AI, climate crisis & inept leaders make for perfect storm but also offers potential future lead role for UK

The world seems to face a perfect storm, with warnings about AI wiping out humanity in 10 years, whilst climate change probably brings Armageddon that bit closer. AI also ofcourse impacts climate with its energy consuming modus operandi. Making matters worse the world leaders that we rely on to manage the situation and avoid Armageddon are some of the most dangerous and irresponsible seen in modern times. President Donald Trump gives free rein to AI companies, whilst actively opposing moves to address the climate crisis. Vladimir Putin seems wedded to war. Meanwhile, the militant right gains ground across Europe. There may though be a way forward. Properly regulated and controlled AI could improve people's lives and help address the climate crisis. Climate has to be prioritised, with resources shifted to dealing with that struggle, rather than others conjured up by crazy leaders beholden to the military industrial complex. Britain has a chance to lead in charting this new way forward, let's grab the opportunity. published - Labour List - 14/9/2026

Outstanding take on 12 Angry Men

Twelve Angry Men Theatre Royal, Windsor This excellent production of Twelve Angry men, seems as relevant today, as it was, when first staged, in the 1950s. Bitter men, driven to anger and bigotry by their own life experiences. (Women served on juries in the 1950s but could ask to be excused, which many did. It was only in later years that serving became obligatory for women.) The contemporary touch comes with a character like Juror 10, played by Tristan Gemmill, who bears more than a passing resemblance to the disempowered, angry supporters of Reform today. Though, notably even this character does find some redemption in the end. The whole idea of Twelve Angry Men sprang from writer Reginald Rose's experience of serving on a jury. A simple idea transformed into a great drama, made famous initially in the film adaptation, starring Henry Fonda. Recognised as one of Fonda's greatest performances, his role as Juror 8 is played excellently by Gray O'Brien in this production He is the lightening conductor, come defence lawyer in the jury room. Dressed in a virtuoso white suit, there is very little detail of the background of the character. Nemesis, Juror 3 (Bill Ward) makes fun, likening him at one point to renowned US defence lawyer Clarence Darrow. The whole drama takes place in the jury room, the characters circling the table, breaking off for regular visits to the water cooler. The case is the alleged murder of a father by his teenage son. It is testimony to how good the interaction and dialogue between the characters is that it keeps you engaged for the whole two hours 20 minutes. The play remains as evident today as it was 70 years ago. Those who have served on a jury will recognise many of the characters. The ones who have made up their mind from the start (11 at the beginning), then, those willing to listen and change their minds in the face of reason. Finally, those who just want it over as quickly as possible, not really bothered by the result. A nuance that could be added today would be a difference between employed and self employed jury members, the latter, often having a greater tendency to want to get away. The play is a celebration of the jury system, highlighting exactly why it is so important to maintain. It also highlights both the best and worst of human nature, with ofcourse reason and virtue coming out as the winners. In all,there are excellent performances across this production.Bill Ward is particularly outstanding as the raging Juror 3. The piece is well directed by Christopher Hayden, who brings a seamless flow to the production. He also kindles the contemporary feel to a play that is timeless in so many ways. An excellent production, raising many important issues. Well worth seeing. Runs at Theatre Royal Windsor till 12 September, Aberdeen from 15 September.Tours till 24 October.

Intriguing take on death of Marilyn Monroe

Who Killed Marilyn? Emerald Theatre, London Pixie Lott dominates this play about the life and ultimately death of Marilyn Monroe. The play comes at a timely moment, namely, the 100th anniversary of Marilyn's birth. Something, also being marked by an excellent exhibition Marilyn Monroe - a Portrait at the nearby National Portrait Gallery. A lot is packed into the two hour plus play, that runs through the life and loves of this 20th century icon. Heavy on conspiracy theories, this multi-layered depiction also addresses the insecurity of Monroe's life. Her demons, born of a troubled upbringing. Totally in control of her image when modelling, she struggles to get the recognition she feels warranted as an actress. Always the sex symbol, rather than the actress. Confident, yet vulnerable. The sense of conspiracy comes from the involvement with President John F Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy. Indeed, the production could arguably be perceived as a roller coaster of 60s conspiracies. The closeness of relationship between the shady worlds of politics, organised crime, law enforcement and showbiz is well captured. Mafia boss Sam Giancana, seemingly implicated in the demise of Marilyn, with J Edgar Hoover'' s FBI in the background extracting leverage, particularly on the Kennedys. Giancana and the mob were also later rumoured to have played a role in the assassination of JFK. The production is well put together by director Philip Wm McKinley. Everything , though, centres around Lott. The narrative is strong running through Marilyn's life's and loves, from baseball player Joe Di Maggio to playwright Arthur Miller and the Kennedy's. There are the cheesey moments, like when in the throws of passion Monroe asks JFK to repeat the part of his Presidential address: "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.' Maybe, an ironic nod that Kennedy's multiple partners were serving their country. The whole play centres around a static set, made up of the bed, where Marilyn died. Lott is the narrator throughout, shimmering from one scene to the next. One criticism would be that maybe there is too much swapping around of characters, with all but Lott and Ryan Ellsworth (Dr Ralph Greens on) having multiple roles. So Julie Armstrong plays housekeeper Eunice and J Edgar Hoover, while Simon Bass is Arthur Jacobs, Frank Otash, Joe Kennedy and Lawrence Olivier. This can give a certain cramped feel. The lighting applied adds a sinister element. The production is narrow in that it does not stray much beyond Marilyn's sex life, there could have been more depth. Overall this is a production certainly worth seeing. An intriguing conspiracy tale, sown together by writer, Sharleen Cooper Cohen. It certainly raises questions about what really happened to Marilyn. Well directed and executed by a good cast. But it is Pixie Lott who steals the show.

