SCOTLAND

Net Zero Secretary ‘not embarrassed’ at ditching 2030 emissions target

Jody Harrison
Fri, 19 April 2024 

Mairi McAllan confirmed on Thursday the Scottish Government is scrapping a key climate change target because it will not be achieved (Image: PA)


Scotland’s Net Zero Secretary has insisted she was not embarrassed at having to ditch a key climate change target – despite green campaigners branding the move the “worst environmental decision in the history” of devolution.

Activists hit out after Mairi McAllan confirmed to MSPs the goal of reducing emissions by 75% by 2030 is being abandoned by the Scottish Government.

Independent experts at the UK Climate Change Committee had already told Holyrood ministers that achieving the target was “beyond credible”.

Oxfam Scotland said the move was a “reprehensible retreat caused by its recklessly inadequate level of action”, while Friends of the Earth Scotland described the move as “the worst environmental decision in the history of the Scottish Parliament”.

Together with other groups, Friends of the Earth now plans to stage a demonstration outside Bute House in Edinburgh, the official residence of the First Minister, next week to protest against the move.

The decision to abandon the 2030 target comes despite the Scottish Government having previously lauded its “world leading” climate change legislation.

But when asked if she was embarrassed by the move, Ms McAllan insisted: “I am not embarrassed.”

She told BBC Radio Scotland’s Good Morning Scotland programme she can “understand why some people are disappointed”, adding that “in many ways I am too”.

READ MORE: Green members call for emergency talks to end SNP deal after stormy meeting

With the 2030 target having been enshrined in laws passed by Holyrood in 2019, Scottish ministers will now have to amend that legislation to remove it.

“I didn’t necessarily want to have to open up the legislation and make amendments,” Ms McAllan said.

“I have spent as much time as I possibly could with my team exploring every possible avenue not to have to do that.”

But she stressed “we shouldn’t overplay what is actually being done here”, saying any changes will restate the Scottish Government’s overall goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2045 – five years earlier than the UK Government’s target for this.

While Ms McAllan said this is “very ambitious”, she insisted it is a “realistic goal”.

The Herald: The minister said the Scottish Government remains committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2045

She said when MSPs had voted for the 2030 target, “it was well understood it was likely to be beyond the realms of what was achievable”.

She also insisted action is “more important than targets” as she claimed Scotland “remains a world leader” in tackling climate change.

Ms McAllan said: “We are nearly halfway to net zero, having reduced our emissions by almost 50% on the 1990 baseline.

“We continue to decarbonise faster than the UK as a whole and our 2045 target remains one of the most stretching in the world.”

Highlighting actions taken by the Scottish Government, Ms McAllan added: “In recent years we have planted 75% of all forests in the UK in Scotland”, and said the country has “developed the most comprehensive network of EV (electric vehicle) charging per head outside of London in the UK”.

But Scottish Conservative net zero spokesperson Douglas Lumsden said: “Mairi McAllan continues to show no shame over her government’s appalling record on hitting its own climate-change targets.

“It is astonishing that she can say she is not embarrassed at this abject humiliation given that the SNP spent years telling anyone who would listen that their targets were world-leading.”

Scottish Government to set out climate crisis plans after 'key target dropped'

Laura Pollock
Thu, 18 April 2024 

First Minister Humza Yousaf and Net Zero and Just Transition Secretary Mairi McAllan visit the Port (Image: PA)

THE Scottish Government is to set out its next steps on tackling climate change after a report warned it is now “beyond credible” that Scotland’s target to reduce emissions by 75% by 2030 will be met.

It comes amid reports that the Scottish Government could be planning to ditch the 2030 goal, but remain committed to meeting its target of net zero emissions by 2045.

The move would be seen as a major climbdown for the administration at Holyrood – where Green politicians are now in government thanks to the Bute House powersharing agreement with SNP.

But a report from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) published in March said that, for Scotland to achieve the goal of cutting harmful emissions by 75% by then, the rate of emission reduction in most sectors would need to increase by a factor of nine in the years up to the end of the decade.

READ MORE: SNP minister 'disappointed' as Scotland 'to ditch key climate pledge'

As a result, it said: “The acceleration required in emissions reduction to meet the 2030 target is now beyond what is credible.”

The Scottish Government has missed its legally binding annual emissions reduction targets in eight out of the last 12 years.

Scotland Net-Zero Secretary Mairi McAllan will give an update to Holyrood on next steps following the CCC report on Thursday afternoon.

Speaking ahead of the statement, she said that taking action to tackle the twin crises of climate change and nature loss is the “defining global issue of our era”.

The National: Mairi McAllan

She added: “Whilst we are faced with a UK Government which is rowing back on climate action, and hostile to measures already adopted by nations across the world like the Deposit Return Scheme, the progress we have made since Scotland declared a global climate emergency in 2019 and since Glasgow hosted Cop26 in 2021 is now at risk.

“This cannot continue. The future of our planet and the security of future generations is far too important.

“Tackling climate change is an environmental imperative and our moral obligation. However, done correctly, it can also present perhaps the single greatest social and economic opportunity of many generations in Scotland.

“To achieve this, our work must be taken forward in a way that is ambitious and fair, which empowers communities and recognises the different needs of rural, island and urban areas.

“This Government is absolutely committed to tackling the climate crisis with the urgency and pace which is required. However, to do so we need collective will and a common sense of priority.

“I call on all parties in the Scottish Parliament to put politics aside, to reject culture wars, and to back our efforts. This is our collective mission in which we cannot fail.”

READ MORE: Scottish climate changing faster than expected, new research says

Following the publication of the CCC report in March, McAllan said the Scottish Government remains fully committed to meeting its target of net zero emissions by 2045.

Scottish Greens climate spokesman Mark Ruskell said: “We are absolutely determined to accelerate the urgent and substantial action needed to tackle the climate crisis as laid out by the CCC recently, and fully expect the Scottish Government to respond to that challenge.”

Climate campaigners however said that ditching the 2030 target would be an “acute global embarrassment” for the Scottish Government.

Jamie Livingstone, head of Oxfam Scotland, said: “With the world becoming a dirtier and deadlier place every day, any decision by Scottish ministers to rewrite Scotland’s climate rulebook would be an acute global embarrassment.

“It would also be the direct and damaging consequence of the Scottish Government’s own dilly-dallying on climate action.”

Meanwhile, Scottish Conservatives said the move would be an “abject humiliation” for the SNP and Green government at Holyrood.

