Focus on the Creative Industries Series: The Coalition’s contempt for the arts isn’t pragmatic. It’s ideological.

By Alex Shattock.

In the latest instalment of our Focus on the Creative Industries Series, Alex Shattock argues the axing of the UK Film Council was an ideological decision for the Coalition Government.

Modern conservatism is so radical it can hardly be called conservatism at all. You can call it Thatcherism, neo-liberalism, Randism- whichever label you choose, it is dangerous and we need to be aware of it. The new intake of 2010 Conservative MPs are perhaps the most prominent example. ‘Britannia Unchained’, a book by five of the new bunch- Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Elizabeth Truss- argues that we need to roll back welfare, workers’ rights and the minimum wage in order to free the market and prevent “an inevitable slide into mediocrity”.

This isn’t the inclusive conservatism of Disraeli, or the house-building consensus politics of Churchill or Macmillan. This is ruthless, free-market fanaticism. And the proponents of it won’t be happy until we have a negligible state apparatus, the only purpose of which is to turn what little tax there is into business subsidy.

There are two strands of thought within their partisan philosophy that relate directly to the arts. Firstly there is the idea that the individual must pay for everything. The second, related idea is “if it doesn’t make a profit, it’s worthless”. Taking them both together: the state should not be funding the creative industries. And if the creative industries can’t support themselves, if they can’t sell themselves effectively enough to make a profit, then they don’t deserve to exist.

One victim of this philosophy was the UK Film Council, one of the Labour Government’s most popular and successful quangos. It funded over 900 British films between 2000 and 2010, including This is England and The King’s Speech. According to John Woodward, Chief Executive of the Council, the Coalition axed it “without notice or consultation”.

The Conservative right were happy to see it go. Julian Fellowes, writing in the Telegraph, berated the “anti-commercial mindset of the film élite”. To people like Fellowes, films that are profitable fund themselves, and films that aren’t profitable shouldn’t be made. “Show business is just that: a business,” he crowed. “Cut the Film Council and end this 1970s navel-gazing”. But the 1970s brought us films like A Clockwork Orange, Straw Dogs and Monty Python and the Holy Grail: films that weren’t commercial super-hits, but went on to become cult (and even mainstream) cinema classics. The 1970s was also the decade Margaret Thatcher carried out her threat to slash state funding to the UK film industry, which inevitably let it slide into mediocrity.

But most people in the industry knew that axing the Film Council would be a terrible loss. Many campaigned relentlessly to save it, like Julie Walters, Clint Eastwood, James McAvoy, and Pete Postlethwaite. Following the dismantling of the Film Council, the producer Tim Bevan (Bridget Jones, Notting Hill, Atonement, Frost/Nixon) has stated he will no longer work on films that are funded by the UK government. Last month, the cross-party Select Committee on Culture released a report damning the decision’s “deeply disturbing modus operandi”.

The death of the Film Council is just one example of the Coalition’s unremitting attack on UK arts and culture. Funding has been slashed repeatedly over the past three years. Budget cuts have forced local councils to sell off community artwork. Over 200 libraries were closed in 2012.

Many people say we can’t afford to keep funding the arts under austerity. It is understandable why, when faced with cuts of over twenty percent, local councils look at community artwork as the first thing to go. But in times of austerity, we can’t do away with our artistic and cultural heritage. We need it more than ever. Trips to art galleries and the cinema are among the few worthwhile, entertaining things a person can do on a small budget. Man cannot live on cut-price booze and branded cigarettes alone, however much the Coalition would like him to.

Alex Shattock is a Young Fabians Member.

Focus on the Creative Industries Series: Sadiq Khan MP on the importance of the arts to London

By Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP.

In the latest instalment of  our Focus on the Creative Industries Series, Sadiq Khan MP discusses the importance of the arts to London.

Politicians discussing the arts and creative industries can often seem forced and contrived with little knowledge of the subject they’re talking about other than what they’ve been given on the latest zeitgeist crib sheet. I realise that I may set myself up for a fall immediately but the arts, and the fruits of the creative industries, is something that us Londoners are probably more exposed to than in most other cities in the UK.

But what does it mean to London? Across the UK, the creative and cultural industries have predominance in London and the South East. More than 40% people working in the industry do so in these regions.  25% of the people employed in these industries are in London, compared with 13% of the overall employed population based in London.

