Economy – John Vincent

Reflecting on a Decade Post-Brexit: Lessons Learned

The clock has clicked. The pages of the calendar have flipped. Crises have been and gone. And in the UK’s political turmoil continues to exasperate one and all. A decade has passed since UK voters backed a proposal to leave the European Union (EU). The surprise result of the 23 June 2016 vote and the tiny majority for change still haunt the whole country.

Voters were told this and that would not happen, prosperity and a lowering of the cost-of-living were just around the corner. We now know that lie after lie piled-up. The mouths of the advocates of the vote to leave spouted pure undiluted nonsense. Yet, the noisy ones show no remorse or shame.

The pace of change can be overwhelming. Over the last decade the world has moved on with increasing speed. It’s self-evident that the 21^st Century is becoming an era of accelerating change. Sadly, in adopting the worst kind of Brexit transition the UK has become a lesser influence. A spectator in the world that has changed dramatically.

The first 10-year anniversary of the Brexit referendum is a time to take stock. To be mystified in reflection of the maddening goings on of the years past. I will not repeat pages and pages of analysis that others have provided. A simple conclusion is evident. The nation is poorer by a substantial amount.

I’m not in favour of endless navel gazing. We are where we are and it’s not a good place to be. What must be plotted in a way forward that increase prosperity, builds resilience and unseats defeatism. Political polarisation and the slide to appease the far-right is proving to be disastrous. The warnings of history should be heeded.

The future of the UK-EU relationship has the potential to be better one than ever before. At least we now know that there was good sound reasoning behind our past membership of the EU. Facing global challenges together is a far better way to face the future. Rapidly advancing technology, social upheaval and geopolitical shocks are not going away. The means by which we collectively respond to these challenges will be critical.

This is not a time to relitigate the Brexit referendum. Let the past be the past. We have learned from that past. It’s far better to ask what a better future looks like. Europe has common challenges. It’s an interconnected, interactive and interdependent region. We share a common cultural heritage.

Discussions over the future will never abate. But there’s a need of it to be put on solid and sound reasoning. Not by equating independence with isolation. Weve found that doesn’t work.

The UK and EU must forge a new closer relationship. It’s a win-win scenario.

Perceptions of Aviation Professionals

Let’s see what aviation stereotypes look like. There’s a wide selection of free images on-line. There’s a typical view of the crew of an aircraft. It didn’t take long to find one.

I can point out the obvious gender related features of such images, but what first caught my eye were the aircraft engines. They were way to far out on the wings. I suspect our good friend artificial intelligence may have generated such a colourful image.

Now let’s go for an Air Traffic Controller. The image that came up did have plus points. It did give an impression of what a controller’s job is about, at least as much as a simple graphic image can. I did expect to see a radar screen with dots on it as part of the image. A controller sitting at a desk with buttons to press and a window to look out of sums up the basic picture.

Next my on-line search was for an aircraft mechanic. Now, I started this search with low expectations of what might come up. The picture I got was of a hanger with two large aircraft to the left and right. Standing in the middle of this scene was a man in overalls moving an aircraft engine on a trolly. Proportions were off, in that the engine diameter was half the hight of the mechanic. Yes, the stereotype of a workingman with a spanner persists.

So, what have I discovered? Not much really. Or not much that didn’t fit the title of time-honoured stereotype. Images that pigeonhole jobs as done by people who dress in a particular way and are surrounded by the equipment of their trade. Roles, age, race and gender are fixed in a traditional pattern. I do draw the conclusion that, for all the daily hype, artificial intelligence is not going to do anything original when faced with a simple question about specific job.

This isn’t good. If the latest advance in technology is locked into classical and predicable images from the archives, then it’s not so advanced at all.

Why does this matter? Well, there’s a great deal of concern about where the next generation of professional in aviation are going to come from. Our wish to fly is affected by lots of social, environmental, and economic factors. Overall, the trend over coming decades is in one direction – up. More flights, more aircraft, and the need for more people to operate the system.