Net zero spokesman Douglas Lumsden said: “For all the boasting about their supposed environmental credentials, the reality is a succession of missed targets – and being forced to throw in the towel on this flagship pledge represents the biggest failure of the lot.”

The Tory MSP added: “This climbdown is not a surprise, given the damning report from the Climate Change Committee, but it is symptomatic of a Nationalist coalition that routinely over-promises and under-delivers.”


We will achieve net zero by 2045, Yousaf vows as interim goal to be axed

Craig Paton and Lucinda Cameron, 

PA Scotland
Thu, 18 April 2024 

The Scottish Government will not miss its target of reaching net zero by 2045 by a single day, Humza Yousaf has vowed as ministers are set to ditch an interim goal to reduce emissions by 75%.

Net Zero Secretary Mairi McAllan will address Holyrood later on Thursday and is expected to abandon the Government’s 2030 target, which was described as “beyond credible” by the Climate Change Committee (CCC), and lay the blame firmly at the feet of the UK Government.

Speaking during First Minister’s Questions, Mr Yousaf said her statement will outline a series of policies to accelerate the move to net zero – but did not dispute that the interim target will be scrapped.

Instead, he reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2045.

“This Government will not move back by a single month, a week or even a day from that 2045 target for achieving net zero,” he said.

“Let’s be clear, the CCC were always clear with us that the 2030 target was a stretch target.

“That was clear to all of us when we all committed, we all backed that target in the first place.

“But what doesn’t change, and what won’t change, is that end destination of 2045.”

He said Ms McAllan will bring forward an “accelerated package of climate action”, and he urged opposition MSPs to back the Government’s plans.

Mairi McAllan will make a statement in Holyrood on Thursday (Andrew Milligan/PA)

Responding, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar described the First Minister’s argument as “embarrassing”, adding: “That may have worked with (Scottish Green co-leaders and Government ministers) Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater, but it’s not working with the Scottish people.”

He later added: “Humza Yousaf is rowing back on his climate targets and the Green Party is backing him up.

“This SNP-Green Government’s failures mean higher bills, fewer green jobs and other countries winning the global race for clean energy.”

He said Labour – if elected in the upcoming general election – will upgrade insulation in homes, create 50,000 “clean power jobs”, and create an energy generation firm headquartered in Scotland.

The First Minister said one thing missing from the list of actions from Mr Sarwar was the dropped pledge to invest £28 billion in the green economy, adding that instead Scotland will get a “brass plaque” on the headquarters of the proposed GB Energy “that will undoubtedly match the brass neck that Labour has”.

In a statement released on Thursday morning, Ms McAllan said taking action to tackle the twin crises of climate change and nature loss is the “defining global issue of our era”.

She added: “Whilst we are faced with a UK Government which is rowing back on climate action, and hostile to measures already adopted by nations across the world like the deposit return scheme, the progress we have made since Scotland declared a global climate emergency in 2019 and since Glasgow hosted Cop26 in 2021 is now at risk.

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar hailed his party’s green credentials (Andrew Milligan/PA)

“This cannot continue. The future of our planet and the security of future generations is far too important.

“Tackling climate change is an environmental imperative and our moral obligation. However, done correctly, it can also present perhaps the single greatest social and economic opportunity of many generations in Scotland.

“To achieve this, our work must be taken forward in a way that is ambitious and fair, which empowers communities and recognises the different needs of rural, island and urban areas.

“This Government is absolutely committed to tackling the climate crisis with the urgency and pace which is required. However, to do so we need collective will and a common sense of priority.

“I call on all parties in the Scottish Parliament to put politics aside, to reject culture wars, and to back our efforts. This is our collective mission in which we cannot fail.”

The Scottish Conservatives said scrapping the interim goal will be an “abject humiliation” for the SNP and Green Government at Holyrood.

Net zero spokesman Douglas Lumsden said: “For all the boasting about their supposed environmental credentials, the reality is a succession of missed targets – and being forced to throw in the towel on this flagship pledge represents the biggest failure of the lot.

“This climbdown is not a surprise, given the damning report from the Climate Change Committee, but it is symptomatic of a nationalist coalition that routinely over-promises and under-delivers.”

Scottish government 'to axe' key climate change target

Iona Young
Wed, 17 April 2024

According to experts, the Scottish Government will axe one of its key climate change target -Credit:Jane Barlow/PA Wire


The Scottish government is expected to ditch its flagship target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030, according to reports.

Ministers have missed eight of the last 12 annual emissions targets, with experts claiming it is now impossible for the country to meet the 75% milestone by the end of the decade, BBC Scotland reported.

However, the final goal of reaching net-zero by 2045 is expected to remain.

A statement is expected to be made in Holyrood on April 18.

The CCC has previously warned that Scotland had lost its lead over the rest of the UK in tackling the issue and last year ministers failed to publish a plan which was required under the act to detail how they would meet the targets.

Màiri McAllan, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, is due to address MSPs on Thursday when she will set out the government’s response to the damning report by the CCC.

The minister has already said she is exploring legislative options.

In a damning report published in March Chris Stark, chief executive of the Climate Change Committee branded the Scottish Government's climate plans “a failure” and claimed they were "too stretching.”

Scientists have already warned that this is a crucial decade for keeping global warming below 1.5C, a goal world leaders agreed to in 2015.

The 2030 target is only six years away and the Scottish Government failed to publish its draft Climate Change Plan in late 2023 as planned.

The main concerns in the report included current overall policies and plans in Scotland falling short of what is needed and that current targets are no longer possible to achieve in the time frame provided.

Chris Stark said: "That is a failure of the Scottish government to bring to the Scottish people, and the Scottish Parliament, a climate change plan that is fit for purpose.

"This is the first time, anywhere in the UK, that we've said there's a target that can't be met. It's a shame we have to give that message to the Scottish government but what's behind it is a lack of progress all around."

The Scottish Parliament legislated to cut greenhouse gases by 75% compared with the UK's target of 68% by the same date and Scotland's emissions reduction target for 2030 is harsher than the UK's as a whole.

Jamie Livingstone, Head of Oxfam Scotland, also slammed the decision and said: “With the world becoming a dirtier and deadlier place every day, any decision by Scottish Ministers to re-write Scotland’s climate rulebook would be an acute global embarrassment.

