quick on their feet all while retaining a customer-friendly demeanour. All this applies to care workers at an even higher level. A degree in financial maths and an internship at Goldman Sachs couldn't prepare you in the slightest for the kinds of things carers have to do on a daily basis. Why then, do we keep referring to these everyday superheroes as low-skilled?

One need only look at the data to see how gruelling "unskilled" work is. A 2015 study by Southern Medical University in China found that jobs with little situational control and high demand, such as waitressing, may be more stressful than those with high situational control and high demand, such as teaching. Worse still, a 2017 study by the University of Manchester found that low-paid jobs could be worse for workers' health than unemployment. Low-paid workers must tolerate a level of stress in and outside of the workplace higher earners seldom experience.

And these jobs aren't just incredibly demanding – they're also the backbone of Britain's economy. Baristas, bartenders, retail staff and carers: these are all the face of the businesses and services British people use and enjoy every day. They are a fundamental part of our lives; many of them are filled by workers who come from abroad. Under these reforms, the government is essentially turning around to those workers and saying: "Not interested. Move along. You don't matter anymore."

Once freedom of movement ends, the consequences of Boris Johnson's immigration overhaul will quickly become apparent. Until then, however, progressives must categorically reject discussions on migration framed around "low-skilled" workers. All labour is skilled labour – it's time we started saying as much.

Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the new 'Blue Wall'

Here's a very interesting piece published in the Guardian on Monday about former 'red wall' voters' opinions on taxing the rich.

According to research by Tax Justice UK and Survation, former Labour voters in Blyth, Wrexham and Bury North aren't interested in the slightest by soak-the-rich rhetoric – preferring instead to focus on specific policy prescriptions, such as the closure of tax loopholes and bringing capital gains tax in line with income taxes.

This goes some way to validating my suspicions that the language of radicalism has very little appeal towards the voters Labour lost in last year's general election. For better or worse, British voters by and large tend to have positive attitudes towards the very wealthy, and Labour's attempts to force a political realignment on the basis of class last year had nowhere near the same level of success Bernie Sanders has had in the US doing much the same thing.

I wonder how much of that has to do with the people spearheading both movements, mind. Corbyn is roundly despised by the British electorate, regardless of why that may be. On the other hand, Sanders is comparatively very popular. There's no doubt in my mind that Sanders has a charisma and quality Corbyn has never managed to muster. In addition, he simply hasn't got the baggage Corbyn came with, having associated with questionable individuals on a number of occasions throughout his career.

But there are certainly material and cultural elements explaining the divide between Sanders' and Corbyn's political fortunes, as well. Despite chronic underfunding and neglect, Britain does have universal healthcare free at the point of use. The US, on the other hand, does not. Just as well, despite a decade of grinding austerity measures, the UK has a welfare system leaps and bounds more generous than that of our transatlantic cousins. Could Sanders' appeal be down to the fact the US is in a more advanced stage of crisis than we are? Perhaps. But when you consider the fact children in Morecambe are so hungry right now they're eating from bins, things look very bad here all the same.

In the end, then, maybe it really is that Corbyn was just so unlikable. His supporters still insist Brexit was the main issue – and to be sure it was a major issue. But I can't help thinking Labour's Brexit policy could've gone down a lot better if it were someone else making the sale. The left cannot go on thinking the strength of its ideas alone will carry it to victory. Optics matter, and denying that will only bring further disappointment and despair.

With Brexit ostensibly out of the way, we'll soon see how strong the Tories' new 'blue wall' is. Voters in these seats have high expectations for investment, some looking for improvements in a matter of weeks. Rishi Sunak will be under a lot of pressure to woo blue workers in next month's budget – and if he fails, Labour's pick for the leadership will become significantly more important.

Bloomberg's spot in tomorrow's Democratic debate is (mostly) good news for Bernie Sanders

CNN reports that Michael Bloomberg has qualified for for the Democratic debate in Nevada on Wednesday.

The Sanders campaign should welcome the news. Bloomberg is entering the debate on the back of a number of damning revelations in the press. His defence of stop-and-frisk policies he enforced as mayor of New York and the re-emergence of a litany of sexist remarks he has made over the years should both give Sanders plenty of ammunition to use against the billionaire business tycoon tomorrow night.

Even better for Sanders is the fact his rivals in the Democratic race have even more reason to go knives-out against Bloomberg. Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar will both be looking to retain their momentum after strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire. But Nevada is a significantly more diverse state than the preceding two – and right now, Buttigieg and Klobuchar’s minority support is diabolical.

