Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jay Silverstein, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry and Forensics, Nottingham Trent University

In four episodes, the BBC’s Civilisations series tells the story of the fall of the Romans, Aztecs, Egypt’s Ptolemies and Japan’s Edo Samurais. The show tells these stories through a combination of recreated dramatic scenes, explanation from experts and discussions of objects from the British Museum. Here, four experts in each period have reviewed the episodes and shared their recommendations for further reading.

The Collapse of the Roman Empire

The canonical date of the fall of the Western Roman Empire is 476, when the general Odoacer deposed the last emperor, Romulus Augustulus – a child who had been on the throne for less than a year. I teach my students that this relatively muted event was probably not noticed by many ordinary people at the time, as very little likely immediately changed in their daily lives.

Instead, the much more dramatic events of 410 were the real collapse moment of the ancient world: the metropolis of Rome, the capital of the empire, was sacked by King Alaric and his Gothic army. As one of the expert contributors to this episode puts it, you would remember where you were when the news reached you.

The episode’s key achievement is to depict the way that Roman mistreatment of the Goths – a Germanic-speaking people many of whom fled war with Huns into the Roman Empire – effectively threatened their survival and backed them into a corner. While historians have long discussed these realities, it’s refreshing to see this message presented in such a compelling and humane way to the wider public. The contemporary resonances are obvious, and while history cannot provide us with answers, it can give us food for thought.

Further reading
To learn more about the end of the Western Roman Empire, I would recommend starting with the very readable and provocative introduction by Bryan Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization. It looks at the very real changes that ordinary people would have experienced as a centuries-old empire fell apart.

Tim Penn is Lecturer in Roman and Late Antique Material Culture at University of Reading

The Last Days of the Ptolemies in Egypt

Neither the gradual decline nor the final fall of the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt in 30 BC is accurately realised in this episode. It presents a simplistic narrative riddled with factual inaccuracies. It also features inadvertent misreadings or deliberate misrepresentations that play fast and loose with the historical chronology of the reign of Cleopatra VII, and the significant historical figures that were part of it.

Such inaccuracy is not helped by the fact that, with the exception of two contributors, no one participating is actually an expert on this specific period of ancient Egyptian history. One prominent figure is not even an historian or archaeologist at all.

Most of the artefacts that are incorporated in an attempt to provide insight don’t date to this period of Egyptian history, and lead the narrative off in irrelevant directions. It’s not clear who the intended audience is, nor what they are expected to take away from this, beyond appreciation for the sumptuous dramatisation that unfolds in the background. There was potential here, such as the contribution of climate change and the wider geopolitical context, that was unfortunately squandered.

Further reading

If you want to read about Cleopatra’s reign specifically, then Duane W. Roller’s Cleopatra: A Biography is good. For the Ptolemaic dynasty more broadly, from start to end, I’d recommend Lloyd Llewelyn-Jones’s The Cleopatras: The Forgotten Queens of Egypt.

Jane Draycott is Senior Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Glasgow

The Collapse of the Aztec Empire

The episode on the Aztecs focuses on the Aztec emperor Moctezuma in the 15th century. It offers a refreshing shift from the Eurocentric narrative that often paints him as indecisive while glorifying his nemesis, the conquistador Hernán Cortés. Here, the roles are reversed: Cortés’s ambition and brutality are exposed, while Moctezuma appears as a thoughtful and capable leader. Their confrontation feels less like a simple conquest and more like a high-stakes chess match – Moctezuma had Cortés in check until one audacious move changed history.

If you’re looking for a comprehensive account of the Aztec collapse, this episode won’t deliver that. Experts such as Matthew Restall, known for challenging colonial myths, are used sparingly, and the story remains selective. Key events are skipped, and contradictory sources are left out. All of this is inevitable in a single-episode format.

What it does offer is a visually stunning, well narrated introduction to imperial collapse, framed through iconic artefacts that bring the past to life.