"It would also be the direct and damaging consequence of the Scottish Government’s own dilly-dallying on climate action

“Ministers and MSPs from every party in the Scottish Parliament should instead be focused on securing the significant funds required to invest right now in faster climate action through fair tax reforms which protect the worst off and incentivise polluters to clean up their acts.

“Anything less and Scotland will deliver yet another body blow to climate-hit communities while risking a dangerous race to the bottom on global climate ambition.”

Friends of the Earth Scotland’s head of campaigns Imogen Dow said: “If the SNP and Green Ministers choose to scrap these vital climate commitments, it would be the worst environmental decision in the history of the Scottish Parliament.

"The 2030 target could and should have been met, but instead it looks like politicians are going to break their promises and betray both their constituents and the most vulnerable people on the frontlines of climate breakdown.

“These climate targets are based on what climate science says Scotland must do as part of a global effort to limit dangerous warming. Politicians right across the spectrum made a promise to the people of Scotland by voting for strong 2030 targets so they must be willing to work together to back the transformative ideas that improve lives and cut climate pollution."

Scottish Greens climate spokesperson Mark Ruskell MSP said: “We are absolutely determined to accelerate the urgent and substantial action needed to tackle the climate crisis as laid out by the CCC recently, and fully expect the Scottish Government to respond to that challenge.”

“This is a pivotal moment for us to ramp up the kind of meaningful change that will put us on track to achieve net zero by 2045 at the latest, in the face of a complete reversal of climate action from the UK Government.”

UK

Academics call for transparency over university funding

Open letter follows openDemocracy investigation exposing the scale of dark money in higher education


Martin WilliamsJenna Corderoy

openDemocracy
7 April 2024

Anonymous donors have poured millions into top universities. |
Michael Dunning / Getty / Pexels

More than 120 academics, politicians and campaigners have signed an open letter calling for transparency over university funding in the UK.

It follows an investigation by openDemocracy that found more than £281m of anonymous donations had poured into so-called ‘Russell Group’ universities since 2017.

Documents revealed how previous attempts to improve transparency were met with “dismay” by many vice chancellors, who privately lobbied the government to keep the names of wealthy foreign donors secret.

Now, academics are calling for political parties to make manifesto commitments to ensure universities are open about their finances.

Get dark money out of UK politics!

Sign our petition to put pressure on the government to tighten electoral laws and shine more light on political donations. We need to know who is giving what to our political parties.SIGN UP

The letter, coordinated by openDemocracy, has been sent to the education secretary Gillian Keegan, as well as the shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson. It warns that the reputation and integrity of universities could be “severely undermined” without proper accountability.

“There is currently no requirement for universities to be transparent – creating a real risk of money laundering and reputation laundering,” the letter says. “Transparency is also vital because of the potential influence that donors may have.”

The letter is signed by academics from leading universities including Oxford, Cambridge London School of Economics (LSE), Exeter, Bristol and University College London (UCL).

Other signatories include the former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell, the former Conservative attorney general Robert Buckland, Green MP Caroline Lucas and Labour’s Zarah Sultana.

The letter calls for urgent action, saying: “Legislation should be introduced requiring universities to publish a register of large donations and research funding”.

Similar measures were proposed in 2022, led by the Conservative MP Jesse Norman, but the rules were massively watered down by the government and Norman described it as a “missed opportunity”.

Emails obtained by openDemocracy exposed how the proposals were subject to a coordinated lobbying campaign by university bosses, in a bid to keep their funding secret.

Cambridge University’s former vice chancellor told a government adviser the university’s fundraising abilities could be “severely impacted” unless foreign benefactors remained anonymous. Other universities privately wrote of “celebration” after learning they could keep the identity of donors under wraps.

Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show how dependent institutions have become on these secretive gifts, with much of the money coming from mysterious and controversial sources.

In one case, Oxford University accepted a £10m donation that was “facilitated” by the president of Azerbaijan’s sister-in-law. The university is so insistent on keeping the donor out of public scrutiny that it is going to court to block a Freedom of Information request from openDemocracy. The case is expected to be heard later this month.

In total, openDemocracy found the identities of 68 Oxford donors were kept anonymous since 2017, including at least ten who gave more than £2m each.

At Cambridge University, documents reveal its major benefactors have previously included fossil fuel giants, tobacco and arms companies. But the university is now fighting to keep a list of its recent donors secret.

In the open letter, academics warn of the potential influence that funders may have over university degrees.

Transparency is also vital because of the potential influence that donors may have. openDemocracy’s investigation last year found some universities had signed “very specific non-disclosure agreements” with big donors, which included a ban on releasing the names of projects being funded.

Other universities routinely invite fossil fuel companies to attend private meetings after donating millions of pounds. Some have taken direct advice from these companies over how to run their engineering and geoscience degrees, with one institution even holding discussions with an oil company about how to push back against “anti-oil rhetoric”.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: "While universities are autonomous, they should consider the ethical implications of any donations they are offered including on their duties regarding free speech and academic freedom.

"Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act gives the Office for Students powers to monitor overseas funding and require universities to provide details of gifts, donations, research grants and other income from overseas which is over a set threshold.”

Read the full open letter:

Dear Gillian Keegan MP and Bridget Phillipson MP,

(CC: Robin Walker MP)

As the Secretary of State and Shadow Secretary of State for Education respectively, you will both be aware of the impressive work done by British universities.

However, we write as a group of academics, campaigners, politicians and journalists to express our concern over the lack of transparency around university funding and the influence of major donors over academic courses.

Due to the difficult financial climate, universities have increasingly found it necessary to seek large amounts of money from private donors. These include wealthy individuals and big businesses, including many from overseas. But this is often shrouded in secrecy.

In December, an investigation by openDemocracy found that more than £281m had been donated to Russell Group universities by anonymous donors since 2017, much of it from foreign donors. It was also revealed that many of the UK’s top universities had privately lobbied the government to keep secret the names of wealthy foreign donors.

In one case, the University of Oxford accepted a mysterious £10m donation that was “facilitated” by the president of Azerbaijan’s sister-in-law. The university is so insistent on keeping the donor out of public scrutiny that it is going to tribunal to block a Freedom of Information request. The University of Cambridge is also fighting to keep its donors secret – but records show that its previous benefactors include fossil fuel giants, tobacco and arms companies.