We see then that as an employer and revenue generator it’s a big deal for London. And it’s not just West End theatres or major art galleries that contribute to this. We have a wealth of smaller community based organisations, including in my own constituency TARA Arts, a theatre venue which hosts and presents theatre and other live performances, as well as facilitating the development of emerging young and mid-career artists. I’m also one of the patrons of the Polka Theatre in Wimbledon, which specialises in youth theatre. Alongside each show Polka have a learning programme which includes school visits and workshops and this helps children explore and develop creatively. This development and incubation of new ideas is something which the more community based groups do so well in London, for example the renowned Battersea Arts Centre (BAC) which, in its own words, ‘pioneers new practice in contemporary theatre’. They proved this to great effect with ‘Jerry Springer the Opera’ which having begun at BAC then moved to the Edinburgh Fringe and then to the West End and to the United States. This may be an obvious example but it is a good one.

Why are community organisations so important? It’s quite simple really, they are the ones who can be the first, and sometimes only, form of interaction between local people and the arts. It’s here and also in schools that the flame of creativity can be ignited. Whether that be by music, theatre, visual arts – it can be the thing that encourages the budding creative to investigate further. Young or old, the arts and creative industries can also bring people together across communities. The collective experience of taking part in arts based activities, or even just enjoying them as part of an audience can be something that is treasured, and also something that can open up debate. London’s cultural diversity also means that the range of art being created in the city is truly global, which in itself serves to promote understanding of the differences between us, and more importantly the similarities. This building of relationships through social interaction relates to what the social scientist Robert Putnam would call ‘social capital’, and the creation of social networks which in themselves have value. I agree that the creation of these social networks is undoubtedly a good thing as they bring people together who may not otherwise meet.

From a politician’s point of view then, I see the arts in London as performing a number of different roles. It’s an employer, a revenue generator, an educator, a community service and also something that can bring a great deal of pleasure to millions of people. It’s therefore important that politicians support the arts and creative industries where possible and make sure that they are available to all. It is essential in these tough economic times that we do not see a retreat of arts organisations away from the community level but that we try to nurture creativity as much as possible.

Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP is Member of Parliament for Tooting and Shadow Minister for London.

Focus on Health & Society Series: Can the NHS become a successful business?

By  Richard Stebbing with additional comments by Adebusuyi Adeyemi.

In the latest installment of the Focus on Health and Society Series by the Health Network, Richard Stebbing looks at whether the NHS can become a successful business.

If the NHS were a normal business, then given its tumultuous performance so far in 2013, its share price would have probably fallen. Of course the NHS is a business, but given it is in the business of protecting the nation’s health, with its fortunes so closely woven to that of the Government it is a unique one. We know that the NHS is underachieving in terms of productivity and it is under pressure to be financially prudent in the face of ever increasing demand; whilst the recent findings of the Francis Report on Mid Staffs have underlined how factors of care and compassion cannot be discarded. Therefore we must consider how the NHS can be a more successful for its customers, employees and employers. Its shareholders, customers and investors, try figure out who’s who! Answers on the back of a postcard.

Making sure people are good at their jobs and doing jobs that are needed

So, considering the NHS is like a modern business. Considering it rewards key staff for good performance and it evolves, developing new areas of business. One glaring deficient area is in retraining or making redundant staff that are no longer required in their present roles. Now the premise of cutting necessary staff from the NHS is one that rightly fills many with dread. However cutting unnecessary staff – well that is something that makes good business sense – especially good business sense when it is us that is employing them, and that this is public money that can be used for ‘better’ things. Ask almost anyone that works in the NHS and they will tell you that administration is bloated and can be reduced. A solution is restructuring and reappraising NHS non-frontline teams and making staff reapply for these new roles if reductions in team numbered are deemed necessary. If we are serious about the NHS being a productive, successful business, then unnecessary staff is an opportunity cost that has to be considered.

Adapting GP surgeries for the 21^st century

Most people now use the internet as the basis for all communication and arrangements in their social and professional life. Yet for most people the most advanced aspect of NHS services is receiving a text message reminder for that upcoming appointment or renewing their prescription online. Yes, yes, we know the more technologically savvy are messaging on other platforms like Whatsapp and Facebook. Still, there is significant inefficiency and wastage in not making adapting more services and logistics in the NHS to take advantage of internet technology.