Bloomberg, on the other hand, has managed to amass the support of 22% of African American voters since announcing his candidacy in November, according to a Quinnipac poll from earlier this month. Ideologically speaking, it goes without saying that Bloomberg has far more in common with Buttigieg and Klobuchar than with Sanders. For that reason, Mayor Pete and the Minnesota senator – both of whom will be looking to improve minority support off the back of their centrist rivals – have everything to gain from attacking Bloomberg’s record on race in tomorrow’s debate.

Going out guns-blazing against Bloomberg should come with a warning, however. The last thing Sanders – or any of the serious contenders in the race, for that matter – wants is to give Bloomberg a reason to paint himself as a victim. As a late entrant to the race and former Republican, Bloomberg has the means to run the campaign of a political outsider in the Democratic primary. Getting attacked from all sides tomorrow could simply make the ads a lot easier to write going forward.

Detractors might point to Bloomberg’s staggering fortune and say there’s no way someone with that much money could pose as an enemy of the establishment. But Donald Trump did exactly that in 2016 with remarkable success. The only difference billions of dollars makes is that getting the message out becomes far easier. Having already spent more than $330m in the race, Bloomberg has proven this beyond doubt.

Up to this point, the Sanders campaign has proven itself remarkably astute strategically. Between its handling of the Warren campaign’s accusations of sexism last month to its perfectly-timed shift to attacking Joe Biden on social security, Sanders’ team clearly has its eye on the prize. Sanders’ rally in Washington on Monday night, in which he accurately accused Bloomberg of trying to buy the Democratic race, shows he is starting to test the waters to see how shallow the billionaire’s recent poll bounce is. Time will tell, but the Sanders campaign is taking Bloomberg seriously as a threat – and that can only be a good thing.

'Intergenerational fairness' according to the British government

Here's a funny story in the FT from yesterday:

A group of cross-party MPs have called for a radical overhaul of the inheritance tax system — recommending a substantial cut in the standard 40 per cent rate to 10 per cent and the scrapping of most reliefs including the “seven-year rule”. 

In a report published on Wednesday, members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Inheritance and Intergenerational Fairness said inheritance tax was “unpopular and ripe for reform” and that their recommendations would “increase fairness, cut complexity and reduce avoidance”.

Cutting inheritance tax by 75% is a strange way to increase fairness between generations. Of course, plans to scrap relief are welcome, but the problem with inheritance tax currently is that rich people can usually find ways to avoid it, whereas middle-earners and savers can't. The APPG's recommendations take on faith that a cut would reduce avoidance, but the evidence that capital-friendly policies reduce tax avoidance in general is very thin. In addition, wealth transfers on estates worth more than £2m would be taxed at 20% under the recommendations, giving the very rich more reason to keep avoiding the levy.

Intergenerational fairness is somewhat of a unicorn in a society with the levels of inequality the UK has. Those on the political right sometimes draw a distinction between 'equality of opportunity' and 'equality of outcome', the former being desirable over the latter. But if equality of opportunity is truly what you're after, getting there would require almost unthinkably radical policies. Inheritance tax would have to be set at 100%; private schools would have to be abolished; nepotism would have to be outlawed.

Is that really what we're after? Most people would obviously answer no. So why don't we try something a little more moderate: keep the levy the same, scrap relief, reduce avoidance, and actually invest in poor communities to give young people from low-income families the best start in life.

Tragedy, Farce and the BBC

News that the BBC is to cut 450 jobs as part of an effort to make £80m worth of savings inspires little confidence about the future of the corporation. Over the last election cycle, the BBC slipped up on a number of occasions in its coverage, including repeating false claims a Conservative adviser was assaulted by Labour activists outside Leeds General Infirmary, and running an out-of-date clip of Boris Johnson laying a wreath in its Remembrance Day footage. The cracks are already beginning to show – how is the broadcaster expected to cope as resources are stretched even further?

Mistakes in coverage are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the BBC's problems, mind. Funding aside, the corporation's abject failure to engage younger audiences leaves its longevity seriously in doubt. Research conducted by Ofcom last year found one in eight young Britons don't use the BBC at all in a given week. And it isn't just streaming services to blame for the existential crisis at Broadcasting House: commercial stations and ITV are doing a comparatively better job at attracting young audiences. The eventual death of the license fee looks certain at this point. The question is,  what will be left when it's finally gone?

