Chemicals in flavoured vapes could be very toxic when heated – study



Chemicals in flavoured vapes could be very toxic when heated – study (Jacob King/PA)

By Nina Massey,

 PA Science Correspondent

Today

Chemicals in flavoured vapes could be highly toxic when heated, new research suggests.

The study found that 505 hazardous chemicals, including 127 which are acutely toxic, and 153 health hazards, are formed as a result of vaping.

Researchers used AI to simulate the effects of heating chemicals found in 180 vape flavours.

The scientists suggest their approach may help to reveal the longer-term health risks of vaping in advance of clinical diseases emerging in the general population.

As vaping is a new and unprecedented stress to the human body... it seems prudent to strictly limit the number of chemical entities in e-liquidsStudy authors

Liquid flavouring in e-cigarettes is heated to high temperatures, so that it forms vapour which is then inhaled.

The original source for the flavourings comes from the food industry, where they are safe, but they were not intended to be heated to high temperatures and inhaled, the study suggests.

Study authors Donal O’Shea, and Dan Wu, from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, and Akihiro Kishimoto from 1 IBM Research – Tokyo, Japan, wrote: “The aerosols produced by e-cigarette vaping contain immensely complex uncharacterised mixtures of pyrolysis products, the health implications of which are, as yet, mostly unidentified.

“In advance of health effects of vaping becoming apparent in the general population, AI can be exploited to give guidance to the public, policy makers and health care professionals.

They added: “As vaping is a new and unprecedented stress to the human body, with the ability to generate pyrolysis products more toxic that their parent compounds, it seems prudent to strictly limit the number of chemical entities in e-liquids.”

Jacob George, professor of cardiovascular medicine and therapeutics, University of Dundee – who was not involved in the study, said: “There are close to 40,000 different flavours in the market worldwide today and making sense of their effects will require a combination of techniques including automated mapping algorithms and creation of neural networks such as this.

“While this study cannot give us definitive answers of the risks of flavoured vapes on human health, this study may be a helpful early step to identifying signals that could then lead to further, more in depth research into heat-induced breakdown of chemicals used in flavourings

“This study has combined artificial intelligence with previously known published information to predict that when heating a combination of chemicals in flavoured vapes there might result in a harmful toxicant being produced, and these predictions can then be tested with further studies.

“There is, as yet, very little good-quality evidence of either safety or harm of these flavourings and so I welcome novel strategies as employed by these researchers.”

The findings are published in the Scientific Reports journal.

New Bill would require US to work with Britain, Australia on Japan’s role in Aukus

Aukus was formed in 2021 to counteract China's growing power. 

PHOTO: REUTERS

MAY 08, 2024

WASHINGTON – A bipartisan group of senior US senators introduced legislation on May 8 to require officials involved in the Aukus defence project with Britain and Australia to engage with them and Japan on how Japan could be included in the project.

A Bill, introduced by Republicans Mitt Romney, Bill Hagerty and Jim Risch, and Democrat Tim Kaine, would require the US to coordinate a path forward for Japan’s cooperation on advanced technology projects under the so-called pillar two of Aukus.

Aukus was formed in 2021 to counteract China’s growing power.

Its first pillar involves cooperation between the three partners to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, but they have raised the possibility of other countries joining a second pillar to develop other high-tech weaponry.

The partners announced in April that they were considering working with Japan on specific pillar two projects and would hold talks in 2024.

In a statement from his office shared with Reuters announcing the Coordinating Aukus Engagement with Japan Act, Mr Romney said the US must link arms with allies to push back against China’s increased “aggression”.

The statement said: “The legislation would require... (Aukus) coordinators at both the US departments of state and defence to engage with the Japanese government, and consult with counterparts in Britain and Australia, to discuss what including Japan in certain advanced technology cooperation activities under the Aukus framework would look like.”

It quoted Mr Kaine as saying Aukus was “critical to keeping the Indo-Pacific free and open” and the Bill would help “outline a path for Japan’s inclusion in Aukus and expand defence industrial cooperation among US allies”.

Mr Risch, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the legislation would require the Biden administration to engage Japan on its interest in joining Aukus, assess what unique technological contributions Tokyo could make, and whether its export-control system was sufficiently aligned to that of the existing partners.

“Importantly, it also ensures the executive branch consult with its counterparts in Britain and Australia before expanding Aukus,” he said.

Aukus already faces hurdles from strict US restrictions on sharing technology and there has been some hesitation about involving Japan, with officials and experts highlighting its cyber and information security vulnerabilities. REUTERS
MORE ON THIS TOPIC

British doctor in Gaza's testimony about the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe 

• FRANCE 24 English

 

‘It’s not human’: What a French doctor saw in Gaza as Israel invaded Rafah

When asked about the conditions of the hospitals he worked in, Dr Lahna is pained by the memories of the sick, wounded and dying.