For example, create a web-based GP booking as the default booking service. It is simply inefficient to have the default method of booking as phone-based when the technology for patients to complete web-based forms on their symptoms and select available appointment time slots exists online. Crucially this would mean that patients can book appointments 24/7 – i.e. when they fall ill – rather than when the GP surgery is open. This would reduce this burden for administrative and supporting staff in GP surgeries, especially in the 15 minute window when a GP surgery opens, and would mean that these staff are freed up to help the running of the surgery in other ways throughout the day.

Such a system could also be used to coordinate bookings with specialists and consultants, which if made more interactive, could help patients attend and cancel appointments they cannot make thus ideally meaning that these appointments could be allocated, say via email, to other patients in need at short notice.

Another simple idea is allowing patients to register with a GP online. When the process essentially involves proving one’s address via an official letter and completing a basic health questionnaire, why does this have to be done in the GP’s surgery? Doing this online would save time for the patient, who might otherwise have to take time out of the working day, and also GP surgery staff.

Using technology to aid patients in self-care

Another area where technology can be embraced is around patient self-care. In 2011 I (Richard) had the misfortune to contract Bell’s palsy for around 3 months. My GP at the time was helpful and gave me some printed information on the condition. However I received no information/advice around necessary items of self-care that I would need to undergo, such as taping one’s eye completely shut on a nightly basis.

I found useful information in this area, by a chance YouTube search after a few days, and research for this article demonstrates that similar information is also available for other conditions. Given that most patients do not master aspects of self-care on day one (for the record I was waking up each morning with my eye un-taped and open at first); technology here can help reduce patient follow-ups and can help them recover quicker and better. This also embraces technology; this form of advice needs to be more interactive than a piece of paper. So why not have health professionals email relevant self-care information to patients? I am not suggesting that patients are emailed arbitrary links, but why not have NHS-branded self-care videos either using actors or volunteering patients under supervision? It would be cheap and very useful to many patients. It would also save on GP printing costs! Isn’t the NHS in the business of being useful to its investors, shareholders and customers?

Richard Stebbing is a Young Fabians Member and Adebusuyi Adeyemi is Chair of the Health Network.

For more information on the Young Fabians’ Health Network email Adebusuyi: healthnetwork@youngfabians.org.uk.

The Role of Local Councils In the Arts

By Arry Tapiheroe.

Austerity politics have been proven to show no bounds. Virtually every parts of the society has been affected by the recent cuts. The creative, education and arts sectors are no exceptions. In fact, these are arguably one of the worst hit areas despite having played no significant parts in the financial crash which necessitated the cuts.

The most prominent example of these cuts is the cuts which will affect Newcastle. As most former industrial cities, Newcastle has not had it easy in the wake of the Great Depression in the 30s and the Thatcherite reforms in the 80s. However, it’s always had a cultural heart to it. The Theatre Royal, which was first opened in 1837, is still currently operational. If anything, the city has been through a major cultural renaissance in the past 10-15 years.

What has been proposed here is a cut of roughly £100 million, spanning 3 years. Along with culture and arts funding, the cuts will also affect children services, elderly care, swimming pools, libraries and general upkeep of parks and streets. This is where the role of local councils comes in. When faced with a choice between providing care to the elderly and services for children or provision of culture and art, what should be the council’s guiding principle?

What is unclear is the actual power of local councils, especially regarding the amount of revenue local councils actually get from council tax. The proportion of revenue from council tax is low compared to the central government grants and centrally levied business rates. Central government also has legislation which would cap the amount of council tax it could levy. This, along with the abolition of centrally distributed council tax benefit and lower central government grants means that the council is now facing an even tougher spending choice. In a way, councils are very beholden to the central government.

Setting aside the issue of funding to theatres, museums and libraries, there are still other areas where councils could have a significant role. Namely by providing the environment which will benefit the creative sector without showing any apparent competition with the so-called core services. An example of a council leadership which could be applied rather quickly is the promotion of local markets.