Anonymous donations have often come from authoritarian countries where academic freedom is under threat. Yet there is currently no requirement for universities to be transparent – creating a real risk of money laundering and reputation laundering. Even when universities agree to disclose a donor’s identity, this usually only comes after submitting multiple complicated Freedom of Information requests – a process which can take months.

Transparency is also vital because of the potential influence that donors may have. For instance, openDemocracy found that some universities had signed “very specific non-disclosure agreements” with big donors, which included a ban on releasing the names of projects being funded. Other universities routinely invite fossil fuel companies to attend private meetings, after donating millions of pounds. Some have taken direct advice from these companies over how to run their engineering and geoscience degrees, with one institution even holding discussions with an oil company about how to push back against “anti-oil rhetoric”.

There is already cross-party support over this issue. In 2022, MPs led by Conservative backbencher Jesse Norman introduced proposals in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill for a “duty to disclose” any foreign donor who gives a university more than £50,000. However, the legislation was massively watered down and Mr Norman described it as a “missed opportunity”.

We believe that the higher education sector is a great asset to the UK and we appreciate that universities require large amounts of money to continue their important work. But without proper transparency and accountability, there is a real risk that their reputation and integrity could be severely undermined.

We are therefore calling for manifesto commitments from the Conservative and Labour Parties to take urgent action to ensure universities are transparent about their finances. In particular, we believe that legislation should be introduced requiring universities to publish a register of large donations and research funding. For context, donations to political parties from UK citizens need to be publicly declared from as little as £2,230.

The financial integrity of British universities is crucial for the long-term national interests of this country and we hope that – whatever the outcome of the upcoming election – the government will take action on this issue. We would be delighted to discuss these issues in further detail with you. We are also happy to discuss any concerns you may have and to work constructively for the benefit of British universities.

Your sincerely,openDemocracy
Dr Bashir Abu-Manneh, University of Kent
Professor Katharine Adeney, University of Nottingham
Professor Paul Ashwin, Lancaster University
Dr Ed Atkins, University of Bristol
Dr Adam Badger, Newcastle University
Dr Adrian Bailey, University of Exeter
Dr Lucy Baker, The Open University
Emeritus Professor Ronald Barnett, University College London
Dr Pritish Behuria, University of Manchester
Matt Benwell, Newcastle University
Dr Eloïse Bertrand, University of Nottingham
Dr Gregorio Bettiza, University of Exeter
Professor Andreas Bieler, University of Nottingham
Dr Dan Bishop, University of Leicester
Alastair Bonnett, Newcastle University
Tom Brake, Director, Unlock Democracy
Dr Andrea Brock, University of Sussex
Professor Susan Bruce, Keele University
Sir Robert Buckland KBE KC MP (Conservative Party)
Professor Tony Burns, University of Nottingham
Campaign Against Arms Trade
Campaign for Freedom of Information
Dr Dario Castiglione, University of Exeter
Phil Chamberlain, University of Bath
Dr Joseph Choonara, University of Leicester
Andrew Chubb, Lancaster University
Dr Matteo Ciccognani, University of Leicester
Dr Corentin Cohen, University of Oxford
Professor Colin Davis, University of Bristol
Professor Mike Coombes, Newcastle University
Rachel Davies, Transparency International UK
Dr Filippo Dionigi, University of Bristol
Professor Claire Dunlop, University of Exeter
Dr Robin Durie, University of Exeter
Dr Irene Fernández-Molina, University of Exeter
Dr Joanne Smith Finley, Newcastle University
Dr Markus Fraundorfer, University of Leeds
Friends of the Earth
Dr Andreas Fulda, University of Nottingham
Professor Brandon Gallaher, University of Exeter
Dr Jasmine Gani, University of St Andrews
Dr Carlos Gigoux, University of Essex
Professor Samuel Greene, King’s College London
Professor John Heathershaw, University of Exeter
Dr Lise Herman, University of Exeter
Professor Eric Herring, University of Bristol
Professor Paul M Heywood, University of Nottingham
Dr Katie Higgins, University of Oxford
Dr Shabnam Holliday, University of Plymouth
John Holmwood, University of Nottingham
Imperial Climate Action
Dr Caleb Johnston, Newcastle University
Professor Lee Jones, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Steven Jones, University of Manchester
Dr Sobia Kaker, University of Essex
Emeritus Professor Terence Karran, University of Lincoln
Jinsella Kennaway, executive director of Demilitarise Education
Dr Istvan T Kristo-Nagy, University of Exeter
Dr Sarah Kunz, University of Essex
Dr Caroline Kuzemko, University of Warwick
Professor James Ladyman, University of Bristol
Professor Robert Lamb, University of Exeter
Professor Tomila Lankina, London School of Economics
Dr Jody LaPorte, University of Oxford
Dr Corinne Lennox, School of Advanced Study, University of London
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, University of Bristol
Dr Matthew Lockwood, University of Sussex
Jake Lowe, executive director of Campus Climate Network
Caroline Lucas MP (Green Party)
Professor Simon Mabon, Lancaster University
Professor Simon Marginson, University of Oxford
Dr Olivia Mason, Northumbria University
Tom Mayne, academic
John McDonnell MP (Labour)
Dr Omar Shahabudin McDoom, London School of Economics
Professor Nick Megoran, Newcastle University
George Monbiot, author, journalist and environmental activist
Dr Alexander Morrison, New College, University of Oxford
Peter Munro, UK Anti-Corruption Coalition
Dr Lars Otto Naess, Institute of Development Studies
Professor Peter Newell, University of Sussex
James Nixey, Chatham House
Dr Kevork Oskanian, University of Exeter
Dr Catherine Owen, University of Exeter
Professor Ronen Palan, City, University of London
Professor Rich Pancost, University of Bristol
Dr Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director, Scientists for Global Responsibility
People & Planet
Professor Eva Pils, King’s College London
Professor Alison Phipps, Newcastle University
Professor Julian Preece, Council for the Defence of British Universities and Swansea University
Dr Tena Prelec, University of Rijeka & London School of Economics
Dr Alex Prichard, University of Exeter
Muhammad Ashikur Rahman, University of Leicester
Professor Jason Ralph, University of Leeds
Professor Sam Raphael, University of Westminster
Professor Brian Rappert, University of Exeter
Professor Madeleine Reeves, University of Oxford
Dr Eike Mark Rinke, University of Leeds
Dr Chris Rossdale, University of Bristol
Dr Kelli Rudolph, University of Kent
Professor Jason Scott-Warren, University of Cambridge
Professor Jan Selby, University of Leeds
Dr Amogh Dhar Sharma, University of Oxford
Professor John Sidel, London School of Economics and Political Science
Lord Prem Sikka (Labour Party)
Andrew Simms, New Weather Institute & Research Associate, University of Sussex
Professor Adrian Smith, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex
Spotlight on Corruption
Dr Jac St John, University of Westminster
Professor Anna Stavrianakis, University of Sussex
Professor Andy Stirling, University of Sussex
Professor Doug Stokes, Exeter University
Zarah Sultana MP (Labour Party)
Dr Jason Sumich, University of Essex
Professor Richard Toye, University of Exeter
Dr Marietta van der Tol, University of Oxford
Dr David Wearing, University of Sussex
Kathryn Westmore, Royal United Services Institute
Professor David Whyte, Queen Mary University of London
Glynne Williams, retired associate professor, University of Leicester
Dr Ben Worthy, Birkbeck College
Professor Katrina Wyatt, University of Exeter

