After a week of turmoil for the English, there was a welcome ending with the defeat of the anti-footballing Argentinians and the exit of one Keir Starmer! New beginnings are on the horizon, and hopefully it will only be the Spanish team who restore the spirit of 2010. However, a return to the spotlight for Ed Miliband in Burnham’s government feels eerie. A lot to get through this week!

Also, respond to this email with any opinions or thoughts; help us make it less likely this goes into your spam. 🙏 We hope you are well, warm, and wiser by the end of the read…

On Monday 20 July, Andy Burnham met King Charles III and became Britain’s seventh prime minister in a decade. The former Greater Manchester mayor returned to Parliament through the Makerfield by-election before becoming Labour leader unopposed, replacing Keir Starmer without a general election.

In his first speech outside Downing Street, Burnham promised a political “circuit breaker”, arguing that the economic and political model followed since the 1980s had failed too many people. His first instruction to government was to work towards ending rough sleeping, backed by a £340m housing and homelessness programme over five years. He also promised a longer-term economic plan centred on housing, devolution, reindustrialisation and the cost of living.

Burnham enters in a situation of dire confidence in the political establishment, poor growth, and falling quality of life nationwide. He has begun to select his top team as the cabinet takes shape. John Healey, the former defence secretary who stepped down from Starmer’s government over a lack of defence funding, has taken up the role of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The rest of the top team are as follows:

For us at Northstar, we are softly pessimistic about Burnham; there will likely be some beneficial schemes in terms of devolved powers and government-led investment plans, but in reality any shift will have been hard fought by us, the people. The only hope of salvaging some progress from this Labour government relies on us continuing to pressurise the malleable self-serving politicians in our own image, rather than any belief in their own principles. We can in many ways see this as a win for those outside Labour, in forcing their hand; it remains to be seen if Polanski et al. can continue their rise as they suffer from the success of pulling Labour to the “left”.

The BBC’s latest annual report confirmed that the number of TV licences in force fell by 539,000 over the past year, leaving 23.3 million. That decline was considerably faster than the previous year, even though the corporation says 94% of the UK population still uses one of its services each month. Licence-fee income rose slightly to approximately £3.9bn because the price increased, but the BBC nevertheless reported an operating deficit of £121m.

The annual colour licence now costs £180. You need one to watch live television on any channel or to use BBC iPlayer, but not simply to watch Netflix, YouTube or other on-demand platforms. That increasingly creates a gap between how people consume media and how public broadcasting is financed. The BBC itself now says the existing system is unsustainable, with its current funding settlement expiring at the end of 2027.

Over the course of the World Cup, some have felt the Beeb has been rather heavy-handed in its insistence we all pay our fair share. Much like the drive for more police in the face of higher crime, I would argue we should interpret the causality here to solve the problem. Why are people not paying their license? It is not simple delinquency, but definitely some mixture of pockets pinched and the service itself struggling to cope in the market. These are classic tales that stretch beyond the BBC, as many public services struggle to compete in an environment of increasing private wealth and political domination. This also traces a strategy often employed by enemies of public provision: undercut the offering of a service to the extent that people no longer see it as worthwhile, and then use this as a premise to have the service scrapped. NHS watch out!

For roughly 48 hours, it appeared that Burnham was preparing to reopen the North Sea to new oil and gas drilling. Industry groups and the GMB union had urged him to support domestic production, presenting it as a test of his promises on reindustrialisation, jobs and energy security. Reports of an impending reversal were even welcomed by Donald Trump.

By Sunday, however, Labour had clarified that the ban on issuing new exploration licences would remain. The government will continue allowing existing fields to operate and may permit “tiebacks”, where companies connect nearby deposits to infrastructure covered by an existing licence. Decisions also remain outstanding on Rosebank and Jackdaw, two controversial projects that were licensed before Labour introduced the ban.

Supporters of further extraction say importing fuel while leaving domestic resources underground is economically and strategically incoherent. Their strongest argument concerns workers and communities whose livelihoods remain tied to the North Sea. A disorderly retreat without replacement industries would repeat the devastation inflicted on former mining and manufacturing towns.

But some of the economic promises are significantly overstated. Documents submitted for the Jackdaw project suggest it would create only 27 direct, site-specific full-time jobs, although developers estimate approximately 500 roles when indirect employment and work on an existing installation are included.

Nor would opening a few additional fields meaningfully determine household energy prices. The UK accounts for less than 0.7% of global oil and gas production and remains a price-taker in international markets. The government’s own assessment says new exploration licences would make no material difference to the prices paid by British consumers or to overall security of supply.

That is not insignificant, however, and this issue interacts with the tension between long and short term. For even if we are committed to a net-zero, green future, “in the long run we are all dead”, and there may be the democratic will for even a marginal amelioration of the energy crisis in the present, no matter how dirty that solution is.

The game’s gone grand finale took place on Sunday and the 2026 World Cup final featured the tournament’s first official Super Bowl-style half-time show. The 11-minute performance brought together Madonna, Shakira, Burna Boy, Justin Bieber, BTS, Chris Martin and, for reasons known only to God and Gianni Infantino, the Muppets.

Accommodating the spectacle extended the interval between Spain and Argentina to more than 27 minutes, considerably longer than football’s regulatory 15-minute break. FIFA had initially told teams the extension would be much smaller.

The show was the most visible symbol of the tournament’s Americanisation and comes at a time when it was also announced that punters could purchase a replica World Cup Winners ring for over $100k. At least the half-time show gave me enough time to have a long chat with the bank!

