Throughout 2021, every right-wing “news” media outlet & politician has regularly questioned, attacked, & undermined OUR #NHS.
They argue those with the most wealth should pay more, via private health insurance, than the less wealthy.
Allow me to unpick this argument.
SOME wealth inequality is inevitable.
With caveats around those unable to work - eg carers, through disability, ill-health, age etc - it is only fair that those who work harder, have specialist skills or more responsibility, or are more creative & capable than others, earn more.
This short, accessible 2013 video about wealth inequality - since when things have got even worse - shows how inequality is at its highest point in Britain for 50 years, with the gap between rich & poor at its widest since the second world war.
However, private health insurance is the wrong solution, for two main reasons:
1 It would result in a two-tier health service, with those with the most wealth having quicker access to the best healthcare.
2 The wealthy already often pay more for the #NHS through taxation.
Wealthier people are buying their way out of trouble in significant numbers, meaning they'll be less willing to pay taxes to improve the #NHS.
With public spending under pressure, & key Govt figures having strongly criticised the NHS in the past, OUR NHS is in real danger.
The libertarian-right believe in low taxes, but this would accelerate not only wealth inequality, but also mean less money for a national & equitable health service.
Many other western countries understand that a more equal society is better for the vast majority of citizens.
The principle of a more equal society means far more people have the opportunity to access the best education, a fairer & more functional legal system, better policing, improved local & regional public services etc – rather than just a tiny minority of grotesquely wealthy elites.
For forty years, a tiny minority of already grotesquely wealthy & powerful individuals - supportive of & within successive Governments - have used their power, influence & wealth to push for an even more unequal society, not least in order to preserve their privileged position.
The share of wealth owned by the world's richest people soared during the Covid pandemic, & 2020 saw the steepest increase in billionaires' wealth on record.
Meanwhile, 100 million people sank into extreme poverty.
The richest 10% of the world's population now takes 52% of global income & the poorest half just 8%.
The world's richest 1% have taken more than a third of all additional wealth accumulated since 1995, while the bottom 50% captured just 2%.
"After more than 18 months of #COVID19, the world is even more polarised.
While the wealth of billionaires rose by more than £3TRILLION, 100 million more people joined the ranks of extreme poverty".
Extreme poverty had been previously falling for 25 years.
The poorest half of the global population barely owns any wealth, possessing just 2% of the total.
The richest 10% now own 76% of all wealth.
The world's 52 richest individuals have seen the value of their wealth grow by 9.2% per year for the past 25 years.
A tiny minority of elites use their vast wealth & power to fund a global network of media outlets, think tanks, institutions & political parties, which relentlessly push a neoliberal/libertarian-right agenda in order to protect & enhance their already considerable wealth & power.
They use their power & wealth to: retain access to the best opportunities; to divide voters through divisive culture war rhetoric; to demonise progressives; to accelerate wealth inequality; & to remove worker, consumer, citizen, migrant & environmental regulations & protections.
Unless voters take action now, I fear that Britain will continue to become increasingly unequal & polarised, & its citizens will be subject to an increasingly unaccountable, authoritarian, antidemocratic & dangerously populist nationalist libertarian-right oppressive state.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A coordinated political project is reshaping Britain in the image of Trump’s MAGA movement.
Reform UK—fuelled by wealthy donors, ideologically aligned think tanks, and a network of right-wing media—has ambitions unlike anything in modern UK politics.
The goal is clear: install Farage as PM, backed by policies and rhetoric that mirror America’s populist right.
Recent events, including JD Vance’s high-profile visit, reveal a deliberate and potentially transformational transatlantic political strategy.
Politicians, right-wing news media and far-right extremists opportunistically exploit public concern over asylum seekers in hotels, inciting protests and potential violence.
How did we get here? And why the gulf between public perception and reality?
The government spent nearly a third less on hotels to house asylum seekers between April 2024 and March 2025.
The Home Office's annual accounts show £2.1bn was spent on hotel accommodation - an average of about £5.77m per day, down from £3bn or £8.3m per day, the previous year.
GB "News", which employs 75% of Reform UK MPs, is not a news channel - it's Reform's propaganda wing, co-funded by billionaire Paul Marshall and Dubai-based investment firm Legatum, who see it as an investment opportunity to help protect their wealth and interests.
@Ofcom
In the UK, since 1990, 'due impartiality' and 'due accuracy' have been fundamental components of broadcasting - especially for news and current affairs - and imho are essential for a well-informed citizenry and a fair-minded functional democracy.
GB "News" appears to disagree.
The first broadcasting standards in the UK emerged with the BBC in 1922.
Formal standards took shape with the Royal Charter in 1927, which mandated that the BBC provide information, education, and entertainment while maintaining impartiality and serving the public interest.
Voters need to know how right-wing populist nationalist politicians and radical/far-right nativist extremists construct their divisive discourse and rhetoric to exploit the anti-elite climate and fuel violence and division - and what to do about it.
So what can be done to counter divisive narratives and framing and to help Britain to become a more open, inclusive, fairer, less polarised and better multicultural society?
I make several suggestions in the above article, but make more below,
Countering the extreme right’s narrative of feeling "attacked" and needing to "defend" national identity requires a strategic, multi-faceted approach that challenges their framing while addressing underlying concerns and emotions.
The shameless lie that "Britain is lawless" is categorically false, as it contradicts empirical data on crime trends, rule of law metrics, and the functioning of UK institutions. Reform UK often use fearmongering exaggeration and selective framing to create a sense of crisis.
Official data from the ONS and Home Office indicate that overall crime rates in England and Wales have fluctuated but do not support the notion of a "lawless" state. The ONS reported a 7% decrease in total recorded crime (excluding fraud) from 2023 to 24.
#OnThisDay, 21 July, 1969, the Chicago Daily News published: The ‘love it or leave it’ nonsense, by Sydney J. Harris.
It began: One of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a person can make is “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”
I reproduce it, below.
Harris was born in London in 1917, moving to the US in 1922. A formidable journalist who established a distinct voice integrating incisive social commentary with wit and humour, his weekday column, ‘Strictly Personal’, was syndicated in 200 US newspapers.
The ‘love it or leave it’ nonsense, by Sydney J. Harris.
One of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a person can make is “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”
That attitude is the main reason America was founded, in all its hope and energy and goodness.