If the generic images of the professional roles in aviation are stuck in the past, then that’s not going to help. It’s off-putting. There are those young people who may find the traditional professional stereotypes appealing. My guess is the majority are unlikely to think this way.

In an on-line environment where artificial intelligence regurgitates the past this technology may drive us backwards. Not for one moment does the image of a workingman with a spanner need to be demoted. What needs a touch of imagination is a portrayal of images more akin to reality. A changing reality too.

[Yes, the title image is an appropriately prompted artificial intelligence generate one provided by WordPress].

Brexit Documentary Review

Firstly, a reaction to the BBC documentary that’s telling the story of Brexit. They called it “Brexit: A Very British Civil War[1].” A corny title that plays on titles “A Very British Scandal,” the drama about Liberal MP Jeremy Thorpe and “A Very Royal Scandal.”

The “Civil War” analogy is out of place. Ten seconds of reading about any real civil war would have sunk that illusion. The events of 2016 were more a battle for the future. Battles continue to rage as the advocates of Brexit have merely changed their colours and rebranded.

Yes, I agree. The stage was set by the choice that voters took in 2015. In fact, if blame must be allocated then its as much the fault of liberal minds as it it’s the reactionary forces that pounded away at their ambition. The political idiocy of promising a national referendum in a country that rarely, if ever, has referendums was a critical folly. The UK is not Switzerland. UK voters have no idea what it’s like to be that sort of federal democracy.

David Cameron won a majority and his hand were tied. He did have choices, but he plodded along with all the imagination of a dull public-school boy in fear of rejection by his peers. Cameron didn’t see the bus that was about to hit him. Having been pounding away for decades the rag tag but monied pushers of a referendum wasted no time in campaigning. Cameron wasted every opportunity.

Aside from the story that the BBC chose to document is the image of a modern European country run by a strange herd of mostly Tory men, living a privileged life. It’s a searing display of a political crisis made by a few for the interests of a few.

I know it is said by both left and right in UK politics, but what more does anyone need to convince themselves that there’s a chasm between the people in Westminster and the people of the nation. Demographic trends were likely to shape the outcome of a national referendum. It proved to be so in the numbers. An older age group favouring Leave and a younger one favouring Remian. Populism had taken root in the Leave campaign.

The dim-witted organisers of the Remain campaign ran a campaign as if they were changing the name of a chocolate bar with diminishing sales. As if they were stereotypical comic depressed bowler hatted businessmen from the 1950s, Cameron’s crew ignored the analysis and lumbered on. He took a politically suicidal path.

The likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove dithered with only their own political ambitions tugging at them to eventually decide as to which way to go. Again, my reflection amounted to – what a bizarre way to run a country. Especially one with the history and traditions of the UK.

I understand the notion that Cameron may have seen this political path as a way of resolving a self-evident Tory split once and for all. Ironically, the outcome is a Tory split the like of which couldn’t have been imagined ten years ago.

Deciding whether to back Leave or Remain wasn’t the real question. Capturing the future political agenda was the aim. 2016’s national referendum was not a war; it was a battle. The battle continues.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002xhvj

Shaping Our Digital Landscape

Waking up in the morning I look out of the window. A street scene. A well-maintained road. Houses and the greenery of their gardens. Parked cars and flowering shrubs. I hear muted traffic noise from the main road. Birds and the wind rustling through the tall trees.

I didn’t make these or ask them to be there, but I did choose to live on this residential street. In everyday experience there’s a million and one aspects of life that I take for granted. These surroundings have evolved, or should I say developed. Flicking back the calendar, there was a transformational moment. There was a time before this built environment when this area was open fields, hedges, and trees. A rustic farmed landscape.

Systematically, a local authority gave permission for the development of this residential area back in the 1950s. Generally, what they delivered has passed the test of time. The infrastructure works. Notwithstanding the propensity to dig-up the pavements and roads when it doesn’t.

In taking our surroundings for granted there’s not much thought given to the transformational moment that produced this tranquil scene of urban peacefulness. Yet, it was key to what happened for the next 70 years.