Dr Zouhair Lahna working at the European Gaza Hospital in Khan Younis 

[Courtesy of Zouhair Lahna]

By Urooba Jamal
Published On 9 May 2024

Dr Zouhair Lahna has worked in conflict zones across the globe – Syria, Libya, Yemen, Uganda and Ethiopia – but he has never seen anything like the Israeli war on Gaza.

In those life-threatening situations, the Moroccan French pelvic surgeon and obstetrician said, there was a route to safety for civilians.

But on Tuesday, Israeli forces seized and closed Gaza’s Rafah border crossing with Egypt – the only escape for Palestinians from the war and the most important entry point for humanitarian aid.

“This is another injustice. … It’s not human,” Lahna said, shaking his head as he spoke to Al Jazeera from Cairo, Egypt, where he has been evacuated from the European Gaza Hospital in Khan Younis.

He laments having to leave his Palestinian colleagues behind.

“I am angry, troubled, upset … because I left some people. They are my friends. I was with them, these doctors, these people. …We eat together, we work together and now I left them in trouble. They have to move their families, look for a tent, look for water, for food,” he said.

Lahna has spent months volunteering in Gaza’s hospitals as part of missions organised by the Palestinian Doctors Association in Europe (PalMed Europe) and US-based Rahma International

.

Dr Lahna, centre, with his colleagues at PalMed Europe and Rahma International in Gaza’s north, near Kamal Adwan Hospital [Courtesy of Zouhair Lahna]

On the morning that displaced Palestinians in eastern Rafah were ordered to evacuate and before Israeli tanks rolled in, Lahna and his foreign colleagues received text messages from the Israeli army.

“The Israeli army, they know everything. They know everyone who is in Gaza and how to reach them. They told us to leave.”

The texts urged the foreign doctors to leave Gaza because the Israeli military would soon begin an operation in eastern Rafah.

A few hours later, Lahna and his counterparts from PalMed Europe and Rahma International were picked up by their organisations and taken to safety in Cairo.

“There were four doctors in the European Hospital, four in the Kuwaiti Hospital and two others,” he said. “We waited while they gave our names to the Egyptian and Israeli authorities, and finally, we got word to leave.”

As they were departing, leaflets from the Israeli military printed with the evacuation order fell from the sky along with missiles from Israeli warplanes.

People were in a panic as they headed north from Rafah towards Khan Younis or west towards the sea, Lahna recalled.
Collapse of a system

When asked about the conditions of the hospitals he worked in, Lahna has trouble describing what he saw.

He begins to speak, then pauses, apologising, pained by the number of sick, wounded and dying individuals who were brought in daily.

“It’s difficult for me to remember this,” he said slowly.

While the European Hospital has been spared from an Israeli raid, it has been receiving referrals from other overwhelmed hospitals.

It has also been a place of shelter for displaced people who try to find space wherever they can, including at the doors of patient rooms, in the building’s corridors, on the stairs and in the hospital’s garden

.

Lahna’s visit to al-Shifa Hospital, which he says was ‘barbarically destroyed’ 

[Courtesy of Zouhair Lahna]

Before the European Hospital, Lahna and his team volunteered at Kamal Adwan Hospital in Gaza’s northern city of Beit Lahiya. He is among the few foreign doctors to have travelled to the area.

They worked there for a week, the longest Israeli authorities permitted them to be there, he said.

There, the situation was even more dire, the doctor said, exacerbated by what the World Food Programme says is a “full-blown famine” in northern Gaza.
Advertisement


In December, the hospital was the site of an Israeli raid when the military besieged and shelled it for several days. Displaced families had also been sheltering there and were rounded up alongside medical staff and personnel.

Gaza’s hospitals, the majority of which are no longer functioning, have also been the site of mass graves discovered after Israeli raids. Graves have been found in recent weeks in Nasser and al-Shifa hospitals along with 392 bodies.
Working for peace, not war

With the collapse of the healthcare system in Gaza, Lahna is determined to return and volunteer there once again but isn’t sure when that will be possible.

For now, he said, he will return to France to check in at his “other job” and spend time with his family, who may have had a harder time than he did because all they did was worry about him while he was in Gaza.

He is sure all of Rafah will soon be occupied by Israeli forces, which will be deadly for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians there, he said.

“This world is blind,” Lahna said, dismayed that the Rafah incursion is likely to continue to occur despite warnings from the international community, which has not been able to stop Israel from committing mass atrocities, he said.

“Human rights is a joke. The United Nations is a big joke,” Lahna added.

He believes the war is as much a United States conflict as it is Israeli with the US approving an additional $17bn in aid to its top Middle East ally last month.

For Lahna, the protesting university students around the world, particularly in the US, who oppose Israel’s ongoing assault know the value of human rights.

Yet when it comes to Palestinians, he said, they are coming to realise that these values do not apply – and are increasingly becoming disillusioned with their elected officials and the state of the world.

That disillusionment is wearing on the doctor himself, but he said it has also strengthened his resolve to offer his expertise to people in warzones around the world, including Gaza.