From America with cash: Right-wing groups want to end abortion in the UK

A right-wing political and media ecosystem pushing a US-style anti-abortion agenda is gaining traction in the UK


Sian Norris

OPEN DEMOCRACY
19 April 2024, 

Emboldened by the overturning of Roe vs Wade, US anti-abortion groups have the UK in their sights |
Future Publishing/GettyImages / Pexels / Composition by James Battershill


Conservative MPs, hard-right media personalities, and US-backed Christian anti-abortion charities are working to spread their anti-abortion agenda ahead of a parliamentary debate on legislation that would stop women being imprisoned for terminating a pregnancy after 24 weeks.

Emboldened by their success in the United States with the Dobbs decision – the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned the right to safe and legal abortion in the US – groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Edmund Burke Foundation are now seeking to rollback progress on reproductive rights around the world.

Their campaigns in the UK are based on strategies honed and perfected in the US. They use language shaped over decades to seed anti-abortion falsehoods that begin on social media before becoming talking points on conservative-friendly TV stations modelled on right-wing US news channels and far-right podcasts. Crucially, those behind the campaigns also invest millions of dollars to push their agenda in the UK.

“As if the US anti-abortion movement didn’t already have sufficient momentum, the Dobbs’ decision turbo-charged their motivation and reach,” Gillian Kane, the director of policy and advocacy research at pro-abortion non-governmental organisation Ipas, told openDemocracy.

“There are veteran organisations continuing their line of work, but also traditionally domestic-focused groups… see an opportunity to dip their toes in these crowded international waters.”

In the UK, Labour MP Stella Creasy being viciously attacked on social media for backing an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that would end criminal sanctions for late-term abortions. These attacks were not started by a far-right activist or even an anti-abortion campaigner – but by her fellow MP Neil O’Brien, a former junior health minister in the Conservative Party-led government.

O’Brien claimed Creasy was “arguing for people to be able to kill a baby before the day it is due to be born”, branding the amendment “an incredibly extreme and bad proposal”. Contrary to his allegation, the legislation would not increase the 24-week limit in which abortions must be carried out. Rather, it would mean women who self-administer late-term abortions will not be imprisoned, after Carla Foster, a mother-of-three from Staffordshire, was jailed last year for illegally procuring her own abortion at around 33 weeks pregnant.

We shouldn’t send women to prison for decisions they make about their own bodies 

Louise McCudden, MSI Reproductive Choices

“On principle, we shouldn’t send women to prison for decisions they make about their own bodies,” said Louise McCudden, the UK head of external affairs at MSI Reproductive Choices, an NGO providing contraception and safe abortion services. “However, the solution has to be about more than prison and sentencing. We need to remove women who end their own pregnancies from criminal law altogether. That can be done without making any changes to the way abortion care is regulated or provided.”

O’Brien’s message was provably wrong – but it was still shared by five of his Conservative colleagues. Soon, hard-right broadcasters began making similarly incendiary posts about the amendment, with GB News’ Darren Grimes and TalkTV’s Isabel Oakeshott branding Creasy’s proposal “infanticide” and “butchery” respectively.

On social media, posts targeting Creasy started to quote far-right conspiracy theories and descended into misogyny and transphobia. It is no coincidence that such rhetoric directly echoes the far-right propaganda that led the US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade – openDemocracy has found that many of those making false claims about the amendment have links to the US anti-abortion movement, which sees an opportunity to make reproductive rights a new frontline of the UK’s culture wars.

“Abortion isn’t divisive in this country like it is in the US,” said McCudden “Ninety percent of people [in Britain] are pro-choice, and many people are frankly shocked to discover that abortion sits within criminal law at all. That said, there’s a small but very vocal minority which does seem to be getting more aggressive.

“There has been a worrying trend towards greater policing of women’s reproductive choices, with women’s bodies implicitly treated as national resource, especially in policy debates about the ageing population.”

Funded by US cash

The campaign against the UK amendment is reminiscent of the ‘partial-birth abortion’ propaganda successfully deployed by the US-anti-abortion movement since the mid-1990s.

The term, which refers to late-stage abortions, is designed to make people think not of a fetus but “of a young child”, as conservative Robert Arnakis explained in 2017 at an event hosted by the anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ+ think tank, Family Research Council.

Such is its effectiveness, according to the Family Research Council’s president, Tony Perkins, that Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election win can be traced back to the moment he referred to “partial birth abortions” during a candidate debate in Las Vegas.

So-called ‘partial birth abortions’ had been banned nationwide in the US by 2003. When that ban was challenged by Planned Parenthood in 2007, a Christian legal charity successfully argued it was constitutional all the way up to the Supreme Court. That charity was Alliance Defending Freedom, which would go on to fund the lawyer who won a fight to implement an abortion ban in Texas in 2021 and was influential in the Dobbs ruling that revoked Roe vs Wade.

But the ADF, which was founded in 1993, never intended to limit its influence over sexual and reproductive rights to the US. It has spent more than $31m on foreign activities since 2015, of which $27m has gone to Europe.

The charity is now splashing more cash in the region than ever before; in 2015, its European spend was $1.4m – by 2022 that had risen to $5.2m. While US organisations must declare who they fund at home, for foreign spending they only need to name the region their money is going to. This means it is impossible to parse the details of where exactly ADF’s dollars flow overseas – though tax returns reveal much of it goes to its own international branches.