Like it or not, a paper based bureaucratic process involving and engaging the councilman and councilwoman of the town and motivated private builders produced this urban setting. Public and private interests working together.

Compare and contrast how our society is making the digital environment that we now inhabit. I could say that it’s not making it at all but rather letting it happen. As an illustration of how strange the transformation impacting us all, I got an e-mail with this intriguing line:

This is an operational email required for your ABC account to function properly and cannot be unsubscribed from.

Here’s an interesting digital imposition in my inbox. I don’t want this ABC account. I thought I’d deleted it. Yet, it’s provider politely tells me that such emails can’t be unsubscribed. I assume they think that’s to my benefit in some mysterious way.

[I won’t get sniffy about west coast Americans ending a sentence with a preposition.]

Where are my elected representatives when it comes to the regulation of the construction of our digital environment? Do the ones in my municipal, regional, or national government have any say over what happens in this fast-moving environment?

I won’t throw my hands up in horror as if there’s no one. I’m aware that there are national politicians who take an interest in the development of the digital world. Debates rage after the fact. An event occurs and an element of society’s digital transformation becomes topic for conversation. It’s all highly reactive. Our sleeping sentinels wake up when the media points out a catastrophe or some pivotal moment of transformation.

Theres little attempt for, systematically, an authority to give permission for a development or even to assert that right on our behalf. We live in a democracy where elected politicians are either asleep at the wheel or too timid to lock horns with the global digital giants.

The question I have is what kind of society will be built under these conditions?

Unity and Conflict

New news? Party sources say x% believed there should be a different leader. So said a notable political correspondent under the banner “Labour leaders try to restore morale.” The article went on to say: “…arguing that the party must pull itself together and “steer a straight course” if it wanted to win the next general election.”

“But Mr Kinnock, facing mounting criticism, has chosen a different forum to launch his fightback after an unhappy three weeks that has seen the Conservatives take a 12 percent lead in the polls.”

Party politics can be a terribly cruel sport. That’s not new in all of history. This quoted article, from the 1980s has a kind of resonance with what’s happening now. The roles are different as Labour was trying to find a way of ousting the Conservative Party from power. It took them until 1997 to find a formula that worked. There’s no doubt that Kinnock did the groundwork that made the electoral success of New Labour possible. Reading my newspaper cutting, it wasn’t exactly a pleasant time.

Is this what’s happening to the Labour Party now? Sir Keir Starmer did the groundwork to win power. But Mr Starmer, facing mounting criticism, has chosen to continue his fightback after an unhappy few weeks that has seen the others prosper from his numerous shortcomings.

What next? Is it for the next Party leader, and thus Prime Minister, to make effective use of the power that remains? The threat is no longer the past enemy, the Conservative Party. Now, Reform UK are giving the impression of being the greater opposition come the next general election.

Why are we so distressed at squabbling within an important political party? This has been an almost permanent feature of British politics.

A combination of at least two fixed elements makes conflict inevitable with Parties. As well as between Parties. One is the adversarial style of British politics. Two is the primitive First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system.

Both elements assume that two of the largest political Parties will forcefully lock horns. To maintain their preeminent positions, as the largest, they must encompass a lot of people who simply do not agree with each other. There’s as much politics within the politics as there is in the real world. Leadership is as much about maintaining a degree of unity as it is governing the country.

With decades of accumulated experience, it might be reasonable to think that the established political Parties would have this one nailed. Surprisingly, that never seems to be the case.

The advice in the 1980s was: “His closest friends believe that the only way forward is to try to turn the situation around by going on the offensive against …………….” The target for an offensive here has changed but the idea is a classic one.

Will we be seeing Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer mount an all-out offensive against UK Reform? Thus, keeping his colleagues from plotting and scheming. I wonder. Certainly, this will make for an interesting month ahead.

Sustainability in Aviation

Conventional thinking pervades. It’s the model for seeming to be reasonable. To grow consensus and find a middle way through opposing parties. To bend in response to the wind that blows from popular opinion. Institutions are inclined to go this way. This is not surprising when an organisation is set-up to serve a large constituency. There’s the need to emphasise the parts of public policy that coincide with the mission of the institution. To push back gently against the ones that run adverse to that mission too. The Royal Aeronautical Society’s (RAeS) position paper on Airports[1] is a nice example. Here’s a few points that come to mind.