Asked if he is worried about being arrested. tortured or killed for his work in the enclave, the surgeon barely bats an eye.

He said his time to die will come one day or another and if it happens while helping the vulnerable in Gaza, then that will be the time meant for him to depart.

“I am not more precious than Palestinian people,” Lahna said. “I am a humanitarian doctor. I work. I help people. [We] doctors come in for peace. We don’t come in for war.”

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA

KEEP READING
Give or take a few bombs, US complicity in genocide remains ‘ironclad’

Dreams deferred in Gaza as Israel invades Rafah

Gaza’s seventh mass grave discovered at al-Shifa Hospital

Why is the US blocking some bomb shipments to Israel? All you need to know

 UK

Monty Panesar quits George Galloway's Workers Party - one week after England cricketer is unveiled as candidate

8 May 2024

Monty Panesar quits George Galloway's Workers Party - one week after England cricketer is unveiled as candidate. Picture: Alamy

By Christian Oliver

Monty Panesar has quit George Galloway's Workers Party just a week after announcing he was standing as a candidate for MP at the next general election

Mr Galloway just last Tuesday revealed to LBC's Nick Ferrari that the two-time Ashes winner would stand for his party in Southall.

Mr Panesar then appeared alongside the Workers Party of Britain leader later that day in front of the Houses of Parliament as he unveiled 200 candidates.

But the former left-arm spinner said he no longer intends to stand in Labour-held Ealing Southall as he needed "more time to listen".

Monty Panesar stands with George Galloway on Parliament Square where he announced the selection Workers Party candidates, April 30. Picture: Alamy

Read More: Tory MP Natalie Elphicke defects to Labour and slams 'broken promises' of Sunak's 'tired government'

Read More: Labour's new West Midlands mayor tells LBC he would ‘absolutely’ support an arms embargo on Israel

Writing in a post on X, Mr Panesar said: "So today I am withdrawing as a General Election candidate for The Workers Party.

"I realise I need more time to listen, learn and find my political home, one that aligns with my personal and political values.

"I wish The Workers Party all the best but look forward to taking some time to mature and find my political feet so I am well prepared to deliver my very best when I next run up to the political wicket."

It follows a somewhat calamitous interview with Times Radio in which he appeared to become confused about the Workers Party's policy pledge to leave the Nato military alliance.

The former Essex spinner suggested Nato's role was related to immigration policy and that British membership was making it harder to control its border.

"I think the reason our party is saying it is because we don't really have control on our borders," he said.

"We have illegal migration and then what ends up happening is some of these illegal migrants go into the poorer, deprived areas, and then the resources get strained. And it affects, you know, the ordinary people, our working people in this country.

"I think that's one of the reasons, you know, our party wants to maybe, you know, have a debate about is it really necessary to be in Nato or not."

He was then asked if he understood what Nato is, responding: "I don't have a deep understanding of Nato."

George Galloway: Monty Panesar to stand as a Southall candidate for the Workers Party of Britain

Mr Galloway said he has 500 candidates already lined up to fight a general election - which is expected later this year and must be held in January at the latest.

Mr Galloway's party is seeking to put pressure on Labour in the same way Nigel Farage was able to target the Conservatives.

It comes as Mr Galloway hung up on LBC's Lewis Goodall after being asked about remarks in which he said he did not think gay relationships were "normal".

The Rochdale MP was asked about the remarks he made in the interview with Novara Media where he said: "I don't want my children prematurely sexualised at all, I don't want them taught that some things are normal when their parents don't believe that they're normal."

Mr Galloway responded: "This is a clip of a clip. It is an edited clip of an edited clip."

He also claimed that the radio station was "ambushing" him claiming that a wider point he had made about gender identity had been lost.

"I have got a simple answer. Listen to the whole thing tonight."

Mr Galloway then threatened to hang up the phone, telling LBC: "More fool me thinking that your request that I come on and talk about the elections was genuine."

UK
Skilled labour shortage is stunting our green revolution

(Alamy)

Alexander Stafford MP
@Alex_Stafford

The story of the United Kingdom’s enthusiasm for green energy technologies is now a familiar one.

Wind, hydrogen, solar and hydro have been wholeheartedly taken up by Britons as we transition towards a low-carbon future and reap the benefits of home-grown energy. Of these clean, green machines, it is solar that has captured the hearts and minds of many of us.

Photovoltaic panels turn rooftops into generators and allow us to bring down energy bills, save the planet, and even make money by selling excess energy back into the grid. This has proved overwhelmingly popular with many homeowners and businesses, with nearly a million homes now bedecked in solar panels.

In fact, unlike wind turbines whose effect on our landscape is contentious, rooftop solar panels have become cool: nearly 70 per cent of prospective homeowners say that solar panels are a value-add to a property and concerns about the impact that solar farms can have on our landscapes mean rooftop solar is the most popular and accessible form of green energy. What’s more, for businesses who often use the most power in the daytime, solar panels offer an easy cut to running costs; and the government has laid out a raft of grants and support to make solar panels more accessible than ever.