Local markets can be set up by providing venues with low rates to provide local artists and craftsmen the platform to show and sell their work. These markets should be very similar to current Christmas markets around the country. The major difference is that these markets should be geared towards collaboration and access. Funding should be flexible, such as taking percentage from sales instead of charging rent, and sponsorships should be encouraged. A major obstacle of pursuing such simple ideas is the fact that such ideas are not sexy and cannot be capitalised easily by politicians. Sponsorships and patronage could play a part in ensuring more media coverage and that these markets would have an impact. There would be a fine balance between having a commercial markets and having something for the local community. This needs to be addressed as per case-to-case basis.

The role of councils in providing services for art and creative industries is currently being gutted systematically to serve an ideology. This ideology pits the funding and services for arts against the so-called core service. Setting aside the issue of the actual power of local councils to change the amount of funding available, there are ways for the councils to lead smartly to both engage the local economy and the local creative industries and arts.

Arry Tapiheroe is a Young Fabians Member.

Focus on the Creative Industries Series

By Victoria Prior.

In the first of  our Focus on the Creative Industries Series, Victoria Prior introduces us to the new Creative Industries Network. 

This is the inaugural blog for a new series from the Young Fabians Creative Industries Network. CIN for short, you’ll be pleased to hear. An inaugural blog should be something a bit special. It should entice and intrigue. Surprise and gain support. However, the Chair of CIN (that’s me, hi!) can’t think what to put.

Should I talk about the funding crisis that’s decimating local arts activity? Surely you’ve heard about that already, ad nauseum, probably from me. Maybe, I should say how Michael Gove seems to be persisting in removing all joy and creativity out of children’s lives. Teacher’s lives, too. Ooh, what about the fact that due to UKBA having a little trouble distinguishing posterior (so to speak) from elbow, talented individuals from other countries are finding it difficult to work in Britain. You can see the Daily Mail now, ‘Johnny Foreigner, coming over here, forcing us to listen to exquisite music and watch lovely ballet’. And what do our kids get? The recorder if they’re lucky (not even that if Gove gets his way).

Perhaps I should write about the events we’re planning. Chances for you to meet those you most admire in the industry. People you might like to work with. Opportunities for debate on the issues that matter most to the creative industries. Research that will lead into a pamphlet. A pamphlet to be presented just a little differently from what you’re used to…

I could tell you about the other three members of the Creative Industries Network team; Marielle, Kieran and Tess. I could say how excited we get when people get in touch with ideas. I’m definitely going to congratulate them for all their hard work and support so far. And I’ll mention how thrilled we’ve been with the response from Young Fabians. I might even go so far as to confess about the happy little dance I do whenever an e-mail comes in pitching a research idea, or offering an amazing contact. So why don’t you set off the dancing, and say hi to us at creativeindustriesnetwork@youngfabians.org.uk Go on, we’d love to hear from you!

Victoria Prior is Chair of the Creative Industries Network.

Creative Industries Network

By Victoria Prior.

The Young Fabians are establishing a Creative Industries Network and we need your help.

The new Network has the following aims:

• Raise awareness of issues facing the creative industries with the publication of a pamphlet.

• Promote the importance of the Creative Industries to Young Fabians, showcasing crossovers with other policy sectors (for example health and education).

• Provide networking opportunities between Young Fabians and key figures in the creative industries.

• Continue the Fabians historical link with the arts world (many founder members were key figures in literature: H. G. Wells, Virginia Woolf, Edith Nesbit, Oscar Wilde) and the Labour party’s traditionally pro-arts stance.

We are keen to hear from anyone with links to or an interest in the Creative Industries. Please come along to our first meeting at 6.30pm in the Cole Room, Fabian HQ, 11 Dartmouth Street.

For further information or to send in ideas,

e-mail creativeindustriesnetwork@youngfabians.org.uk

Victoria Prior is Acting Chair of the Creative Industries Network.

Focus on Finance Series: Road to nowhere? The Future of the High Street

By Melissa Higgs.

In the first article of our new Focus on Finance Series, Melissa Higgs, the Co-Chair of the The Future of Finance Network discusses the impact losing high street Goliaths such as HMV has on local communities.

Another month, another high profile high street chain calls in the administrators. This time HMV. The news won’t come as a shock to many in the town centres that HMV offered CDs at far above the market rate to. Job losses and eroded wages have meant that spare cash is harder to find than a rare 12” record in the 90s. The intelligent and user-friendly business models offered by Amazon and iTunes have resulted in the gradual decrease of HMV’s market share. HMV is a victim of its lack of ability to change and listen to consumers when it’s doing something wrong and outdated. HMV is reminiscent of the coalition government in that respect.