The UK’s ADF branch, for example, has received more than £2m from its parent company since its first tax return in 2017. This has been spent on legal support for anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ protesters and societies, as well as on growing its political influence in the UK – more than doubling its expenditure from £370,000 in 2018 to £770,000 today.

ADF UK’s communications lead, Lois McLatchie-Miller, was among those amplifying opposition to Creasy’s amendment. The day after she tweeted Creasy’s plans were “barbaric”, she appeared on the far-right podcast Hearts of Oak, which claims to “bridge the transatlantic and cultural gap between the UK and the USA” and has platformed conspiracist voices.

British anti-abortion groups have also increased their spending and activity in recent years. Right to Life UK, an anti-abortion charity with close ties to numerous UK MPs, spent £705,000 last year, up from £200,000 five years earlier. And the extremist anti-abortion group Centre for Bio-Ethical Research UK – which in 2019 erected a billboard featuring graphic abortion imagery outside Creasy’s office – is now targeting her constituency with leaflets and “education displays”. Although the group’s small size means it does not have to report full accounts, its staff numbers have risen from four in 2017 to 12 today, suggesting an uptick in its spending.

Related story

A dying baby, a Trump tweet: Inside network setting global right-wing agenda
25 March 2024 | Sian Norris

Leaked emails from the Agenda Europe network reveal how its members collaborated daily to roll back abortion and LGBTQ+ rights

US campaigns, UK MPs

Money alone won’t help global anti-abortion actors to push their agenda in the UK. As the posts on X reveal, they are being aided and legitimised by Conservative Party politicians, media channels such as GB News, and events such as the annual National Conservatism Conference.

In 2019, ADF International paid for flights and other travel expenses for anti-abortion MP Fiona Bruce to attend its youth conference – Areté Academy – in Vienna. The same year, she attempted to ban late-term abortions for specific fetal anomalies. Academy alumni have gone on to work at Bruce’s legal firm, and in September 2023, she took another donation to cover expenses from ADF International, this time worth £1,737.92.

In Westminster, ADF UK also “engages with the members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief”. It featured alongside a host of anti-abortion and pro-Brexit MPs – including then-home secretary Suella Braverman, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Danny Kruger and Miriam Cates – on the line-up of last year’s National Conservatism Conference, which was held in London.

NatCon, as the conference is more commonly known, is run by the Washington DC-based Edmund Burke Foundation. The 2024 conference – which took place in Brussels this week – was marred by controversies after police shut down the event during a speech by British hard-right politician Nigel Farage, following an order from a local mayor who feared a threat to public order. A court later ruled the event could resume and the ADF – which was again present at the conference – is backing a legal challenge against the mayor’s order.

On the bill for this year’s event were Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban and French presidential hopeful Eric Zemmour, as well as British politicians including Braverman and Cates. The latter made a name for herself at the 2023 event, when she echoed the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, saying: “There is one critical outcome that liberal individualism had failed to deliver and that is babies.” The white nationalist theory accuses Black and Brown migrants of ‘colonising’ white Europeans and blames white women’s “selfish individualism” for low birth rates.

Cates is now part of a number of MPs pushing anti-gender narratives, including attacks on trans rights, LGBTQ+ inclusive education, and abortion. Alongside Kruger, she is a co-chair of the New Conservatives, a group of Tory MPs that says it is fighting “a dangerous new culture that despises national sentiment…, welcomes mass migration, denigrates our nation’s history, and pursues a radical agenda on sex and gender which is directly harmful to children”.

The Legatum Institute – a British think tank that openDemocracy previously revealed receives funding from the foundation of US billionaire Charles Koch, who donates to an array of anti-abortion causes – gave £50,000 to the New Conservatives in December 2023.

Legatum is also behind the recently launched ARC Forum, where Cates and Kruger sit on the advisory board, and is a co-owner of GB News, a right-wing news channel that offers a platform to commentators promoting anti-gender disinformation and anti-trans and anti-drag conspiracies.

While GB News and its presenters and guests maintain a veneer of respectability, the anti-abortion disinformation they amplify is picked up by far-right social media accounts that espouse conspiracies such as the Great Replacement.

One such post attacked Creasy’s amendment and suggested that white women should be banned from having abortions, while black women should be encouraged to have them. Another, which came in reply to a post by Grimes warned the plan would mean “the native birth rate will further decline”.

Despite the growing volume of attacks, and the increased spending on attempts to reverse abortion rights, the UK has seen progress in liberalising reproductive healthcare in recent years. Parliament voted to decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland in 2019, and women have been able to access telemedicine for abortion since the pandemic. MPs also voted to introduce buffer zones around clinics, although the law has yet to be implemented.

But such success is often met with increased backlash. While the attacks on Creasy’s amendments seem disparate, our analysis shows they are connected by a global anti-abortion movement funded by hard-right interests determined to shout louder and spend more to roll back women’s rights in the UK. Such forces have already succeeded in making trans rights part of their culture war. They want abortion to be next.

openDemocracy approached ADF UK, O’Brien, Cates, Bruce, Clarke-Smith, Grimes and the Legatum Institute for comment, including clarification on what they believe the sanction should be for women who terminate their pregnancy after 24 weeks. We received no reply.

UK
Almost a quarter of kids aged 5-7 have smartphones, Ofcom reveals

Campaigners want age limits to be introduced for smartphone use


PARENTS FEEL THERE ARE POSITIVES TO THEIR CHILDREN BEING ONLINE BUT DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SOME ASPECTS OF IT, OFCOM SAYS

LOLA CHRISTINA ALAO

Smartphone use has hit an all-time high among children, with nearly a quarter of UK five to seven year-olds now owning a smartphone, according to Ofcom. 

The annual study of children’s relationships with the media and online worlds also showed that social media use rose in this age group last year. Nearly two in five use messaging service WhatsApp despite its minimum age of 13.

It said the number of children aged between five and seven who go online to send messages or make voice and video calls had risen from 59 per cent to 65 per cent, while half now watch live-streamed content, up from 39 per cent.

In addition, the communications regulator found that while 42 per cent of parents said they used social media with their child, 32 per cent said their child used social media independently.

The number of parents of younger children who said they were more likely to allow their child to have a social media profile before they reached the minimum age required has also risen, Ofcom said, from 25 per cent to 30 per cent.

Ofcom’s report said: “While parental concerns in some areas have increased considerably, their enforcement of rules appears to be diminishing, in part perhaps because of resignation about their ability to intervene in their children’s online lives.”