It is now more expensive than ever to install solar panels

However, the outlook for solar panels is not as sunny as it might seem. While the demand for residential solar has soared, perhaps thanks to lockdown renovations and energy price shocks, the cost of solar installations does not seem to have followed the downward trend we have come to expect from these ever-developing green technologies.

China, which dominates the photovoltaic market, producing about 80 per cent of all solar panels, continues to cut the price of panels while boosting their efficiency; and the current price per kilowatt of photovoltaic panels is at an all-time low. The problem comes when the panels are installed. Government data shows that it is now more expensive than ever to install solar panels as we lack the skilled labour for this sort of work.

This is a bigger problem than it first might appear: the government has set an ambitious target of 70 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity by 2035 – more than four times our current abilities. We need to be installing more solar, more often, in more places.

As long as we continue to lack the expertise and skilled labour needed to install solar panels, prices will remain high. Businesses and homeowners must be encouraged to take the leap into rooftop solar, finally making use of this underutilised real-estate.

A drive for rooftop solar will also be a driver for the labour we need to install these panels, perhaps encouraging those who might otherwise face a declining market in fossil fuels to make the switch, and reskill for our net-zero future.

If all new homes, factories and commercial premises were required to have solar capacity from the start, this would not only map a clear path to 2035 but also go a long way to build the baseline of skilled labour we will need to reach our low-carbon future.

The government’s support for solar and other green electricity generation cannot falter now, or we risk losing even the ability to achieve our targets: more solar panels installed means more labour to do that installing, bringing the costs down further for future projects, in a virtuous cycle.

The best way to do this is to ensure that all new buildings come with solar, and secure that easy double-win for our labour market and our carbon emissions.

Barclays bank ploughs more investments into Israel

A new report from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Campaign Against Arms Trade and War on Want has exposed its complicity in genocide

Boycotting Barclays bank in Hitchin (Twitter/ @PSCupdates)

By Charlie Kimber
Wednesday 08 May 2024

SOCIALIST WORKER  Issue 2904

Tens of thousands killed and the destruction of Gaza have not persuaded Barclays bank to reduce its financial ties with apartheid Israel—instead it has increased its support.

A new report from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), Campaign Against Arms Trade and War on Want says the bank has extended its support for those who carry out slaughter.

It says Barclays “now invests over £2 billion in, and provides loans and underwriting worth £6.1 billion, to nine companies whose weapons, components and military technology are used in Israel’s attacks on Palestinians”.

PCS director Ben Jamal said, “Barclays is bankrolling Israel’s assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. It is shamefully profiting from and complicit in a genocide.

“We will not stand by and allow this grotesque, immoral business to go on as usual. We call on everyone to join our campaign—to close their accounts with Barclays, pledge never to bank there until they end their complicity, and picket branches across Britain.”

Barclays now invests over £100 million in General Dynamics, which provides gun systems for the fighter jets used by Israel to bomb the Gaza Strip.

It also invests £2.7 million in Elbit Systems, more than doubling its holding since PSC’s previous research.

Elbit Systems supplies the Israeli military with armoured drones, munitions and artillery weapons used in its attacks on Palestinians.

PSC says, “By providing investment and financial services to these arms companies, Barclays is facilitating Israel’s militarised attacks on Palestinians across their homeland, including Israel’s genocidal assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

“It is also lending legitimacy to those providing equipment for this purpose. Moreover, the provision of loans and other forms of credit enables these arms companies to grow, acquire new companies, gain more market share and increase their profits.

“Banks such as Barclays may buy shares using their own money, or on behalf of their clients. Either way, Barclays is profiting from the production of weaponry which is then used in Israel’s militarised repression of Palestinians”

This support for Israel underlines the hypocrisy of the bank’s “mission statements” and similar froth.

In its statement on human rights, Barclays states it is “committed to respecting human rights” and is “guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.”

In its defence sector statement, Barclays says it will assess the “risks of the exports being used to support intrastate oppression or unjustified external aggression.”

But all of this has been bulldozed aside in search of a quick profit and services to Western imperialism. PSC has led a campaign against Barclays as part of the boycott, divestment and sanctions agitation since the assault on Gaza.

In many parts of Britain, campaigners have protested outside Barclays branches and shut them down temporarily through occupations or pickets.

PSC says that “in an historical echo of the boycott which forced it to withdraw from apartheid South Africa in 1986 more than 2, 500 people have closed their accounts on two separate days of collective, public action”. It adds that thousands more have pledged never to bank with Barclays.

On Thursday this week, the day of Barclays’ Annual General Meeting in Glasgow, a further 500 have pledged to close their accounts. We need more action against the enablers of mass murder.