Like many large “zombie businesses”, HMV stopped being profitable and hasn’t managed to change its course. Despite securing almost the entire market after the demise of Zavvi, Virgin Megastores, and much earlier on, independent record stores, HMV has failed to transform its business strategy to one fit for survival in today’s rapidly changing and competitive consumer space.

But HMV is not alone. Woolworths, Comet, Jessops, Clinton Cards, Borders and Blockbusters are just a few of the high street Goliaths whose loss will negatively affect communities they once served.

The effect of communities is not felt in whether they will be anywhere to buy a copy of Lady Gaga’s latest album, or rent a Ryan Gosling weepy, or in the faint nostalgia of flicking through 2 for £10 hardbacks. It’s much more severe than that. It’s in the empty shop fronts – depressing indicators that no new business should open in its place for fear of similar failure, and the betting shops filling the gaps in their droves, occupying retail spaces in the most deprived areas.

Areas hit by large scale unemployment, including that resulting from shop closures, are most likely to be feeding Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs). According to Fairer Gambling, the profit made by betting shops from the 50 poorest constituencies was just over £173 million in 2012. The new occupants are sucking the life out of communities, and bringing with them the antisocial behaviour associated with addiction.

Labour needs effective policies to deal with the scores of zombie retail outlets which are likely to fall over in the next two years. The chain stores that our high streets have come to rely on are rapidly diminishing, and with them, communities and jobs. We need to decide whether to prop these outlets up with government funds or whether to encourage service based outlets, community centres, or even pop-up art galleries to occupy these spaces. There is even an option for councils to take temporary lease ownership and let them for free to start-up businesses and charitable organisations.

Another decision to be made is how to ensure that banks and administrators are not just making the best of bad debts when they are called in to assist. Real investment in transforming failing business models should be encouraged, rather than a focus on cutting costs for the eventual break up of assets. Banks need a policy of early intervention, with a requirement to look into the social impact of a large business falling over. A One Nation relationship between banks, local authorities and industry means working to ensure that town centres are places where people feel safe, employment thrives, business owners are confident that consumers want to invest their money and debts can be paid back responsibly.

The Future of Finance Network is running a series of events this year looking into what the next Labour government should do to ensure that our high streets can be a positive element of the economy – please contact Melissa Higgs, thread convenor at FinanceNetwork@youngfabians.org to get involved.

Melissa Higgs is Co-Chair of the The Future of Finance Network.

Contact FinanceNetwork@youngfabians.org to get involved with The Future of Finance Network and like the Network’s Facebook page to keep up to date with events.

Future of Finance Network: reforming the banks

Injecting virtue into our banking industry is at the heart of a progressive response to the financial crisis.

Young Fabian members of the Future of Finance Network, alongside guest experts Rachel Reeves MP, Lydia Prieg of the New Economics Foundation, and Melora Jezierska of the Charity Finance Group, gathered at the House of Commons this month to answer the biggest questions posed by the incoming reforms.

What can be done to protect depositors’ money from being placed as bets in ‘casino’ investment banks? Which policies will serve to safeguard London’s status as a world financial centre and defend the wider British economy from bank failure? How do we make banks servants of society instead of society servants of the banks?

The answers are threefold. First, new regulation has to be calibrated to maximise the public good. Ringfencing the high-street arms of banks from their risk taking investment operations is sound in principle. However, the rules need to ensure that the protected element has enough cash in reserve to act as a buffer in the event of a crisis. It is also important that policy recognises the rights of certain groups that warrant protection to access the ringfenced business- like charities and small businesses.

Second of all, we need to build a banking system founded on social values. Banking relies on trust, on mutual respect between people and institutions, and cooperation. Neo-liberalism birthed a different collection of values- market values- that stripped these qualities from the financial sector and divorced the purpose of banking from the social good.

As a result, the industry was swallowed up by a small group of corporate giants and our banks destroyed more economic value than they created. In the post-crisis age, banks need to be more responsive to the needs of communities. We need to cultivate new ‘challenger banks’ to boost competition in the sector, encourage the growth of different types of financial institutions like credit unions and mutuals, and compel a devolution of power away from corporate multinationals and into smaller, local institutions.