Further reading

To learn more about the fall of the Aztecs, read
The True History of the Conquest of New Spain, Volume 4 by Bernal Díaz del Castillo – a Spaniard who served under Cortés during conquest of the Aztec Empire. There are many translations but the first edition of the text, edited by Mexican historian Genaro García and translated by Alfred Percival Maudslay, is my pick.

Jay Silverstein is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry and Forensics at Nottingham Trent University

The End of the Samurai in Japan

This episode deals with the military encounter between the American “black ships” (kurofune 黒船) under naval commodore Matthew Perry and the Tokugawa shogunate 徳川幕府 between 1852 and 1855. The interviewed historians are certainly familiar with the event, yet the conceptual framing is not quite right.

“Traditional Japan” is introduced as an unchanging and isolated place. In reality, Japan had lived in close economic and cultural symbiosis with continental East Asia since at least the rise of Buddhism in the 6th century.

A 1603 proclamation, known as sakoku, by the Tokugawa shogunate did make Japan a hostile place for Christians and foreigners. However, the Protestant Dutch, arch-enemies of their former Spanish overlords, were granted the right to send annual expeditions. These became the basis for Japan’s “Dutch studies” (rangaku 蘭學), an exchange of scientific knowledge which is ignored by the programme. Meanwhile, contact with China and Korea continued, albeit under stricter regulations.

The documentary dwells on the image of a powerful and conservative samurai class without alluding to the social transformations which had eroded its influence. The capital Edo was not only the largest city on earth, but a veritable engine of urbanisation and commercialisation.

This documentary is still a pleasure to watch, but the premise that Perry’s western gunboats led to the “fall” of Japanese civilisation is erroneous.

Further reading
If you want to know more about the political and social turmoil that led to the end of the samurais and the Tokugawa shogunate, I recommend The Emergence of Meiji Japan by Marius B. Jansen.

Lars Laamann is Senior Lecturer in the History of China At Soas, University of London

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Does BBC Civilisations gets its four stories of collapse correct? Experts weigh in – https://theconversation.com/does-bbc-civilisations-gets-its-four-stories-of-collapse-correct-experts-weigh-in-270114

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alexander C. Lees, Reader in Ecology and Conservation Biology, Manchester Metropolitan University

Extreme heat, fires and flooding – all hallmark consequences of climate change – directly influenced this year’s UN climate change conference Cop30 in Belém, Brazil.

For the first time, this annual climate summit was held in Amazonia,
a place at the frontline of climate change. The pivot from the two previous conferences in petrostates Azerbaijan and UAE to a base in the world’s largest tropical forest (albeit in one the world’s largest oil producing countries) was jarring.

As Amazonian researchers, and past and present residents of the city, we saw the potential for Cop30 to move discussions further forward than its predecessors in two key ways.

First, and in contrast to many previous gatherings that have sidelined them – or suppressed them altogether – Indigenous and marginalised voices were impossible to ignore at Cop30. They have helped shape media narratives and discourse in the blue zone, the venue that hosted events in hundreds of dedicated spaces for national and organisational bodies.

The Belém gathering saw the largest Indigenous participation in Cop history, with around 900 registered representatives. The Cúpula dos Povos, a parallel event hosted at the Universidade Federal do Pará, gave many more Indigenous peoples and local communities a platform to argue against the status quo of relative inaction.

Read more:
Behind the scenes in Belém: The Conversation’s report from Brazil’s UN climate summit

Hosting Cop30 in Belém broke down the physical travel barriers for many potential attendees from Indigenous peoples and local communities. The summit organisers went beyond the normal attempts at tokenism in engaging them in discussions.

The region’s extensive river networks allowed many Indigenous peoples and local communities from across Amazonia to reach Belém by boat. They held a symbolic “people’s flotilla” with over 500 people in 200 vessels, sailing to demand their voices be heard in calling for climate justice and an end to mining and large infrastructure projects affecting their territories.