It is worth reiterating at this point how out-of-touch the BBC is when it comes to young people in the UK. Laura Kuenssberg's attempt to define 'shitposting' – a term with its own Wikipedia page, for anyone doubting the extent to which it has been established – left viewers dumbfounded in an episode of Brexitcast in November. The corporation's news podcast aimed at younger listeners, 'The Next Episode', generates almost no buzz online. As Sarah Manavis notes, the BBC has made little effort to create a distinct social media identity, and what little is there is, in her words, tepid. When it comes to the future, you can roll with the punches, or get dragged there kicking and screaming. But the BBC is doing neither, preferring instead to ambivalently shrug as the rot sets further in.

I suspect much of the BBC's woes stem in large part from the fact it is still, by and large, dominated by elites and the upper classes. A 2017 analysis by the very talented Lewis Goodall found almost half of the BBC's highest-paid presenters were privately educated, compared with 7% of the British population. Further, the vast majority of the state-educated ones attended grammar schools. Indeed, Goodall said that the number of high-paid presenters who attended state comprehensives could be counted "on one hand". This problem is largely the same when it comes to BBC management. All this speaks volumes about the entrenched privilege at Broadcasting House. It also illustrates the fact this is not an organisation young people, free to choose from a huge variety of entertainment and media services, will relate to enough to pay for should the license fee disappear.

So: what to do? Sociologist Tom Mills, who authored a book entitled 'The BBC: Myth of a Public Service', argues that merely "defending" the corporation against funding cuts is not enough. Instead, the answer to the BBC's woes must come as part of a broader shift towards genuinely representative institutions, "accountable to citizens, not politicians", that is "democratic and truly representative of the society it serves in all its diversity".

Sounds great. There's just one problem: the clock's ticking. And right now, at least, neither the senior executives at the BBC nor the general public seem especially fussed about a democratic revolution at our prized public service broadcaster. You know what they say: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. At some point, the BBC might start to change – but at this rate it'll be long after people have stopped caring.

Boris Johnson's 'global talent visa'

Simon Jenkins published a very good piece in the Guardian the other day on the government's plans to introduce a 'global talent visa' next month.

The visa, in Boris Johnson's words, is aimed at attracting "the world's scientists and mathematicians" to work in the UK after Britain leaves the European Union in two days' time. The imperialistic connotations are not lost on Jenkins, who is worth quoting at some length:

By what right does Britain slam the door on “untalented” economic migrants from the world’s poorer countries, while boasting it will raid their reserves of scientific talent? The NHS already devastates the medical graduate pools of India and Africa. Now Britain is to poach whatever scientists they have left. This is aid-in-reverse: “soft power” at its crudest and most imperial.

There is no rhyme or reason to the new populism. It is driven by chauvinism and outdated cliches. Britain does not “need” more scientists. It needs what its employers will pay to recruit. A Tory government should accept that the labour market knows best. Britain’s economic performance – and its wider culture – has long benefited from immigrants, be they rich or poor at the point of entry. Turning them away makes no sense.

This isn't the only problem with Johnson's talent visa. If you accept the premise there is a skills shortage in the British sciences, then surely the best solution would be to give the UK's STEM graduates a reason to stick at it. Indeed, a 2018 joint-study into STEM graduates by the universities of Leicester and Warwick found that the problem wasn't a lack of numbers, but that only half of them ended up working in a job related to their course.

If Brexit does cause a brain drain in the sciences – and many fear it will – then it will become increasingly important to nurture the UK's young talent and make it worth their while to pursue STEM careers. This is especially true of the medical field and the NHS.

Music Monday: Ekko & Sidetrack – Let the Light In 2020 (ft. Reija Lee)

Haven't had time to write over the past week unfortunately. Been getting back into the swing of things at uni and had personal stuff keeping me occupied, but I will be looking to return to frequent posts over the coming weeks as things settle again. That said, here's another Music Monday just to keep the dust from collecting on the blog. 

This week, we're ditching the underground for an indulgent helping of unabashed big-room DnB. Their 2017 original was plenty energetic, but Ekko and Sidetrack's 2020 mix of 'Let the Light In' ramps up the drama for a dancefloor smasher that goes above and beyond the euphoria of its predecessor. 