Thirdly and finally, there needs to be a change of culture within the financial sector. This makes demands of society as well as banks. A powerful financial policing authority, established by the state, could patrol the sector for instances of white collar crime and corporate misconduct. Incentive structures that teach salesman to treat clients as cash cows can be ripped up and replaced.

However, citizens also need to take control of their own financial lives so that they can be more selective about where they put their money. Children should be taught about the different ways they can manage their money at school, while the government could sponsor a massive publicity drive to raise awareness of the various institutions apart from banks they can use to achieve financial peace of mind.

Changing the way banks operate and control their assets will be expensive. Estimates based on the Vickers Report suggest the economy will suffer by £600 million to £1.4 billion a year for the next 30 years. However, it’s important to remember that in 2007-2009 the crisis cost the UK £140 billion. If a transformation doesn’t occur, who would bet against an even more destructive crisis engulfing the world fifty years from now?

This is the question progressives ask of an industry reluctant to change its ways. Fabians, Labour members, and socialists must continue to ask it if reform is to be saved from becoming stuck in the mud.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Budget Anatomy Aftermath

On Tuesday 24th April, Fabians came together to discuss the 2012 Budget at the first session of Anatomy, with special guest Chris Leslie MP.

The two hour session was packed with strong and focused debate, and from the encouraging words of our guest and results from feedback forms distributed to participants can be judged a success. The session involved devolving discussions to four small groups, with the groups reporting back to the floor after sometime discussing the topic.

We ran two phases in the session – the first specialised phase covered a different elements of the budget, while the second phase questioned who the budget was really for. The specialised areas discussed were the following:

* Impact of the budget on SME and social enterprises
* The fairness of taxation
* Government and financial markets
* Regional investment and development

The participants are now digesting the results of the session with output to come. If you were unable to make Anatomy but want to get involved in the Young Fabians budget response then please get in touch at financenetwork@youngfabians.org.uk. For everyone else, stay tuned.

Alex Adranghi is chair of the Young Fabians’ Future Finance Network.

A Scrub Up On The Budget

Last Tuesday saw Young Fabians come together ahead of the forthcoming Anatomy to talk about the important issues of the Budget over casual drinks in the City. This ‘Scrub Up’ discussion developed towards two important questions; two axis of measurement on how sound  tothe policy.

The first axis was centred around the question of whether the Budget was fair, or if it hit certain groups in a disproportional manner, and whether that remains true when looking at the overall programme of cuts by this government. Are elements such as the Granny or Pasty Tax really unfair, or should pensioners take some of the burden that has been so far felt by today’s youth? Will corporation tax change actually result in increased investment, or is Britain the logical choice to invest in anyway, with uncertainty in the Eurozone? There is the prospect of a Tobin tax in Europe, and if Francois Hollande is elected in France, an income tax top rate of 75%.

The second axis picked up on comments by Lord Layard at the recent Young Fabians event on wellbeing politics- the differences between short-run and long-run growth. The question whether changes in corporation tax infrastructure is the best course of action for Britain to take in the short term, and whether this budget will actually help society in the next year or two, is a pressing one. As is the question of whether low growth will leave an entire generation behind.

We spoke more about whether regional investment such as the northern transportation and ultra-fast broadband hubs were enough to promote growth, or whether it was London that benefited most from the Budget. Are the investments in the regions merely token supplements in relation to the massive loss of industry sustained there since 2008?

Will pressures on housing from job growth in London see an increase in demand spiral costs even higher? Is the change on property stamp duty aggressive enough? I suggested that an alternative was to target residential property above £250,000k owned by corporate entities with 15% stamp duty- with exceptions for social enterprises- to discourage the monopoly of large for-profit property companies. What would a drop in house prices mean politically, with so many households in Britain holding the majority of their assets in their home?

With the many lines of enquiry that can be taken on the Budget, the upcoming Anatomy session will look in detail at only a few. For those who missed out on applying to join the group, the results of our investigation will be published on the blog for your scrutiny in due course.

Alex Adranghi is the Chair of the Young Fabians Future of Finance Network

The Anatomy will run at Parliament

Facebook
LinkedIn

To find out more about the budget, you can read the official executive summery and Deloitte’s online analysis.