Meanwhile, the disruptive influence of some Indigenous protesters and their allies in breaching security lines and temporarily obstructing access to the blue zone hopefully focused minds inside, in addition to garnering global headlines.

The second reason to be hopeful from Cop30 was that the realities of climate and land use change are jarringly obvious in Amazonia. Belém’s oppressive heat and humidity were evident even within the main blue zone arenas. Many delegates were visibly uncomfortable.

This catalysed an official complaint from UN climate chief Simon Stiell about the climate conditions in the Cop venue, asking for “a clear delivery plan on how temperatures will be brought down within the next 24 hours”. The parallels to the goals of the wider negotiation process were hard to miss.

Read more:
Cop30: five reasons the UN climate conference failed to deliver on its ‘people’s summit’ promise

The city’s local climate became a protagonist in its own right. A huge thunderstorm during one afternoon flooded many roads and brought down trees across the city, causing power outages.

A recent study has shown that Belém is now experiencing more and more days of high “wet bulb” temperatures (which determine the comfort level of the atmosphere). Such temperatures can lead to deadly heat stress. Continued warming could make many parts of the tropics unlivable.

Social justice as climate justice

These climate consequences will disproportionately be felt by the less affluent, and significant social inequalities were laid bare to delegates travelling through the urban area – despite some major investment. The need to foreground social justice as climate justice, as argued by Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in his opening speech, was visibly evidenced by the poverty in some suburbs and stark inequalities.

For many delegates flying into Belém, this will have been their first time in a tropical forest region. But this is the most heavily deforested region in Amazonia – a fact that is painfully evident to anyone flying in from the south on a clear day.

In a Cop30 venue on the campus of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, our team guided delegates, including heads of state, royalty and CEOs of large multinationals on an interpretive trail through a regenerating patch of rainforest. Some visitors were moved to tears to experience a tropical forest and hear about its importance for climate and biodiversity.

This underscores the power of hosting Cop in such a critically important ecosystem. People could also see how a forest can grow back, if given the chance.

The biome and region were much more than just a venue or educational opportunity. The fate of the Amazon and other tropical forests became a focal point of many of the blue zone discussions, clarifying strong climate and nature links.

This facilitated a narrative shift towards a search for the enabling conditions of forest protection, the value of biodiversity, and the importance of community-led stewardship.

This prominence of both nature and forest citizens is key, as these are fundamental to climate justice and the development of fair and effective adaptation and mitigation strategies. For example, forest fires became a central theme in week two (when the blue zone itself was evacuated owing to an electrical fire).

However, while a stronger focus on nature is essential, the failure to address strategies for ending fossil fuel emissions was the bitter outcome of Cop30. The presentation of the updated global carbon budget showed that we have only four years left to stay within 1.5°C of warming. That’s clearly an impossible task.

Although Belém helped bring the social and ecological effects of climate change to the forefront, the final declaration (which unbelievably contained no direct reference to fossil fuels) demonstrated once again that vested interests remain the strongest barrier to progress, and that climate justice risks continuing as mere rhetoric.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Alexander C. Lees receives funding from DEFRA’s GCBC programme, the BNP Paribas Foundation’s Climate and Biodiversity Initiative and UKRI. He is a Trustee of the British Ornithologist’s Union.

Joice Ferreira receives funding from the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, DEFRA’s GCBC programme and the BNP Paribas Foundation’s Climate and Biodiversity Initiative.

Jos Barlow receives funding from UKRI, DEFRA’s GCBC programme, the BNP Paribas Foundation’s Climate and Biodiversity Initiative. He is a Trustee of WWF-UK.

– ref. Why hosting the UN climate summit in the Amazon was so important, despite the disappointing outcome – https://theconversation.com/why-hosting-the-un-climate-summit-in-the-amazon-was-so-important-despite-the-disappointing-outcome-269841

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mark Woolhouse, Professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, University of Edinburgh

The UK was one of the most locked down countries in the world during the COVID pandemic, but this was not inevitable – it was a failure of public health policy.