Linking Airports and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) isn’t such a good idea. Yes, there’s the fact that Airports have infrastructure which every form of air transport needs. That’s the upside. The downside is the competing for resources and high cost of the provisions at major Airports. There’s a degree of environmental saturation that can’t be avoided.

One of the greatest opportunities for AAM is that of entirely new air transport links. Afterall, a Vertiport needn’t take up much space. As long at there’s plenty of electrical power and links with other modes of transport there are exciting possibilities.

A long time ago the commuter class of aircraft operations was created in the US. These were referred to as air taxies (fixed wing). The idea was then to open a travel market at a layer below large transport operation. It wasn’t that successful but does show mixes of types of traffic at major Airports doesn’t work out for the smaller parties.

Regional airports, and their potential, are greatly undersold. It’s wrong to see them as merely part of a hub and spoke network. What they do best is to serve their local communities. Having recently flown through Bournemouth (Hurn) Airport for the first time, it’s clear that so much can be done to spread the load and make traveling again a pleasant experience.

To me, I see the emperor’s new clothes. The case of the expansion of London Heathrow Airport (LHR) is not viable. Dressed up as an investment opportunity this continuation of incremental development is what we do badly in the UK. Environmental saturation has hit the rails. The proposers are dressing up a project that is the proverbial putting of eggs in one basket.

I don’t think the same can be said of London Gatwick Airport (LGW). In fact, squeezing the amount of capacity out of what’s there now is a feat of amazing ingenuity. Surely, that major London airport does need a genuine second runway. Even with less good than needed surface access this former racecourse has the ingredients for success.

Yes, I know it’s difficult to get away from London centric thinking in the UK. Nevertheless, that’s what’s needed to ensure the whole country thrives. Airport policies that lump everything else as “others” or under one label as “regional” aren’t tacking the challenges. The UK as major cities. Each has significant needs for air transport.

Some say that environmental objectives and Airport expansion are not compatible. The difficulties are clear to see. Each area of concern needs resources at a level commiserate with the needs. Quality of life, in and around Airports, should not be traded for economic benefits alone. Tackling air quality, water quality, on and off Airport noise, waste management, traffic volumes, overflight privacy, and enhancing biodiversity are not merely nice to haves.

[1] https://www.aerosociety.com/media/29306/raes-airport-expansion-in-the-uk-position-paper-april-2026.pdf

Unity and Diversity

Ironic isn’t it. From the point of view of the pound in my pocket international trade, globalisation, is as important as it ever was and at a time when politics is getting more nationalistic and polarised. A ships captain stresses in Arabia and my car becomes ever more expensive to run.

It’s election time. Good luck to the Welsh nationalist in their bid for power. However, if anyone voting for them thinks it will make them richer they are probably going to think that even if an asteroid hits Cardiff. Much the same has been the Scottish experience.

In turbulent times, and all other times, we are stronger together. Sorry to use that slogan again. It’s a good one, but it proved to be bl**dy useless during the Brexit campaign ten years ago. Today, there’s certainly a need for European solidarity despite the separation that took place. Whether it’s in people’s hearts as well as their minds is another thing.

Solidarity is a wonderful instinct unfortunately it plays on many levels. For me, the United Kingdom is a construct that has served us well even if it is difficult to manage. What I mean is that unity has not brough a fair distribution of life chances and prosperity across the whole nation. To counter that it may be as well to say that solving problems in declining industrial communities can be so much different from solving the same problems in vibrant and dense city neighbourhoods.

Another slogan that gets banded around is the notion of no one left behind. It’s to point the figure at places that have suffered gradual decline, coastal communities and former sites of heavy manufacturing, and to say they should be special targets for help. So, they should be given support. However, it’s not just money that needs to flow from thriving prosperous areas to hard hit ones.