All the elements that made the 2017 version so good are there: the dramatic lead synths and Reija Lee's understatedly powerful vocals both remain almost untouched. This time, however, we're treated to an extended build-up, a weightier drop and a bass section that drives the track with a grit the original tune just didn't have. It's hair-rasing stuff, and a massive improvement on the original overall.

So click play and have a listen. It's awesome.

Belated Music Monday: Monty & Alix Perez – Cursive

Mad dash to finish assignments yesterday so didn't get the chance to upload a Music Monday, but here's a belated one: an excellent collab between two of the DnB scene's foremost innovators, Monty and Alix Perez.

These two always deliver whenever they work together, and their latest track 'Cursive' is no different. Retro rave stabs, soulful vocal hits and swelling metallic reverbs build the intro before switching into a weighty and funky drop. As always, the tune is impeccably mixed: every sound is crystal clear and the stereo processing during the drop just adds to the energy and intrigue.

Typically sterling work from these two. Give it a listen – it's excellent.

Jonathan Nitzan on Innovation

I'm writing an essay on Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler's 'Capital as Power' at the minute. In a 1998 paper, which lays the groundwork for their theory of capital, Nitzan writes this wonderful paragraph on innovation that I just have to share here.

"Any invention, even the most revolutionary, is only one step at the end of a long 'historical thought process' which is largely unprotected by property rights. Microsoft's software, for instance, could not have been developed without computer languages, the 'chip', the discovery of semiconductivity, binary logic, mathematical functions or, for that matter, human language. Such knowledge owes its existence to society at large, and was available to Microsoft free of charge."

Something to think about next time someone you know lauds capitalism's capacity to innovate.

Carney knows the Bank of England is out of options – but that won't stop it cutting rates

Two important and contradictory stories about the Bank of England have come out in the past fortnight. The first came when Mark Carney, who finishes his tenure as the BoE's governor in March, admitted to the Financial Times that central banks were running out of ways to fight recession. Carney even suggested it was time for governments to consider using their fiscal arsenals to tackle downturns – though he did stop short of anything concrete, because, in his words, "it's not [central bankers'] job to do fiscal policy".

The second story came a few days later, when news came that BoE policymakers were considering cutting interest rates again should the economy fail to bounce back after a dismal performance towards the end of last year. Carney said in a speech two days after the FT interview that the central bank was prepared to take "prompt" action if things don't improve.

Carney seems to know the horse he's flogging is dying – though he doesn't think central banking is a spent force yet. What else is there to be done? All eyes on Sajid Javid: March's Budget will determine whether the government will rise to the challenges ahead.

Flybe: In a reasonable world, wouldn't the entire aviation industry be in crisis?

Flybe’s financial woes, the Guardian reports, are a tragedy for professionals who rely on air travel to commute across Europe to and from work. My deepest sympathies to those affected. But then, I can only think: in a reasonable world – one where states were fully committed to tackling the climate crisis and stemming the tide of ecological destruction – wouldn’t most of the aviation industry be at risk?

This sounds needlessly provocative, but I am serious. Aviation industry claims that flight only accounts for 1.5-2% of global emissions are misleading and grossly underestimate the environmental impact of air travel. The Department for Transport estimates 6.3% of the UK’s carbon emissions are caused by flight, and even then the real figure is likely to be a lot higher. The capacity to make air travel greener is very limited and looks set to stay that way. Comparatively, green technology for automobiles and rail travel is leaps and bounds ahead.

We know therefore that the solution to aviation emissions is similar to those of the car industry: improve and expand ground-based public transport. This is precisely what the IEA (International Energy Agency – not to be confused with the Institute of Economic Affairs) argued last year in a report that found global transport emissions could peak in the 2030s if rail was “aggressively” expanded. The benefits are numerous: rail is the most energy-efficient means of motorised passenger transport; electric trains are effective at reducing emissions; high-speed rail is a low-carbon alternative to short-distance flights; the list goes on.

All things considered, the evidence is clear as day. The only thing missing is the political will of governments to make it a reality. And if they did, the impact on industries like air travel would simply prove we were taking steps necessary to combat environmental decline.

Of course, I’m not saying we should leave airliners to simply go bust. Jobs would be lost and the livelihoods of working people would be put at risk. For that reason, insolvencies should be planned well in advance and states should assist with the transition.

The means are there to make a success of this. We just have to be bold enough.

Music Monday: BCee & Blu Mar Ten – Protected Secrets

I've decided to do a lighter weekly post in order to give some variety to the heavier stuff I'll be publishing on here, as well as give me a reason to write something when I'm not sure what else to talk about!