That should be the lasting legacy of the UK COVID inquiry’s latest report, not a critique of politicians no longer in office.

In a public health emergency, saving lives will always be the first priority, but even as COVID raged, it was never a binary choice between harsher restrictions or more deaths. The choice was between different ways to protect people from a dangerous virus.

In 2020, governments that had never previously contemplated lockdowns imposed them anyway. On March 23, the UK population was ordered to stay at home, without any assessment of how much harm this would do to the economy, education, access to healthcare and the wellbeing of everyone – especially children.

The vast scale of the resulting damage shows why avoiding lockdowns must be a priority for policymakers in future pandemics.

I gave evidence to that effect to the COVID inquiry myself. I also listened to testimony from politicians, officials, doctors and epidemiologists. But I heard surprisingly little about how COVID could have been tackled without lockdowns, even though everyone has had years to reflect on this question.

Instead, witness after witness argued that the problem with the March 2020 lockdown was that it came too late. Matt Hancock, the UK’s then health minister, thought it should have come three weeks earlier, but one week was the majority view.

So, the inquiry was justified in making that point in their report. Backing it up with the claim, based on a mathematical model, that it would have saved more than 20,000 lives is more contentious. Historians distrust counterfactuals, and it makes no difference if one is expressed in equations rather than words.

Despite making that claim, the inquiry doesn’t like lockdowns. “Far from it,” said the inquiry’s chair, Baroness Hallett, when she introduced her report. She explained that if action had been taken earlier, then lockdowns “might not have been necessary at all”.

That’s correct: earlier action can be less drastic action. There is no need for draconian measures intended to drive down the number of cases if you don’t let them rise in the first place.

More moderate precautions from respiratory hygiene to self-isolation of people with COVID were enough to keep essential services going, even to make professional sports possible, long before there were vaccines. Next time, basic interventions must be identified more quickly, and rolled out faster and wider than they were in 2020.

The inquiry’s report also concludes that more should have been done to protect those most vulnerable to COVID: the elderly, frail and infirm. This should have been the priority throughout, but it was overshadowed by lockdown — a strategy that did not do enough to protect care home residents, who faced far greater risks than the children no longer able to go to school.

“Cocooning”, ensuring those around them are virus free, is the most effective way of protecting the vulnerable. The cumbersome PCR tests used early in the pandemic were not ideal for this purpose. Lateral flow devices were far better, yet this straightforward technology was not largely deployed for almost two years.

When advisers stop offering alternatives

The next pandemic may be different from COVID, so more generic lessons must be learned too. The most pressing one is why it took so long to intervene effectively, with February 2020 described as a “lost month”.

The inquiry concluded that the quality of the UK’s political leadership was a major barrier, but when the next pandemic arrives, it will again be a case of whoever is in the hot seat. Other considerations are more controllable.

Much better preparedness planning, real-time data collection, and competent public health agencies are all important. So are more resilient national health services, though their current state makes that harder to deliver.

Then there is the approach to giving scientific advice. I write as a former member of COVID advisory committees to the UK and Scottish governments, and the inquiry report describes my attempts to push for strong and urgent action from mid-January 2020. That I failed is no surprise; throughout that period, the UK’s highest-level advisory committee, Sage, was not conveying the same sense of urgency, to the despair of some of its own members.

As the pandemic progressed, there were repeated tensions between a government that did not want to go back into lockdown and advisers who were now reluctant to suggest anything else. I heard senior scientists tell the inquiry that the test, trace and isolate scheme had limited potential, that cocooning was too difficult, mass testing would not deliver, and localised restrictions were insufficient.

The few witnesses who rejected this counsel of despair were in a clear minority.
Yet all these interventions succeeded at other times or places.

Given what it had been told, the best the inquiry could do was endorse an abbreviated form of lockdown called a circuit-breaker; it was all that was left on the table. The COVID pandemic might have played out differently if advisers had engaged more constructively with alternatives to lockdown at the time.