It added that, although parents feel there are positives to their children being online, concerns about some aspects of it remain.

“We’ve asked for many years about whether parents feel that the benefits of their child going online outweigh the risks,” the report said.

“And when we altered the question in 2022, separating out gaming, social media, and being online more generally, we saw that parents regarded their child’s gaming and use of social media as more risky than beneficial, although 57 per cent of parents of five to 15s still thought that being online in general was a good thing for their child.”

Some people have campaigned for age limits to be introduced for smartphone use and existing ones raised for social media.

However, most phones owned by children are likely to have been provided by parents – under-18s cannot sign contracts and most big operators say they do not sell pay-as-you-go phones to under-16s.

The regulator is preparing to launch a consultation on its draft children’s safety code of practice for tech companies, which outlines how platforms are expected to protect younger users of their services under the Online Safety Act.

The Secretary of State for Science, Technology and Innovation Michelle Donelan said: “Children as young as five should not be accessing social media and these stark findings show why our Online Safety Act is essential.

“Most platforms say they do not allow under-13s onto their sites and the Act will ensure companies enforce these limits or they could face massive fines. If they fail to comply with Ofcom decisions and keep children safe their bosses could face prison.”

“Protecting children online is our number one priority and we will not hesitate to build on the Act to keep them safe.”

Homeless charity patron role for Robert Plant

Tim Page,

BBC News, West Midlands

Good Shepherd Charity chief executive Tom Hayden said having Plant on board was "incredible"

Musician Robert Plant has become patron of a charity supporting homeless people.

The Led Zeppelin singer signed up with Wolverhampton-based Good Shepherd after inviting it to publicise its work at his concert in the city last year and visiting its headquarters.

The star's contribution includes supporting the creation of two paid trainee roles for people with experience of homelessness.

The singer, who lives in Worcestershire but was brought up in the Black Country, said he wanted to support the charity's focus on "rebuilding confidence, self-esteem and spirit.”

The Good Shepherd's chief executive, Tom Hayden, said the group sensed the "enthusiasm and passion" Plant had for wanting to help people.

“He asked a lot of searching questions, which was great, because it really helped get to the heart of what we do in helping people not just find a temporary solution to issues such as homelessness and food poverty, but more sustained support where they can rediscover their strengths and pursue their dreams."

He added that the new trainee scheme would offer paid employment, a recognised qualification and training opportunities to progress in a career.

Plant is also a vice-president of Wolverhampton Wanderers

Plant has a strong connection to the area were he grew up, is a vice-president of Wolverhampton Wanderers, and has played a number of gigs in the city, most recently in December.

He is currently on tour with his band, Saving Grace, before heading to America to link up with bluegrass singer Alison Krauss and join Willie Nelson and Bob Dylan on the Outlaw Tour.

UK

Train drivers at LNER to strike in row over terms and conditions


LNER services from London will be affected (PA)
By Alan Jones, PA Industrial CorrespondentToday at 05:05

Rail services between London, the North and Scotland will be disrupted on Saturday because of a strike by train drivers.

Members of Aslef at LNER will walk out for the day in a dispute over terms and conditions.

The company said it will run a reduced service between London King’s Cross and Edinburgh Waverley, and King’s Cross and Leeds.

The first train from London to Edinburgh will run at 7.30am and the last one at 4pm, while the first direct service to Leeds will depart at 10.30am.

Aslef members at the company are also refusing to work overtime this weekend.



LNER services to and from London King’s Cross to the North and Scotland will be affected (PA)

Mick Whelan, general secretary of Aslef, said: “Train drivers are fed up with the bad faith shown by this company, probably at the behest of the Transport Secretary, Mark Harper, and the rail minister, Huw Merriman, and we are not prepared to put up with being bullied and pushed about by a company that thinks it can break agreements whenever it feels like it.

“We honour the agreements we make, because we are honourable people. Train companies should do the same.

“It’s two years since P&O sacked its workforce in a disgusting and disgraceful action that the Government allowed, but train companies in this country are not going to change our terms and conditions on a whim.”

The dispute is separate to the long running pay row between Aslef and 16 train operators, including LNER.

Glasgow University unlocks potential of augmented reality in driverless cars

by Sofia Villegas
19 April 2024
@SofiaVillegas_1


Self-driving cars could be deployed in UK roads within the next two years | Alamy

AScottish university has found augmented reality (AR) could enhance security in self-driving cars.

The University of Glasgow has assessed the use of the innovative technology to allow drivers to “relax” while remaining aware of the road.

Results suggest showing “attention-grabbing” graphics through car windscreens using AR heads-up displays could allow drivers to shift their focus in “critical moments”.

“What this study suggests is that there may be a kind of ‘Goldilocks’ zone where people can be engaged in a task while still being kept in the loop on developing road conditions,” Professor Stephen Brewster co-author of the research paper, explained.

Findings follow the recent announcement by UK Transport Secretary Mark Harper that driverless cars could be seen on UK roads by the end of 2026.

Also, it comes as the Automated Vehicles Bill goes through the final stages in the House of Commons.

During the study, participants were placed in front of a steering wheel and computer monitors to simulate their view out of a car window. They then used an AR display to complete tasks overlayed on top of the road scene.

Tasks involved either tracking and moving gems across the screen with their gaze or having to copy a phone number into an app. The AR headset then displayed special visual cues in participants’ eyelines to draw their attention to a developing road condition several seconds before stopping the video.

To evaluate their situational awareness, they were asked to select one of four predictions of what would happen next. Results showed the AR cues had allowed the participants to show increased awareness of the road conditions.

Study co-author Professor Frank Pollick, said: “An important aspect of road safety is something called the ‘look but fail to see’ phenomenon, which happens when people fail to adequately process what’s right in front of their eyes. This study aimed to replicate that in a simulated driving situation, where participants had all the relevant information on the screen in front of them but were being distracted to one degree or another, blurring their ability to judge the road conditions correctly.

“Augmented reality tech really does put information right in front of people’s eyes, so it could be a good fit for tackling the look but fail to see problem. The study shows that adding visual cues to draw drivers’ attention to situations does seem to improve their ability to quickly focus and understand situations. However, the level of demand on their attention is important – they were more able to read the road correctly in the less cognitively-challenging task.”