For the full report go to tinyurl.com/PSCbank0524

LONDON MAYOR

Sadiq Khan’s third term victory is a defeat for racism and smear tactics


While Susan Hall is gone London must keep taking a stand against divisive hate politics says Richard Sudan

LONDON HAS weathered many storms. Last week however, following the Mayoral elections, the city averted an all-out crisis. Thankfully it now has some breathing space.


Sadiq Khan was elected as London’s Mayor for a historic third term, but once more had to contend with an overt campaign of smear tactics and lies, including racism, similar to the disgraceful campaign waged by Zac Goldsmith just a few years ago.
Dirt

Had a candidate from another background walked in Khan’s shoes, the dirt thrown at him might have been considered more newsworthy, and have created more of a stir. But he’s Muslim. So it didn’t.

We’re living in a time where open right-wing nationalism is rearing its ugly head and the fight for London mayor was always going to be a bitter battleground – but not because of Khan –he fought a dignified campaign while facing an avalanche of hate.

Right-wingers sharing messages for example, including ‘London has fallen’ in the wake of his win, sit alongside other headlines like that of the Daily Mail, deliberately presenting and framing the democratic election of British Muslims to council positions in the recent local elections, as some kind of clash of civilisations.

The alarm bells used to ring when Black people were elected too, and sometimes this remains the case.

The reality is, there are just under four million Muslims in the UK, 10% of whom are Black, making up about 6.5% of a total population of around 70 plus million.
Culture war

By no means does this constitute a take-over. London has a big population of British Muslims too. The only thing that wants to take over is a culture war.

Despite the facts, however, Islamophobia and the tropes that come with it are so normalised, that casual anti-Muslim racism don’t cause a stir.

Thankfully London had the good sense to reject this actual division. What alarms me however is that Susan Hall even managed to gain a single vote. She might be gone, but her support base should serve as a warning.

Racism and lies clouded the London Mayoral election race, in what should have been a battle of ideas in a healthy democracy.
Part of a tweet on X by actor and Reclaim Party founder Laurence Fox that has been widely criticised on social media (Pic: X/@LozzaFox)

But the same political figures who claim to want to live in a democracy dampen its potential with an even stronger commitment to racism, Islamophobia and anti-Blackness than anything else.

None of this means that Khan should be beyond criticism, after all, that is the job of any elected official, in this case in charge of a city inhabited by millions.

For example, following The Voice’s recent coverage of the election cycle last week, one response online argued that Khan had been weak on the Metropolitan Police, while also acknowledging his strengths in other areas.

Should we push Khan on his pledge to keep holding the Metropolitan Police to account, while demanding more from him? Absolutely we should. The stakes are too high not to, but we also need to recognise the limits of his power.
Legislation

Legislation from the government is needed to tighten up the Met, with a commissioner who gets it. This isn’t on the horizon in Westminster or Scotland Yard.

We also need to be crystal clear, and under no illusions, that under Susan Hall the opposite would have happened.


We’re living in a time where open right-wing nationalism is rearing its ugly head and the fight for London mayor was always going to be a bitter battleground – but not because of Khan –he fought a dignified campaign while facing an avalanche of hate.Richard Sudan

She’s a politician that pins violent crime on Black people, racialising it for political expediency. She doesn’t quite have the guts to say it out loud and directly but you can be sure of her views.

I’m sure she views the fact and reality of institutional racism within the Met as some sort of woke vendetta, but in any case she certainly does not think there is any institutional racism within the Met.
Incumbent Labour Mayor, Sadiq Khan, received 1,088,000 votes, a majority of 275,000 over Conservative candidate, Susan Hall. (Pic: Getty Images)

Can you imagine Hall in charge? Far from holding the Met to account, I believe she would have attempted to weaponise it against our communities.

Some of the other tropes being peddled online, pointed at crime in the city, pinning it on Khan as some kind of “gotcha” as if he has the powers of prime minister.

They may as well have blamed the bad weather on him too.

The analysis and data around crime are clear. The links to poverty and other factors are unarguable. We’ve had 14 years of austerity by Tory rule, fuelling the worst cost of living crisis and inequality levels in a generation, disproportionately impacting black and non-white communities.

Tories like Susan Hall, Sadiq Khan’s main opponent in the race, sought to blame poverty on Khan rather than the actions of her own government.
Hypocrisy

The shameless opportunistic hypocrisy of Hall needs a book written about it to fully cover the length and breadth of the gutter politics she represents.

Susan Hall would have slashed funding for Black organisations, scrapped school lunches and cancelled carnival.

I’m just about old enough to remember people talking about “Thatcher the milk snatcher” as a very small boy.
Re-elected Mayor of London, Labour’s Sadiq Khan speaks during the declaration for London’s Mayor, at City Hall in London on Saturday May 4 (Pic: Getty)

Susan Hall’s statements hinted that she’d have axed free school meals for kids. This is a particular kind of cruelty reminding us, that if hungry children can be discarded, then that kind of ruthless politics can be extended to any of us.

