1/ Todayโs Spending Review delivers on the priorities of the British people.
This thread covers ๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ป๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ from Departments across Government. #SR20
The new 3-year long ยฃ2.9 billion Restart programme will provide intensive, tailored support to over 1million unemployed people and help them find work #SR20
We'll grow and evolve our sectors particularly those most affected by Covid-19 which include culture, sport, civil society and the creative industries. #SR20
This will allow them to do more to fight against climate change - and connect people with green spaces - by planting trees, restoring peatland, creating habitats, and investing in National Parks. #SR20
Next year, the core @DHSCgovuk budget will grow by ยฃ6.6bn, allowing us to deliver 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more general practice appointments. #SR20
This includes the largest prison building programme in over a century and an over 50% increase in maintenance funding to improve prisons and courts. #SR20
We are decarbonising transport through record investment in electric vehicle charging and maintaining transport services to support the economy as we recover from Covid. #SR20
More from Uk
Yesterday, of course, Jeremy Corbyn launched his Peace and Justice Project, to much excitement on here. Laudable goals too:
Take on Murdoch โ
Green New Deal โ
Support for food banks โ
Speed up vaccine delivery in developing countries โ
That's all excellent.
I'm not sure if anyone can argue with those four aims: they're irrefutable and all massively important. You bet I'd like to see Labour doing likewise; you bet I'm frustrated that it's so quiet on all of it.
HOWEVER...
Contained within the announcement was exactly the same selective blindness which makes the entire thing all too easy to shoot down - and again, means Corbyn is pretty unlikely to persuade anyone who's not already persuaded.
The sort of blindness which makes me tear my hair out.
Peace and Justice - sounds great, doesn't it? So why did the Peace and Justice project proudly announce the support of a corrupt criminal not remotely interested in either of those
Rafael Correa, former President of Ecuador. Let's run through his record, starting with the positives.
Slashed poverty from 36.7% to 22.5% โ
Reduced inequality from 0.55 to 0.47 on the Gini index โ
So far, so good. Except, um...
Take on Murdoch โ
Green New Deal โ
Support for food banks โ
Speed up vaccine delivery in developing countries โ
That's all excellent.
I'm not sure if anyone can argue with those four aims: they're irrefutable and all massively important. You bet I'd like to see Labour doing likewise; you bet I'm frustrated that it's so quiet on all of it.
HOWEVER...
Contained within the announcement was exactly the same selective blindness which makes the entire thing all too easy to shoot down - and again, means Corbyn is pretty unlikely to persuade anyone who's not already persuaded.
The sort of blindness which makes me tear my hair out.
Peace and Justice - sounds great, doesn't it? So why did the Peace and Justice project proudly announce the support of a corrupt criminal not remotely interested in either of those
We\u2019re delighted to have the backing of Rafael Correa, who cut poverty and inequality by record levels as president of Ecuador.
— Peace and Justice Project (@corbyn_project) January 8, 2021
There is no limit to what we can achieve when we bring people together to take on injustice.
Join us https://t.co/w6QOdSqkeC pic.twitter.com/aT8atxSYvy
Rafael Correa, former President of Ecuador. Let's run through his record, starting with the positives.
Slashed poverty from 36.7% to 22.5% โ
Reduced inequality from 0.55 to 0.47 on the Gini index โ
So far, so good. Except, um...
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