Tackling social care will be a major test of how serious Andy Burnham is about reversing the mistakes of the past 40 years

Andy Burnham's pledge to tackle the social care crisis is most welcome. He has experienced the present systems vagaries at first hand, with his father suffering from Alzheimers. I had a similar experience, with my father getting dementia and mother physical breakdown. Both involving leaning on the care system in later years Tackling the care system also goes to the heart of how the new PM intends to deal with the legacy of the last 40 years Care like the water system and other services handed over / or left to the private sector has become a cash cow for investors. The actual care provided is almost secondary. Private Equity owns much of the private care sector in the UK. Profit is the priority. The care companies pay their staff as little as possible, many on the minimum wage. Zero hours contracts have been rampant in the area for years. I remember talking to the staff that came to help my Mum. If they complained, hours would be cut. When I suggested they join a union, this was regarded as a way to lose their job. The amounts charged for residential care are astronomical, ranging well over £2,000 a week in many cases. If people cannot pay, then the duty passes to the local authority.They have a statutory duty to provide. But they have to deal with the same privately run care homes. Care in the homes is variable, most do an excellent job. There have been the exceptions that hit the headlines. The market model, though, runs through the ethos. Patients are seen as commodities to be bled for more revenue, where possible. This became apparent with my father, who was getting lots of hair cuts. I pointed out he had less hair than ever before, yet was having more hair cuts. No one was denying him the dignity of a hair cut but it was an added extra beyond the basic fee for care. An extra that could be charged for. Migrant workers are key to the care system, without them It would collapse - similar to the NHS. So if the PM wants a functioning care system he needs to have a word with the Home Secretary, who seems determined to make life ever more difficult for migrants, who want to come to work in the UK. So really reforming the care sector will be a test of how serious Burnham is about reversing the market driven policies of the past 40 years. The staff are needed and must be paid properly. They must have security of employment. Care work is demanding requiring many and varied skills. Care needs to be state run, possibly via local councils. Profit for the few cannot continue to be the guiding mantra. It should be a not for profit area. The media appear obsessed with the cost of any proposal put forward - how will it be paid for? That can be done via general taxation. An additional bonus would come from relieving local authorities from having to find the funding for care. This would set them free in many other areas. A new system for social care can be created that will serve the common good of all. What is important though is that the dignity of the human being is put front and centre. That dignity must apply as much to those who work in the area, as the patients they serve. A state owned and run service, encompassing the values of human dignity, not private profit has to be the way forward.

Prison system must be about rehabilitation, not vengeance

Prisons cannot become vengeance factories for victims and the relatives of victims seeking revenge against perpetrators. Whilst the hurt felt can never be underestimated, the victim''s role should end, once the perpetrator has been tried and sentenced by the courts. It is then for the criminal justice system to ensure justice is achieved - that includes managing release and rehabilitation. It has been widely accepted that incarcerating people does not cut crime. In fact, prisons are universities of crime equipping offenders to be better criminals on release. The only way prison can be a positive experience is if proper rehabilitation takes place, giving offenders and the public another chance. Rehabilitation, though, can only work in orderly run prisons, not overcrowded battery style facilities. The latter amount to powder kegs, hence the government's desire to cut numbers in the present overcrowded system. As a former chief inspector of prisons pointed out, all but a handful of prisoners will be released at some point and they could be living next door to you or I. Media incited hysteria may sell papers but it does not solve the problems of the justice system. Out of sight out of mind is not a criminal justice policy. Society needs to face up to the challenges that offenders pose. Punishment, yes, but less incarceration and more rehabilitation should be the way forward. Failure to deal with the present system on the basis of logic, rather than the last headline, will see the powder keg that is the prison system explode, with riots and mayhem - surely no one wants that?