Enter: Music Monday. Every Monday I'll be sharing a tune I've heard in the previous week that I think is especially good. It'll mostly be drum and bass, because drum and bass is the best genre of music ever to exist, but on occasion it could be a house tune or maybe even something instrumental. I am a proud fan of ultra-twee and cheesy indie-pop, so watch out for those.

To kick off the series, here's a beautiful little collab from two household names in liquid drum and bass: BCee and Blu Mar Ten. 'Protected Secrets' has all the hallmarks of the soulful sound that has largely captured the liquid scene in recent years: natural breaks, shuffling shakers, atmospheric textures accompanied by menacing bass tones that stop the tune from ever sounding too airy. Topping off the track, DRS, the lyrical Duracell Bunny of DnB, lays down beautifully-written bars with trademark sincerity.

Give it a listen – it's very good. I'm currently in the midst of some fairly intensive essay-writing at the minute for my MA, so things might be quiet on here until after next Monday. That said, the essays I'm writing concern Nitzan and Bichler's 'Capital as Power' and the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s, so I might do a piece on both once I've submitted them.

Can corporate lobbying groups seriously help reduce carbon emissions?

Blackrock's decision to join Climate Action 100+ has me thinking about what pressure groups can seriously do to encourage corporations to reduce their carbon emissions.

It's worth saying from the outset that Blackrock decided to join CA100+ after accusations they were greenwashing their record, having heavily invested in some of the worst polluters on the planet. As of last year, the asset manager's fossil fuel portfolio in listed funds was worth $87.3bn, putting them second only to the Vanguard Group, whose own fossil fuel portfolio is worth almost twice as much. Contrarians might argue that $87.3bn is peanuts for an organisation that manages $7tn worth of assets, and if that helps them sleep at night then all right. Doesn't change the fact $87.3bn is a lot to sink into an industry that's hastening the demise of the planet though, does it?

Blackrock's fondness for the fossil fuel industry makes more sense when you look at its shareholders' voting record on climate-related matters. The Guardian has a handy chart, and it shows Blackrock has opposed more than 80% of climate-related motions between 2015 and 2019. Credit where it's due: it's not the worst. But it is fourth-worst. Which still isn't very good. 

Alas, Blackrock has now decided to join CA100+, a group the newspapers regularly refer to as "influential" in their reports. How influential is it really, though? Is whatever they're influencing members to do enough to effectively fight the climate crisis? And are lobbying groups really the way to get companies to stop polluting the planet? It's worth exploring in some detail.

Founded in 2017, CA100+ collectively manages 370 investors with combined assets worth a total of $35tn. The stated goals of the organisation are to curb emissions, improve governance and strengthen climate-related financial disclosures. A hundred of CA100+'s target companies – organisations with the highest direct and indirect emissions according to data compiled by the CDP – include big names such as BP, Exxon and Shell. The signatories' aim is to encourage these companies to help achieve the goal of the Paris Agreement by reducing emissions and helping the green transition.

Regardless of how influential CA100+ actually is, the only way this sounds good is if you accept that the terms of the Paris Agreement were adequate enough to effectively tackle the climate crisis. I, for one, do not. As the UN Secretary General warned last summer, even if the promises of the Paris Agreement are fully met, the world faces a three-degree increase in global temperatures by the end of the century. This would literally redraw the map of the world: Osaka in Japan would disappear underwater. So would Shanghai in China. Rio de Janeiro in Brazil would shrink in size significantly as a result of rising sea levels. Millions of people would be displaced. If CA100+ wants to be taken seriously as a force for emissions reductions, its mission statement needs a dose of urgency.

All that said, a mission statement is useless if the organisation making it is ineffectual. In that respect, the jury's still out on CA100+, which is still a fledgling organisation. Its first progress report, however, looks bleak. Although 77% of the 159 total focus companies have a board member or committee responsible for climate policy, just 8% of them ensure said policy is consistent with the positions of their respective lobbying associations. And while 70% of the companies have set long-term targets for reducing emissions, only 20% of them have approved or committed to measures deemed scientifically in line to meet the terms of the Paris Agreement. This in mind, it's important to remember that targets set will not necessarily mean targets met, and with commitments so lacking in urgency as the Paris accords are, this doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Last but not least, climate disclosure is an interesting part of CA100+'s mission statement. According to its progress review, 40% of the organisation's target companies carry out and disclose climate scenario analysis. This is a really important point: the only way for investors to properly assess climate risk is for companies to disclose the impact their business activities have, and are going to have, on the environment. 