On the one hand, the licence fee gives the BBC a stable source of public funding that is separate from both commercial advertisers and the government’s annual spending decisions. That separation is supposed to protect its independence while allowing it to provide news, education, radio, local reporting and entertainment to everybody rather than only profitable audiences.

A subscription model could place large parts of the BBC behind a paywall. Advertising would make it more dependent on audience volume and corporate spending, while direct Treasury funding could leave budgets vulnerable to whichever government happened to dislike its journalism. Even people who rarely watch BBC television may benefit from the wider cultural infrastructure, training and regional production supported by the institution.

On the other hand, the current licence is a flat annual charge regardless of income. A millionaire and a low-paid household are asked for the same £180, while non-payment can ultimately enter the criminal justice system. It also rests on increasingly strange distinctions: watching live ITV requires a licence, watching a recorded Netflix series does not, and using BBC iPlayer requires one even when nothing is being watched live. Parliament’s current charter review is therefore examining both the funding model and how the fee is collected.

Alternatives include funding the BBC through progressive taxation, creating a universal household media levy, charging streaming platforms, or introducing a hybrid model. Each solves one problem while creating another.

Our position is that public-service media should be collectively funded, universally accessible and institutionally independent. None of those principles logically requires keeping the present flat licence fee forever.

Let us know what you think: reform it, replace it, or scrap it?

Spotlighting stories beyond the imperial core

Last week, we warned that Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces were tightening their grip around el-Obeid, raising fears of another mass atrocity. This week brought new evidence of the international infrastructure that allows the war to continue.

A Reuters investigation tracked ageing Boeing aircraft operated by companies controlled by Steven Shaulis, a former US Army Special Forces soldier and longtime government contractor, flying routes connected to logistics hubs used by the RSF in Chad, Libya and RSF-held Sudan. The investigation did not establish that Shaulis or his companies violated sanctions or knowingly assisted atrocities, but it demonstrated how commercial aircraft, brokers and international contractors can become entangled in a war’s supply system.

The G7 and European Union subsequently called for attacks around el-Obeid to stop, urged an end to outside military and financial support, and backed expanding the existing Darfur arms embargo across the whole of Sudan.

Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh’s former prime minister, says she intends to return from exile in India around December alongside senior figures from her Awami League party and surrender to the authorities.

Hasina was removed from power following the 2024 student-led uprising and was later sentenced to death in absentia over the lethal crackdown. She denies the charges, argues that the proceedings are politically motivated and says returning would expose the treatment of her now-banned party. The Bangladeshi government says she will be imprisoned immediately if she comes back.

Her return could create a fresh political crisis. Supporters still regard Hasina as the leader who oversaw years of economic development, while opponents remember increasing authoritarianism, repression and the violent end of her rule.

The temporary US-Iran ceasefire has once again fallen apart. By Friday, the United States had carried out strikes on Iran for seven consecutive nights, while Iran launched missiles and drones against American and allied facilities across the Gulf. Two US military personnel were killed in an Iranian attack in Jordan, with further casualties reported across the region.

Iran’s leadership accused Donald Trump of repeatedly breaching the interim agreement, while Washington blamed Tehran for failing to comply with its terms. The underlying memorandum had always been fragile: it left disagreements over sanctions, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, frozen Iranian assets and the nuclear programme largely unresolved.

On 20 July, mediators proposed another 10-day ceasefire in an attempt to reopen negotiations.

A pause is obviously preferable to another week of bombing. But serial short ceasefires are becoming a mechanism for managing the war rather than ending it. Each collapse normalises direct conflict between the United States and Iran, expands the number of countries exposed to retaliation and makes the next escalation easier to justify.

A brief explainer on a concept, term or interesting corner of our world

The argument over Rosebank and Jackdaw repeatedly mentions something called “Scope 3 emissions”. What does that actually mean?

Emissions are commonly divided into three categories:

Scope 1 covers pollution produced directly by something an organisation owns or controls—for example, fuel burned by its vehicles, boilers or machinery.

Scope 2 covers emissions generated to produce electricity, heat or steam purchased by that organisation.

Scope 3 covers the remaining indirect emissions across its wider value chain, both before and after the organisation’s own activity. That can include suppliers, transport, employee travel, investments and, crucially for fossil-fuel projects, the eventual use of the product sold.

Imagine an oil company operating a drilling platform. The fuel burned on the platform is largely Scope 1. Electricity purchased to run facilities is Scope 2. The much larger quantity of carbon released when customers eventually burn the extracted oil is Scope 3.

This distinction became legally significant after the UK Supreme Court’s Finch judgment. The court found that an environmental assessment for an oil project had been unlawful because it failed to consider the emissions that would arise when the extracted oil was eventually burned.

Companies have often preferred to emphasise the relative cleanliness of the extraction process itself. Scope 3 accounting asks the rather obvious follow-up question: what happens to the product after you have extracted and sold it?

Some links to beat the brain rot.

Our very own Noah traces bouyon from its roots in Dominica to its growing influence across Caribbean and diaspora dancefloors. Combining personal reflection with an interview with Dominican musician Shelly, the essay explores the genre’s African and Creole foundations, the economic forces shaping its spread, and why bouyon feels like “the sound of outside”.

I bet you didn’t think you’d see us recommending The Rest Is Politics! This interview with French Economist Gabriel Zucman brilliantly lays out the necessity of wealth redistribution while at the same time showing the emotional reaction from the key conductors of the Soundtrack to Collapse.

Lewis’s ingenious 1942 satire takes the form of advice sent by a senior devil, Screwtape, to his inexperienced nephew Wormwood, who has been assigned to corrupt an ordinary man. By describing temptation from the devil’s perspective, Lewis explores ego, distraction, resentment and the quiet habits through which people gradually surrender their principles.