Researchers claim these findings will help develop safety features in future generations of self-driving cars. However, they warned there is still “much more research” to be done on how it can help driverless vehicles and that it “will likely be years before they’re [self-driving vehicles] capable of driving themselves entirely without human intervention”.

The team’s paper, titled ‘Can You Hazard a Guess? Evaluating the Effects of Augmented Reality Cues on Driver Hazard Prediction’, will be presented at the Association of Computing Machinery CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems next month.

The research was supported by funding from the UK Research and Innovation Centre for Doctoral Training in Socially Intelligent Artificial Agents and the European Research Council.

Housing is many UK voters’ priority but rental system remains unfixed

Robert Booth Social affairs correspondent
Fri, 19 April 2024 

Residential properties in London, where average montly rents have risen by £207 over the past year.

Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

Andy Leek’s escape to Argentina from Britain’s soaring rents is no doubt extreme. But the fact that this relatively successful artist feels he is better off paying transatlantic air fares than stumping up for ever-rising landlord demands is indicative of a crisis that only ever seems to get worse.

Polls show 23% of voters now rank housing as the most important issue facing the country, up from 14% at the December 2019 general election. More people now rate it as the priority than crime or the environment, according to YouGov. Yet little is done.

The historic rises in private rents recorded by official statisticians this week confirmed the pain renters are already feeling in their wallets. Across England renters are paying £107 more a month on average compared with a year earlier, and it is almost double that in London. Private rents keep rising faster than inflation and far above pay rises, driven in part by the continued high cost of borrowing for landlords but also the chronic mismatch of supply and demand.

For example, housing associations started building only 60 new homes in London in the last three months of last year, according to the latest provisional official figures – the lowest number in more than 30 years, if confirmed.

The constant rent increases are causing upheaval for families who face no choice but to move somewhere cheaper, often again and again. The financial cost of these unwanted moves by renters has been estimated at more than £500m a year by the housing charity Shelter. It reckons there were more than 800,000 such upheavals in the last year.

The social cost, not least to children, is even greater. Polly Neate, Shelter’s chief executive, said it was “impossible for renters to put down roots knowing a no-fault eviction could plunge them back into chaos at any moment”.

Which brings us to the government’s totemic promise on reforming private renting in England and Wales: banning section 21 notices, the legal provision that allows landlords to evict tenants without a specific reason such as failing to pay rent or antisocial behaviour.

This reform, first proposed by the Conservative government in 2019, still has not been enacted amid opposition from parts of the landlord lobby in the House of Commons.

The Renters Reform Coalition, a group of charities and campaign groups representing tenants, has estimated that nearly 100,000 households have been put at risk of homelessness as a result of the practice in the meantime.

It points out that this change has taken longer than Brexit, leaving “England’s broken renting system” unfixed. The renters (reform) bill is expected to return to the Commons next week for another go.

So what might Labour and the Conservatives offer the one in five households in England and Wales now living in privately rented accommodation when the general election finally comes?

Neither party accept the argument for any kind of long-term rent controls as are being proposed in Scotland (the Labour mayors of Greater Manchester, Liverpool and London have called for rent freezing powers).

If the Conservatives do not ban no-fault evictions before the election, Labour has said it will. But it remains unclear how far it would tighten up on other forms of eviction that could provide a backdoor. In short, renters would be wise not to expect too much from the manifestos.

Artist evicted by London landlord cuts rent by commuting from Argentina

Robert Booth 

Social affairs correspondent

 The Guardian
Fri, 19 April 2024 

Andy Leek was sofa surfing and sleeping on floors after his landlord evicted him.Photograph: The Guardian


An artist who was made homeless after being evicted by his private landlord in London has started effectively commuting from Argentina where the rent is so much cheaper that it covers the cost of air fare.

Andy Leek, 38, whose Notes to Strangers works are pasted on to walls and junction boxes across more than 20 British and European cities, has moved to Buenos Aires where the rents are several times cheaper and he travels back to the UK roughly every two months for work. The flight costs less than a monthly train season ticket between Bristol and London.

His move is an extreme, and carbon intensive, example of what happens when people are priced out of the UK’s rent hotspots, and comes as the average UK private rent increased by a record 9.2% in the last year (11.2% in London), according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics, released on Wednesday.
Interactive

It is the highest annual increase since 2015, when the data series began and equivalent to an “eye-watering” £2,500 rise in the average annual rent bill in London, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

“I have so much love for London but I am so angry with it,” said Leek, who pastes up handwritten A4 notices with encouraging messages such as “wrong decisions still move you forward” and “I wish you would keep some of your kindness for yourself.”

“I think a lot of people feel that way. The more the housing crisis completely hamstrings us, the more people are going to live in Glasgow, Manchester or far-flung corners of the world.”

In recent years, the soaring cost of renting has driven more and more people out of the capital. New analysis for the Guardian by Hamptons, shows that in the first three months of 2024, 36% of London renters who decided to move house left the capital, up from 27% in 2012. The number quitting the city in the last year dropped slightly towards pre-pandemic levels.

Leek, a former art director at an advertising agency, earns money by selling versions of his Notes to Strangers works, taking special commissions for brands and public speaking. He paid £1,000 a month for a flatshare in Brixton, but had to sofa surf and sleep on floors after the landlord evicted him and he could not afford London’s rising rents, which are up 30% since 2015, the latest ONS figures showed.Interactive

In Argentina, he is making a documentary about an emerging rock group, which focuses in part on the even deeper cost of living crisis there, where extreme inflation means prices rose more than 50% in just the first three months of this year.

He said he “feels kinship” with the band, Los Titeres – which translates as the Puppets – whose progress is being hindered by having to work day jobs and who cannot afford to make high-quality recordings.

“This is an impossible situation when groceries double in price,” he said. “How are you meant to live? It’s a heightened version [of what is happening in the UK]. I went shopping with the lead singer and she was doing the maths [on the prices] in her head. You walk around the supermarket and you feel pain.”

Since moving to Argentina Leek has paid as little as £400 a month rent for an apartment and flown back to London four times saying: “It works out far cheaper than staying in London, dealing with the hassle and not getting by.”

His relocation 7,000 miles away is far more extreme than most people who are deciding to leave Britain’s most expensive rent hotspots in London. Private renters leaving the capital are now most likely to move to Epping in Essex, Broxbourne in Hertfordshire and Tonbridge and Malling in Kent, according to Hamptons’ research among its wider network of Countryside agencies. Other popular destinations for ex-London renters are Watford, Luton and Slough.