Growth of microbreweries - a local success story

The growth of the brewing industry has been one of the big success stories of recent years. There have been the old traditional brewers like Fullers in West London. The brewery sits next to the Thames at Chiswick, the fantastic aroma of beer filling the air. Beer drinkers will be familiar with Fullers trademark London Pride, a staple of many pubs around these parts. Others like ESB and 1845 also crop up. The Fullers brewery was founded in 1845. Back in the day, beer was a regular part of working people's diets, safer to drink than water. Fullers survived and prospered. They have 360 pubs across the land. Other big brewers like Kent based Shepherds Neame and Adnams in Southwold will also be familiar. There have been many ups and downs in the brewing industry over the past century. The modern brewing industry, though, got a real boost in 2002, when then Chancellor Gordon down brought in Small Brewers Relief. This cut the tax payable by 50% on breweries producing up to 5000 hectolitres (880,000 pints) per annum. There was then a taper of tax payment up to 60,000 hectolitres. Above that figure meant paying the full tax amount. The tax break gave the small brewers a chance against their larger brethren, who benefited from having economies of scale. The impact on the industry was dramatic, resulting in hundreds of smaller breweries developing across the country. In East London, the brewing industry really took off. What has become known as the beer mile in and around Blackhorse Road in Walthamstow bares witness. Many breweries have sprung up in the last 20 years. Present incumbents include East London Brewery, Pretty Decent, Signature, Exhale and 40 Foot. Brewing is not exclusive to this area, with others, like Libertalia recently starting under the railway bridge at Leyton. The Wanstead Beer Festival is supplied by many of these local breweries. The original tax break was campaigned for by the Society of Independent Brewers and the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA). Times though are tough for brewers and pubs. The cost of living crisis means people have less to spend. The costs of production have increased. Breweries and pubs have been forced to close down. More than a pub a week has been closing across the UK this year. Despite the great success of local brewers, some have been forced to close, such as Walthamstow based Beerblefish and Wildcard. Industry bodies have called for cuts to business rates to help. So these are tough times for the hospitality industry. It needs all of our support. The brewing sector is one of the modern day successes of the British economy. It is great to be able to go into our pubs and have a pint from a local brewery Similarly, people attending the Wanstead Beer Festival have said how much they enjoy being able to enjoy beer from the local breweries - a real precious resource. So let's make sure we support the beer makers, servers and drinkers. See you in 10 October at the Wanstead Beer Festival - tickets now on sale at www.wansteadbeerfestival.co.uk

New Prime Minister must not be fooled by false defence versus welfare spending arguments

New Prime Minister Andy Burnham will have spending choices to make as he takes up the reins of power. One unfortunate narrative pushed forward is the need to spend more on defence. This extra spending it is argued should come from welfare, so something of a loaded dice. First, what is the extra defence spending for? Threats from Russia are often cited, though that country has been bogged down in the Ukraine conflict for over four years. So, is the threat over-hyped to justify more spending? The world situation has become more unstable, since Donald Trump became US President. The war with Iran is but the latest example. Trump has also indicated America won't continue to bankroll the defence of Europe. In this debate, it is significant to look at who is given the platforms to argue for more defence spending. Often, it is spokespeople for the arms industry dressed up as objective commentators. The Defence industry needs constant war and unrest to prosper. Another question should be what will the Ministry of Defence (MOD) do with extra funding? There is a blank cheque approach to the discourse on this subject, yet the MOD is legendary amongst Whitehall departments for wasting money. Procurement over the years has been appalling. Defence will not improve by just throwing money at it. The next part of the argument is that the funding should come from welfare - why? Again, 'helpful' commentators and right wing politicians argue welfare spending is out of control, spiralling ever upwards. It needs to be cut. But as economist Jonathan Portes points out, the welfare spending level as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product is lower than 15 years ago. And compared to European neighbours it is a lot lower. Another favourite target within welfare spending is the state pension. Yet the pension is a right, not a benefit. People have paid National Insurance for 35 years plus to receive the pension. What is more the National Insurance Fund, which holds the funds is £74 billion in credit. Despite all the talk of scrapping the triple lock (ensuring pensions go up by the highest of prices, wages or 2.5%), UK pensioners are worse off than many European counterparts. There maybe an argument for some increase in targeted defence spending but the argument needs to be far more holistic. The big threat is not any one country but climate change. This is destabilising the world, creating ever more refugees and conflict. Yet, ironically, often, those arguing for increased defence spending at the cost of welfare number amongst those arguing for increased fossil fuel extraction, such as oil from the North Sea. So something of a circular, contradictory construct. More funding maybe needed for Defence and other areas but not by cutting welfare or taking climate change enhancing actions. Maybe there should be more taxes from those with the broadest shoulders. Also, some of the inefficiencies in present operations and the continued retention of the Trident nuclear program? Described as Britain's independent deterrent it is anything but. Controlled by the US, the nuclear weaponry is paid for by British tax payers. Cutting an increasingly redundant program would save tens of millions. So the new PM will have to look carefully at spending setting out his priorities for government. What he should not do is fall for redundant neo-liberal based arguments pushed by vested interests. The common good should be the mantra going forward, not who can profit on the backs of the most vulnerable. published - East London Guardian - 24/7/2026