All in all, the progress report doesn't look good. But it also doesn't explain why corporate lobbying is a viable strategy for encouraging companies to reduce their carbon emissions. This is, in effect, a form of self-regulation: signatories will, in theory, pressure companies into taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint, and should they fail to do so, divestment (I should think) isn't out of the question. But this carries two massive assumptions. The first is that investors will, in fact, walk the walk and divest if necessary. The second is that we can trust polluters to honour their commitments should they make them. After all, it will take time to establish whether companies are on track to meet their emissions targets. And as illustrated earlier in this post: time is something we are desperately short of.

I don't see any reason to suspect corporate lobbying is a more effective way to bring polluters to heel than legislation. Unlike the private sector, regulations imposed by the state have the advantage of being legally binding and enforceable. Further, they can be brought into effect far quicker than the clout of fledgling lobbying groups. You could make the argument this is a false dichotomy, and the two can run in tandem. But a robust approach to tackling the climate crisis from the state would surely render lobbying obsolete if it went far enough. 

Richard Murphy, who happens to be a professor at the university I study at, has a great example of this when it comes to accounting. At the minute, he explains in this very good video on his blog, there are no proposals anywhere in the world to bring climate change onto the balance sheet. Instead of relying on voluntary standards, which have failed completely, he argues that changing the rules so companies are legally obliged to disclose their contributions to the climate crisis would seriously hurt the bottom lines of the biggest polluters, and bring about change far more rapidly. Would some businesses become insolvent? Probably. Does that matter more than the survival of the planet? No.

In sum, I'm not convinced CA100+ will have any serious impact on greenhouse gas emissions at all in the coming years. That said, neither will government policy should the political landscape in countries like the UK and US not change very soon. Maybe that's what CA100+ really is: an indictment of the failure of governments worldwide to take the steps required to fight the climate crisis. In that respect, perhaps we should be thankful – it's certainly better than nothing. 

Rebecca Long-Bailey and the Labour Leadership Contest

I was a bit concerned today to learn Labour leadership contender Rebecca Long-Bailey said she would have rated Jeremy Corbyn "10 out of 10" for his four-year tenure as leader of the party.

As someone who supported Corbyn as leader, I certainly wouldn't have given the man 10 out of 10 and I'm not sure anyone would if they were honest with themselves. From equivocating on Brexit, to poor handling of reports over antisemitism, to – let's be honest – skeletons in the closet that he never managed to get ahead of in the press, there's a lot to criticise about Corbyn's leadership.

I know these 'gotcha' questions are awkward and difficult to deal with, but would it really have been so difficult for RLB to circumvent it? She quite easily could have told ITV News that a four-year leadership, during which two general elections and a referendum were held, might demand a bit more nuance than a rating out of 10. But instead, she gave a perfect score to a man who, like everyone, isn't perfect, didn't do a perfect job, and is largely viewed by the British public to be a very, very long way from perfect.

This is what worries me, a person to the left of the Labour Party, about RLB. She's already being labelled the continuity candidate for a leader the public mostly dislikes. In her official pitch, published in Tribune, she uses the language of radicalism when it's clear that, despite support for specific policies, the public still doesn't trust Labour on the economy. She speaks of an insurgent force and war with the political establishment when it's unclear whether that sort of language will resonate with the public from the left. I know that this is a pitch to labour members and not the electorate, but I worry the tone will alienate huge numbers of people in an election setting.

Despite its shortfalls (and there were many), Labour did manage to point out something really important during the election campaign: that a huge portion of the manifesto actually wasn't radical at all, and would simply have brought the UK into line with the rest of the world on a number of issues. This had the potential to comfort voters who didn't trust Labour to carry out its pledges, but it was drowned out by policy overload and the rhetoric of radicalism.

What about the genuinely radical policies in Labour's manifesto? How to account for them? One way would be to swap "radical" for "necessary". Was Labour's environmental policy radical? Arguably – and to say as such risks scaring off voters. Was it necessary? Well, if you believe ecological destruction is an urgent problem that demands solutions beyond tinkering around the edges of the system causing it, then obviously it is. Things start to look a lot less radical when put in context – and that's exactly what Labour should have done, and should endeavour to do so in future. 

In my view, RLB and the other left candidates in the leadership contest would do well to keep this in mind. That said, the next election isn't for another four years, and the world could look very different by then. 