This matters because policy should be informed by science but not driven by scientific advisers presenting limited options. It’s patronising to act as though policymakers will be paralysed into inaction if they hear more than one idea. Yet a senior adviser told the inquiry that advisers should “err on the side of giving unequivocal advice earlier”.

Buried deep in the report are two recommendations that point in the opposite direction. First, advisory committees should be more diverse and entertain a wider range of views. Second, they should seek to give the government options.

Last week’s COVID inquiry report fuels a vital debate that was difficult to have in 2020, even among advisers. If that makes lockdowns less likely when the next pandemic arrives, then the exercise will have been worthwhile.

Mark Woolhouse holds grants from the European Union and the Wellcome Trust. He was previously a member of the UK’s advisory group on modelling SPI-M-O, the Scottish Government’s Covid-19 Advisory Group and Standing Committee on Pandemic Preparedness. He has been a consultant for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness. He wrote a book on the pandemic response, The Year The World Went Mad (Sandstone Press, 2022), which has been entered into evidence by the UK Covid Inquiry.

– ref. Inquiry says COVID lockdowns could have been avoided – they’re right – https://theconversation.com/inquiry-says-covid-lockdowns-could-have-been-avoided-theyre-right-269827

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Graham Taylor, Associate Professor in Viral and Tumour Immunology, University of Birmingham

Around 5 million people worldwide live with the autoimmune condition lupus. This condition can cause a range of symptoms, including tiredness, fever, joint pain and a characteristic butterfly-shaped rash across the cheeks and nose.

For some people, these symptoms are mild and only flare-up occassionally. But for others, the disease is more severe – with constant symptoms

Although researchers know that lupus is caused by the immune system mistakenly attacking the body’s own tissues and organs, it isn’t entirely clear what triggers this response. But a new study suggests a common virus may play a key role in lupus.

There are two main forms of lupus. Discoid lupus primarily affects the skin, while systemic lupus erythematosus – the most common form of lupus – is more severe and affects the organs.

The immune system’s B cells play a key role in systemic lupus. B cells normally produce proteins called antibodies to target pathogens such as viruses and bacteria. But in people with systemic lupus, some B cells produce antibodies, called autoantibodies, that instead bind to and damage their own organs.

What causes B cells to produce autoantibodies in people with systemic lupus is poorly understood. But this recent study suggests that the trigger may be a common virus.

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infects most people worldwide. Infection with EBV most commonly occurs in childhood, when it usually goes unnoticed. But if a person becomes infected by EBV in adolescence, it can cause infectious mononucleosis (better known as glandular fever).

EBV is a type of herpes virus. These are complex viruses that are able to escape the body’s immune response by hiding inside certain cells. In these cells, herpes viruses switch off their genes and go silent – like submarines diving beneath the waves to hide from the enemy. This allows herpes viruses to persist throughout a person’s lifetime – occasionally reawakening to spread to new people.

Interestingly, EBV has evolved to hide within the immune system itself, infecting and persisting in a very small number of B cells. This strategy has proven highly successful for EBV. Over 90% of adults around the world are infected with EBV – meaning the virus is hiding in their immune system’s B cells.

While most people experience no adverse consequences from their infection, EBV has been linked to certain diseases.

For instance, EBV was the first virus shown to cause cancer. Subsequent research has linked EBV to several different types of cancer – including certain lymphomas and 10% of stomach cancers. Each year, about 200,000 people develop an EBV-associated cancer.

More recently, large epidemiological studies have linked EBV with multiple sclerosis, which is an autoimmune condition. Studies have shown that people with multiple sclerosis are almost always infected with EBV.

Previous research has also suggested that EBV may be involved in systemic lupus. But this new study provides insight into the specific mechanism involved.

To conduct their study, the researchers developed a sensitive test to analyse the genetic material in thousands of B cells isolated from the blood of people with systemic lupus and healthy donors as a control.

