Share Sounds related to Politics

Our public services are in dire need of investment. And it is time to ask what we want our public services to actually do for us. That’s the view of group of economists and campaigners who are pushing for something called ​‘Universal Basic Services’ – a radical expansion of high-quality public services for all to areas like transport, childcare and social care. More than 70 years after the creation of the welfare state and the NHS, is it time to reimagine the public services we should all expect? Ayeisha Thomas-Smith is joined by NEF Principle Fellow Anna Coote and openDemocracy Economics Editor Laurie Macfarlane.

This is Money with Georgie Frost, editor Simon Lambert and investing and pensions editor Tanya Jeffries. And as 2019 draws to a close, the team go over the big stories of the past year when a star fell, we all got richer, we all went a little greener, and Brexit didn’t happen – again… And don’t forget you can stay up to date with all the latest, breaking money news, just go to thisismoney.co.uk or download the app.

In this episode of Policy Matters, hosts Franz Buscha and Matt Dickson look back at some of their favourite episodes from 2019, highlighting the things they found most interesting – and in some cases depressing! – about the research findings shared by a selection of different guests.

‘Low-skilled’ or ​‘high-skilled’. An ​‘economic net contributor’, or ​‘a drain on public services’. For decades, immigrants have been treated as scapegoats for everything from failing public services to violent crime. And much too often, as less than human But how did we get here? How did the public conversation about immigration become so toxic? And is there another way forward – an alternative to the hostile environment? This week, New Economics Foundation is at SOAS with a live audience and Maya Goodfellow, author of ​‘Hostile Environment: How immigrants became scapegoats’.

In this episode of Policy Matters, hosts Franz Buscha and Matt Dickson talk to Gemma Tetlow, Chief Economist at the Institute for Government. Gemma was previously the economics correspondent at the Financial Times and also worked for many years as an academic economist and so has broad experience of economists’ work from a variety of angles. Firstly, Gemma discusses the work of the Institute, and how the demands that Brexit has placed on the government has hindered domestic policymaking. Given her experience as both a researcher and economic journalist, Franz and Matt go on to discuss with Gemma how economics is reported in the media, the difficulty of explaining the complexities of the economy in ‘public-friendly’ ways and what economists can learn in this area from other sciences. The discussion then turns to thinking about how economists interact with policymakers and how this has evolved over time, before Gemma talks about the policies that she would like to see considered in public and policy debate, whoever is developing the domestic policy agenda in the post-Brexit UK.

Will this election really prove to be about Brexit? That issue was predicted to define the vote, but while each party’s Brexit stance will be at the forefront of people’s minds there are many other factors that now seem to be heavily influencing how the 12 December general election is shaping up. One of the biggest is the battle over the economy and our personal finances. There’s a sizeable difference between Labour’s tax and spending plans and those of the Tories. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats propose their own sizeable tax and spending rises but at less than half the Labour increase. So what do all these promises and plans mean for you? On this week’s podcast, Georgie Frost, Simon Lambert and Lee Boyce dig into the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos to find out. What is the chance of any of their plans working? Will the tax rises pull in the money expected – and can the spending be used wisely? And what of the other things Britain needs to achieve? Is more housebuilding compatible with combatting climate change, protecting the environment and looking after the countryside – and what have beavers got to do with it?

Simon Rose is joined by political commentator and author of The Groucho Tendency blog, Mike Indian, to discuss how UK politics has got to where it is today. In this episode, Simon and Mike discuss the history and role of Select Committees.

It’s one of the most important inventions of the 20th century. But unlike the phone, the car, computers and indoor plumbing, the weekend is still stuck in the 1930s. As productivity increased, the promise of shorter working hours always seemed just out of reach. But now, there’s a campaign to make the 4-day week a reality within our lifetimes. Obviously many people would love to work less. But what would it mean for the economy? And what would it take to make it a reality? Ayeisha Thomas-Smith is joined by Alfie Stirling, Head of Economics and Aidan Harper, Researcher at the New Economics Foundation.

More and more of us are renting for longer – not by choice, but by necessity. In cities especially, more people are renting into their thirties, forties and beyond, sometimes raising children in rented flats with no long-term security. Rents are sky high. Saving for a deposit can take a decade or longer. And for many people, property ownership seems unachievable. But what if we could do something about it? Could rent controls be the answer? To help answer this question, Ayeisha Thomas-Smith is joined by Hanna Wheatley, researcher at the New Economics Foundation and co-author of a NEF report on rent controls, and Eva Freeman, private renter and member of the London Renters Union.

Peter Urwin is joined by economist Vicky Pryce to talk about her latest book, discussing gender equality. Vicky argues we cannot rely on the free market to bring about gender equality. In theory we might expect discrimination to be short-lived in competitive markets, as it is an inefficient use of resources; this is clearly not happening, however, and Vicky makes a strong case for more forceful intervention to rectify the market failures that perpetuate gender inequality. An inherent short-termism in the capitalist system, a continuing level of support for motherhood that is insufficient, and various conscious/unconscious forms of bias all contribute to this failure of markets. The proposed solutions are radical, but without significant public intervention we will continue to waste vast amounts of female potential.