Something else I believe many failed to do in this election was separate Sadiq Khan from Keir Starmer’s Labour.

Starmer is in the unique position of likely being about to win a landslide while being one of the most unpopular leaders in opposition in recent times.

Part of this is because of his stance on the black community, Gaza, and back peddling on many of the things people liked about Labour’s manifesto under Corbyn.

Some reading this will rightly be angered about Labour’s stance on Palestine. Khan called for a ceasefire from day one, and was attacked for it, whereas Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who also took the same position, was not. You can guess why.

Sadiq Khan is not part of the party machine under Starmer which has turned many people away from Labour.

In fact, although the Tory government has made things as hard as possible for City Hall, I am not confident things will be much better under Starmer. I’m concerned.

Sadiq Khan will have a tough job on his hands over the next few years but thankfully we have a mayor who I think cares about the city and wants to make things better for all communities.
Humility

Susan Hall has been sent packing but her politics has not. During Khan’s victory speech Hall had the opportunity to show some humility and grace but seemed incapable of doing so.

London won’t fall under Sadiq Khan as the racists have been tweeted. But I think cracks might have appeared at the foundation with Susan Hall in charge.

She’s gone. She probably won’t be running for mayor again, but the ideas she represents need to be battled on every front in London at every turn, and indeed, right across the

Five places where rent controls have been introduced

Housing unions and the Greens have called for rent controls to tackle the ever growing affordability crisis for private renters

The Green Party has previously proposed bringing in rent control policies to address the UK’s affordability crisis in the private renter market, a move widely backed by housing unions.

Introducing rent regulations are not that radical, with countries across the world having brought in controls in an attempt to protect tenants hit by soaring rents and the cost-of-living crisis.

Caroline Lucas recently tabled a motion that called on the government to set up a Living Rent Commission, tasked with consultation on and designing a national rent control system. A few Labour MPs signed the motion, despite Labour’s leadership being accused of making a U-turn last year on their pledge to bring in rent controls.

Currently, the status quo of rents rising beyond what people can afford is unsustainable, so what have other places done to address the issue?

Germany

German authorities brought in a nationwide Rent Control law, Mietpreisbremse, in 2015 which meant landlords couldn’t extend rents by more than 10% above the rent index for that neighbourhood, which is set by the local government. If a landlord chooses to charge more than the permitted rent the tenant is eligible for a rent reduction.

It applies to high-demand urban areas such as Berlin, Munich and Frankfurt to address soaring rents and was recently extended through to 2029.
France

Since 2019, in Paris and other big cities the rent control rule was toughened with a maximum rent ceiling. Rent in these areas can only be increased in line with inflationary increase in the rental index, with 28 regions of France now included in the rent control areas.

During the cost of living crisis the government went further to fight the rising costs for households by capping property rent rises at 3.5 percent for a year in 2022.

New York City

In New York, there are rent controlled apartments that operate under the ‘Maximum Base Rent (MBR) system which determines a maximum rent for each individual apartment, adjusted every two years.

There are both rent controlled flats and apartments under rent stabilization, with the later where a legal limit is imposed on how much a tenant can be charged in rent. This can only be increased by a percentage that is decided each year by the Rent Guidelines Board. Last year, this was by 3% for a one-year lease.

Canada

Renting policies vary across Canada with a number of provinces having rent controls in place. In British Columbia, rent can only be increased according to the limits set in the Residential Tenancies Act, which calculated a maximum increase of 1.5% in 2022 and 2% in 2023.

Furthermore, under the rules tenants must be given three full months notice of rent increases and landlords can only increase rent every 12 months. In Manitoba territory where a similar rent control policy is in place, there was also a rent freeze in 2022 and 2023 when landlords were forbidden to raise rents.

Scotland

Emergency legislation to temporarily cap rent in Scotland was introduced in September 2022. This imposed a 3% cap on all-tenancy rent increases in the private sector as well as protections against eviction. It was introduced by the SNP and Scottish Greens coalition in response to the cost of living crisis, however this ended on 31 March.

Under the legislation, private landlords could only increase rents for existing tenancies by 3%, or up to 6% if approved by a Rent Officer. Now the government has introduced a new process for tenants to challenge a rent increase if it’s thought to be too high although there are fears tenants will now be hit by large rent increases.

However the Scottish government is set to introduce the Housing (Scotland) Bill which would include a more long-term plan for rent controls.

(Image Credit: Sludge G / Flickr)

Hannah Davenport is news reporter at Left Foot Forward

AT THE HELM

Labour's embrace of active industrial strategy can count on widespread support, including from businesses. But the details may need further thought - and labour interests must be included, argue Ciaran Driver and Peter Kenway

BY Ciaran Driver Peter Kenway
DATE 8 May 2024
THE FABIAN SOCIETY 

There has been growing acceptance of state-directed industrial strategy since the end of the ‘great moderation’ in 2008. This is partly driven by dissatisfaction with market solutions, which have not delivered in terms of productivity gains since then, nor created secure livelihoods. What is noteworthy now is that business, too, has bought into the idea. Labour’s prospective industrial strategy is not being imposed on businesses, but welcomed by them.