They found that EBV was present in around 25 times more B cells in systemic lupus patients compared to participants who didn’t have the condition. In systemic lupus patients, EBV was present in around one in 400 B cells – while in healthy controls it was only present in around one in 10,000 B cells.

This is an interesting finding – though the researchers acknowledge it could potentially be caused by the medicines patients with systemic lupus take to control their illness. These decrease the activity of the immune system which reduces the symptoms of systemic lupus. But these medicines also reduce the immune system’s ability to control EBV infection.

The most important finding from the research was that many of the EBV-infected B cells from systemic lupus patients made autoantibodies that bound to specific proteins. These same proteins are often targeted by autoantibodies in people with systemic lupus. In contrast, EBV-infected B cells from healthy donors did not make these autoantibodies.

To understand the mechanisms involved, the researchers then studied the expression of EBV genes in the infected B cells. Although EBV was generally shown to be in its silent state, some EBV-infected B cells from systemic lupus patients produced the viral protein EBNA2, which reprogrammed the B cells to become more inflammatory. These activated B cells were better able to stimulate responses from other immune cells, including non-EBV infected B cells and T cells.

Together, these observations suggest that EBV may initiate systemic lupus by infecting and reprogramming dormant B cells to become activated. These cells produce autoantibodies that could potentially contribute to the development of systemic lupus. They also appear to recruit additional immune cells able to produce stronger autoimmune responses that are more likely to play a role in systemic lupus development.

EBV infection

These new findings raise the possibility that targeting EBV could form the basis of a new therapy to treat people with systemic lupus. But given these infected B cells also recruit additional immune cells, a broader therapeutic strategy may be needed.

Additional research will also be needed to confirm whether EBV is indeed an essential trigger for the development of systemic lupus. If this is confirmed, preventing EBV infections through vaccination could prevent systemic lupus developing.

Currently there are a number of potential EBV vaccines in development – and two candidates are being tested in large clinical trials. A key requirement for any effective EBV vaccine will be its ability to generate long-term protection against infection. This is because EBV is already widespread in the population. If vaccination only delays infection until later in life, then this could lead to many cases of glandular fever.

The results of these trials are eagerly anticipated, given the potential impact an effective vaccine could have to reduce the numbers of people worldwide that develop lupus, other autoimmune conditions, or cancers caused by EBV.

Graham Taylor has previously received funding from Cancer Research UK, Blood Cancer UK, the UK Medical Research Council, Melanoma UK, and the University of Birmingham to support his research team. This funding has no relation to the content of this article.

Heather Long currently receives funding from Medical Research Council, Kidney Research UK and Rosetrees. This funding has no relation to the content of this article.

– ref. Lupus may be triggered by a common virus – new research – https://theconversation.com/lupus-may-be-triggered-by-a-common-virus-new-research-270309

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Renaud Foucart, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University

As the UK prepares for the budget announcement, familiar debates are taking shape. Should Chancellor Rachel Reeves cut welfare spending? Or reform the “triple lock” on state pensions?

Other debates focus on revenue: how should she raise money without breaking Labour’s manifesto promise not to increase taxes on working people? But these discussions are being held in a strange vacuum, where the three enormous expenditures that led the UK to this point are not mentioned.

COVID debt, energy support schemes and Brexit have fundamentally shaped the UK’s financial woes. Yet voters and politicians alike seem determined not to talk about them. Instead, they’re treated as shocks imposed on the country, although they involved hugely consequential political choices.

Gloomy vibes accompany this Advent budget, and Britain’s awkward collective amnesia is preventing the country from learning the lessons needed for future crises and from talking honestly about the best route forward.

The ghost of COVID past

The COVID pandemic required unprecedented government intervention. Between 2020 and 2022, the UK’s spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates, support measures totalled £169 billion or 7% of UK GDP. Most of it (£100 billion) went on direct support for things like the furlough scheme.