The Brexit Recession, the Bank of England and the Tories

With his newfound majority, and barring some sort of freak scandal in the next few weeks that brings down the government, Boris Johnson will pull Britain out of the European Union on 31 January.

Let's be clear: Johnson's Brexit deal – which he cobbled together as prime minister after relentlessly attacking the slightly better deal of his predecessor, Theresa May – is a bad deal. Non-tarriff trade barriers will increase as a result of Britain exiting the customs union, with aggregate trade expected to fall 13%. GDP per capita is expected to fall 6.4%. Income-per-capita is expected to be 2.5% lower under his deal than it would if Britain remained in the EU. In real terms, this means UK citizens will be an average of £2,000-a-year worse off.

If that wasn't bleak enough, things look worse when you put Johnson's Brexit in the broader context of the global economy. Right now, the global economy is in what the IMF has called a "synchronised slowdown". In October, the organisation downgraded growth to 3% – the slowest since the financial crisis – owing to geopolitical tensions, increased barriers to trade and a sharp decline in manufacturing output.

Britain is already feeling the effects of the global slowdown and prolonged uncertainty. Growth was just 0.3% in the third quarter of 2019, and in the last quarter the economy slowed even more. The Bank of England estimates the UK grew just 0.1% in the final three months of last year. We're already teetering around the edges of a recession – so what's going to happen when we leave the EU at the end of the month?

One thing is almost certain: if Britain were to leave the EU without a deal this month, we'd go into recession. Under Johnson's Brexit deal, however, the UK will keep its current trading relationship with the EU until the transition period ends on 31 December. This will give the government some time to draw up a new trade agreement with the EU. But as mentioned earlier, any agreement would throw up more barriers to trade – and 11 months is an extremely tight deadline to finalise an agreement. It's unlikely the Brexit uncertainty will abate now the election is over, because the next questions are these: will an agreement with the EU be finished by the deadline, and if so, what will that agreement look like?

Threadneedle Street and the Conservative Party

If the global slowdown continues, and Johnson fails to finalise a deal by the deadline (not to mention draw up trade agreements with other countries), a recession isn't at all out of the question. And should one come to pass, the UK will be in an extremely weak position to do anything about it.

The reasons are twofold. First, there is precious little room for monetary policy to move in order to stimulate the economy. Interest rates are currently at 0.75%, which (needless to say) is very low. Any further reduction could scare off lenders and any stimulus would be minimal at best. Despite being originally intended as an emergency step, the Bank of England is still carrying out QE, leaving the central bank poorly-equipped to handle another downturn.

The second reason follows from the first. Ineffective monetary policy logically calls for more robust fiscal policy to counter economic crises. But let's not forget who's calling the shots. After a decade in power, the Tories have starved the UK of public investment. Despite interest rates that would have any sensible government jumping at the chance to borrow, the Conservatives have refused to take the opportunity, leaving infrastructure crumbling, public services in crisis and the private sector sheepish. The Tories' fiscal record since 2010 should unnerve anyone thinking about what the next recession might look like in the UK.

Now, it is true the Tories pledged to increase spending on infrastructure and the NHS in the election campaign. But how much that calms your nerves depends on how much you trust the Conservative Party to carry out its pledges. Take housing, for example. In 2015, David Cameron pledged to build 200,000 'starter homes' by 2020. How many were actually built? Zero. Or how about George Osborne's 'Northern Powerhouse' initiative, ostensibly aimed at revitalising the north of England? The north-south divide has widened, and public spending cuts have undermined the project significantly. More money for the NHS and infrastructure would be a welcome change for public services on their knees, but whether the Conservatives will actually pay up remains to be seen.

The Brexit Recession and Public Opinion

For nearly 10 years, the Tories have always had an answer when challenged about their economic record: that Labour left the country in such a poor state any failures under the Coalition and beyond were simply a result of Gordon Brown's handling of the public finances. 

Up to now, that strategy has paid off emphatically. But if Johnson's Brexit leads the UK to another recession, will it work then? That remains to be seen, but I err on the side of optimism. It will have been 12 years at least since the financial crisis when that happens, and I suspect the public will begin to point their fingers at the Tories if things start to go wrong.

With that in mind, Labour supporters have cause for a sort of bittersweet optimism. But who knows? The Tories have an 80-seat majority. Right now the left should strap in and brace for the journey ahead.