This is certainly understandable. With economic forecasts increasingly uncertain and prone to error it is more difficult to plan. There is less confidence in the existence of a unique path for the economy; the concept of multiple possible outcomes has gained credence even among orthodox economic opinion so that state-facilitated coordination of business plans is now more accepted. The Financial Times can observe that: “private capital allocates itself efficiently in markets that are well-defined. It cannot bear the heavy lifting required of it when the task ahead is so vague.”

For the Labour party, industrial strategy has come to form part of what is known as “securonomics,” a project for growth with security. Rachel Reeves has linked this term with the writing of one of the main industrial strategy theorists, Dani Rodrik, whose view is that there is now broad political support for a reorientation towards good jobs and localism and away from finance, consumerism and globalism.

Business acceptance of a role for industrial strategy offers space for Labour to develop a distinctive approach. One danger here is that ‘industrial strategy’ becomes like ‘levelling up’: badly needed but badly defined, over-ambitious and under-resourced. To its credit, the Labour papers that initiated discussion on industrial strategy recognized the need for a structural approach that delineated different ‘pillars’ to “…offer a clear signal to businesses in each pillar about the type of partnership they can expect from a Labour government.”

The four pillars identified in that document are: critical infrastructure and industrial competences; global export-oriented champions; future success – mainly small and new business; and the everyday economy. These sets overlap to some extent, but we can understand that the intent is to identify a range of separate visions to be adopted for different sectors depending on the relationships that they imply between government and business partners.

For certain easily recognisable industries, there are bargaining relationships between firms and government mediated by regulation and power. These relationships may involve direct deals with individual businesses in messy processes that cannot easily be summarised or categorised. In some cases – such as industries needing vast investment, advanced technologies only sourced abroad, or declining industries such as steel – the government may be on the back foot. In other areas where there is a large domestic market or where the UK provides critical inputs or support, the reverse may be the case.

These aspects of industrial strategy are familiar, and will benefit from a surge in research and expertise. They are not, however, at the heart of what is potentially innovative in the party’s approach. The truly novel aspects are embedded in the remaining pillars, “future success” and the “everyday economy”, which we, following Labour, will refer to respectively as pillars 3 and 4.

At first sight these two pillars seem distinct: pillar 3 is referred to as high productivity, supporting well-paid jobs. Pillar 4 refers to non-market services, retail, hospitality and leisure. They appear to occupy two different thought spaces in terms of function and labour process. It is notable also that these differences have given rise to intense debate in academic and policy circles as to which should be prioritised. The first corresponds to the idea of a technological fix, as in writings predominantly concerned with education, research, cities and productivity, a selection of which appear on the LSE growth commission website or NIESR’s Productivity Commission website. The second pillar corresponds to what Ewart Keep, writing for the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has described as the notion of basic, people-centred needs and inequalities arising from poor social provision.

We wish to frame the debate differently – not as an either/or choice between technology and needs but as a marriage between the two that must be carefully arranged. To be clear, we are not here to address the full gamut of industrial strategy, some of which belongs to the first two pillars and some of which is inherently high-tech. The issue at hand is the potential for integrating the agenda of the last two pillars in a way that does not disconnect the productivity agenda from that of needs. We believe that if this is not done, the “everyday economy” will become an add-on whose function will largely be to compensate for potential inequalities of the growth agenda; and like all good intentions it may not even achieve that. It is important therefore to closely examine pillars 3 and 4 and to discuss and discover a basis for at least some interaction.Pillar 3: the focus is on the future, providing foresight and coordination to help foster industries that are needed to meet a demand which as of today remains latent. Although such situations represent opportunities for private companies, they may not choose to grasp them, whether out of fear that the gains from doing so are appropriated by others (for example, new suppliers, workers, and/or customers), or in the belief that the hoped-for demand will not in the end appear. Turning a latent demand for something deemed socially desirable into an effective demand, thereby drawing an industry in a particular direction, is a key role for industrial strategy. There is no reason, however, to suppose that does not at times apply too to the everyday economy, which while labour intensive, needs to become somewhat less so.
Pillar 4: The everyday economy is more complex than is suggested when it described as “the parts of our economy that make our lives worth living, providing the leisure activities and experiences we enjoy, the backbone of local places and high streets, and catering for our family’s needs.” This somewhat rose-tinted picture does not convey the reality that the everyday economy comprises a spectrum of high-tech and labour intensive services. People spend more on telecommunications than on sports, amusement and recreation facilities for example. Non-marketed services include the research-intensive acute care parts of the NHS. There is a role for industrial strategy in connecting with the innovative planning framework for pillar 3.
Skills provision that is rightly seen as important for pillar 4 will not, on its own, resolve the productivity issue. Skills need to be organised so that they fit the future needs of workers as they adapt to new technological trajectories. The likelihood of that happening is small unless there is buy-in from the workforce so that they can themselves have some say in the type of technologies and the type of training that is required. It is hard to see this happening except through the design of some small-scale advance towards stakeholder involvement, such as an experimental system of works councils dedicated to the sole task of bargaining with management over training provision. As a first step, pillar 4 is the place to begin this process.