In hindsight, the vaccine roll-out was one key moment when the country showed its ability to deliver on a massive scale. Some other decisions were less glorious.

There was a general lack of transparency in the purchase of health equipment during the first wave of the pandemic, and the Eat Out to Help Out scheme to support hospitality led to a further increase in infections..

But there is very little discussion of the most important, unanswered questions. Despite a long inquiry examining government failings, there has been no debate about how much risk we as a country are willing to take, and how much we are willing to pay in order to reduce that risk.

COVID support schemes increased public debt from 80.4% of GDP in 2018 to 107.4% in 2021. The government paid close to zero interest on the debt at the time.

But now, higher interest rates make it a huge burden on taxpayers. Debt interest spending is higher than the budget for education, more than twice as big as it was in 2018. This is why Reeves now appears so determined to bring down UK debt levels.

We also know the cost lockdowns put on schoolchildren. But we know very little about the cost of doing less, or the current choice to stop vaccinating people.

Perhaps the main hit on UK budget capacity comes from a global pandemic, something that will happen again in the future. The focus is on putting the finances back on track without discussing how to manage similar trade-offs next time.

The ghost of our present energy transition

When Russia invaded Ukraine and energy prices spiked, the UK faced a choice: reduce demand or subsidise consumption. It chose the latter. The government stepped in with massive support packages to pay people’s energy bills. This cost £78.2 billion, or more than 4% of GDP (compared to less than 3% on average in Europe).

There were strong arguments for this approach. Allowing fuel poverty to spike during a cost-of-living crisis would have been terrible, and there was little time to target the policy. But to be clear about what happened: the public was given huge handouts to avoid having to change lifestyles, technology or consumption patterns.

This happened in the middle of an energy transition. The goal, ostensibly, is to decarbonise, reduce dependence to fossil fuels from dictators, and to modernise infrastructure.

These are complex decisions that require public support, some level of sacrifice, but also a clear collective commitment that change is inescapable. But this is not how the country is approaching these challenges, having just demonstrated that when energy costs rise the government will step in.

Just like COVID debt, UK taxpayers carry the cost of energy support debt while sweeping the decisions that caused it under the rug.

The ghost of Brexit yet to be

The UK’s relationship to Brexit appears more confused than ever. Only 11% of British adults think Brexit is more a success than a failure, and 56% would vote to rejoin the EU. Yet many tout Reform UK leader Nigel Farage as the frontrunner to be the next prime minister while also blaming him (among others) for Brexit’s failures.

This may be because Brexit has largely disappeared from the public’s radar, as Prime Minister Keir Starmer starts to move towards more integration with the EU.

Conversations on the topic tend to do everything to avoid reopening old wounds. But economists are slowly realising the full extent of the damage caused to the economy. An unprecedented comprehensive study relying on comparisons with other nations and also on detailed data from Bank of England business surveys estimates that Brexit has reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%. These figures were at the most pessimistic end of the estimates at the time of the referendum.

To put this into perspective, with UK tax receipts at 40% of GDP, a GDP that was 7% higher would give £77 billion extra a year to the chancellor. This is more than half of the 2024-25 budget deficit of £137 billion.

Yet, there has been no massive trade deal with the US and no attempt to replace the EU in any major way. The UK is paying a hefty price for having chosen one of the hardest possible versions of Brexit, but is yet to define what economic gain this could bring.

COVID debt, energy support and the Brexit deficit are the three ghosts that will haunt this budget – ghosts that no one wants to face. The UK cannot prepare for future pandemics without learning from how it handled COVID.

It will not complete its energy transition without confronting the choices made about who bears the costs of energy security. And it will not develop a coherent economic strategy without assessing what to do with Brexit. Until the UK faces up to these issues, it will be left discussing minor austerity measures and hoping for a Christmas miracle.

Renaud Foucart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The three spectres hanging over Rachel Reeves’ make-or-break budget – https://theconversation.com/the-three-spectres-hanging-over-rachel-reeves-make-or-break-budget-270388