The ideas discussed here fit, we believe, with Labour’s thinking about industrial strategy. But they go beyond what is currently articulated in terms of the partnerships that are envisaged. We argued at the outset that business is now on board with the industrial strategy agenda. But at least for pillars 3 and 4, it is no less important to bring labour interests into the picture too. A true partnership for industrial strategy will need to be (at least) tri-partite.

CIARAN DRIVER
Ciaran Driver is professor of economics at the School of Finance and Management, SOAS. He writes on capital investment, corporate governance, and political economy. Books include Driver and Thompson (eds): Corporate Governance in Contention (OUP 2018). He wrote the opinion piece: Why Starmer can’t be Blair in the Fabian Review, Winter 2022. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences.


PETER KENWAY

PeterKenway is cofounder and former director of the New Policy Institute. He recently coauthored an English language report with Jürgen Klute for the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation on Structural Change and Industrial Politics in the Ruhr Region.

OPINION

Port Talbot Steelworks: Is it time for public ownership?

08 May 2024

Blast Furnace located at the Port Talbot steelworks

Meirion Thomas

The fate of the Port Talbot steelworks hangs in the balance.

Once regarded as a cornerstone and a beacon of the UK’s industrial prowess, Tata Steel’s ownership now raises serious concerns about the future of the workforce, the environment, and the UK economy.

The recent developments paint a grim picture of muddled thinking: is it really feasible that a UK government investment of £500 million could spell the loss of two-thirds of the workforce, relinquishment of the UK’s sovereign capability in steel production, and a mere transfer of carbon emissions overseas rather than the promised overall reduction.

Tata’s plan, initially lauded as a step towards sustainability with the promise of an electric arc furnace, has unravelled to reveal its true intentions. It’s less about environmental stewardship and more about profit margins.

The proposed timeline speaks volumes—while blast furnaces face imminent closure, the replacement electric arc furnace won’t be operational until the end of the decade. In the interim, Tata plans to fill the gap in steel production by importing steel, which effectively outsources, rather than reduces CO2 emissions while sacrificing local jobs and the UK’s industrial autonomy.

The proposed electric arc furnace falls short in several critical aspects. It lacks the capacity to produce primary steel, relies heavily on imported pig iron allow the production of quality steel, and cannot meet the diverse needs of the UK’s steel consumers. Consequently, the UK stands to lose its sovereign capability, with far-reaching strategic and economic ramifications.

Port Talbot steelworks

The Syndex plan—an alternative vision endorsed by trade unions—proposed a more sustainable transition. It advocates for a gradual shift, maintaining blast furnace operations until 2032, alongside investments in electric arc furnaces and Direct Reduction Iron (DRI) plants. This approach not only safeguards jobs and sovereign capability but also paves the way for emissions reduction, akin to successful models already practiced in Tata’s Ijmuiden plant in the Netherlands.

Despite the merits of the Syndex plan, Tata remains obstinate, rejecting it on grounds of cost and feasibility. Efforts by political figures to negotiate a revised strategy have hit a deadlock, with Tata unwilling to postpone decisions until after the UK general election. Faced with this impasse, Port Talbot’s trade unions are considering taking industrial action—a last resort in a battle for the livelihoods of thousands and to protect the UK steel industry.

In light of these developments, public ownership emerges as a compelling solution. Surely, it’s untenable for the UK Exchequer to pour £500 million into an investment that jeopardises thousands of jobs and increases import dependency. Public ownership would not only buy time to explore alternative strategies but also has recent past precedents, as seen in the case of Scunthorpe’s steelworks.

Under public ownership, the government can protect strategic assets, prevent job losses, and steer the plant and the UK industry towards a more sustainable, green future. While there will be costs involved, they pale in comparison to the long-term benefits of preserving industrial autonomy and mitigating economic fallout. Furthermore, a change in government could unlock additional funds, bolstering the steel industry’s resilience.

The saga of Port Talbot steelworks is a microcosm of broader challenges facing the UK’s industrial landscape. As the stakes escalate, the call for public intervention will surely grow louder — a clarion call to safeguard our industries, our communities, and our future.

Meirion Thomas is Wales Director, Industrial Communities Alliance

The Industrial Communities Alliance is the all-party association of local authorities in the industrial areas of England, Scotland and Wales. The Alliance was formed in 2007 by the merger of the longer-standing associations covering coal and steel areas, expanding to include other parts of industrial Britain. Alliance local authorities cover many of the most disadvantaged local economies and communities in the country.