One policy that doesn’t often work is the purely restorative one. A case of trying to recreate the past. Bring back the fishing boats or reconstruct the fossil fuel industries. Equally, making their rusty remains into tourist attractions and museums has a limited shelf life.

I think the first effort must be to get at the soul of a place. Not just amongst nostalgic older folk. That strange meld of culture, community, history, geography, that has a uniqueness about it. What makes young people want to stay or leave?

The Welsh experience is one to note. Let’s take a place that has seen massive changes. The Llanwern steelworks site dominated the Newport[1] skyline for a century. Heavy industry. Coal and steel were key to the modernisation of Britain after the war. In recent decades, decline and uncertainty have been constant bedfellows.

What’s positive in this story is the resilience of the region. The reinviting back of nature. Continuing pride in heritage. Exploring opportunities for the future. Potential, sometime dormant, needs ambition and optimism. This is not a time to look inward and build more protective walls. Interconnection and interdependency are facts. We must make them work for the whole community.

[1] https://www.cityofnewport.wales/en/Home.aspx

Young People in Britain

You know, I find this argument so utterly tedious. Economics can be boiled down to old people verses young people. Polarising policy debates and setting one generation against another.

The UK Reform Party are pushing a commitment to the triple lock on state pensions. Not because they believe British pensioners deserve a good deal. No, it’s populist bandwagon to lock in the vote of one generation. Knowing that there’s a higher likelihood of older people voting for them than younger people [According to opinion polls].

It’s true that there’s a madness that has overtaken the British mentality. However, it’s not new. The value of land and property far exceeds its utility. The marketplace has been one of ever forcing a finite commodity to a higher price. The owners and inheritors of land and property have gained whilst its has become harder for younger people to get a foothold.

There have been different times. I remember my father talking about the inter-war period. It was of his father’s time. Practically farmland could not be given away. Estates were broken up. Labour was short. Taboos were challenged. The dynamic of marketplace for changed.

However, in the post-war period, the last 70-years, the cost of a modest dwelling, as a ratio of average earnings, has rocketed. Ownership of land and property has become concentrated.

British humour addressed the situation in a famous TV sitcom. As said by the character Del boy over breakfast – this time next year, we’ll be millionaires. Only Fools and Horses captured the aspiration. Only that Del boy though it was second-hand cars that would lead to riches. Now, Office for National Statistics (ONS) data shows that roughly 27% of people aged over 65, in Britain, live in households with a total wealth of exceeding one million.

So, what do we conclude? That this pot of wealth has been taken from young people in a transfer from one generation to another. No, that would be playing a sectarian political card worthy of an unprincipled populist. A foolish strategy too.

Deep within British culture there’s an attachment to assets. This particularly goes for commodities that are restricted in supply. Remember Del boy got his wish in the end. Antiques saving the day. Now, amongst most popular TV shows is the Antiques roadshow.

Maybe it’s a latent mistrust of bankers. The shady image of people who hoard money for the sake of hoarding money. In Britain, holding land and property are seen to be a stable assurance of long-term security. I’ve heard it said about land many times – they don’t make it anymore.

The tragic element here is not that young people finding it harder to become just like their parents. To harbour the same attitudes towards land and property. It’s more a question of society undervaluing their contribution to prosperity. Now, and in the future.

It’s pure idiocy to set one generation against another. It’s a mean political trick. What does need to change are the rungs on the ladder, especially at the early stages of life’s journey.

For example, the law in respect of student loans is dire, unjust and unsustainable. Making young people pay a higher marginal rate of tax, when early in their working lives is abysmal. The government penny pinching of education funding and thinning out of courses is short-sighted in the extreme. Apprenticeships must be substantial not hollowed out routes to poor rewards. The world of work [and leisure] is changing more rapidly than it ever has in the past. It’s imperative that society equips young people with the tools needed to navigate a complex and dynamic world. It’s not generous to make a priority of all aspects of education and training. It’s absolutely essential.

Spring Reflections: Communication

The season is one of mild rain and occasional storms. Seeds that have been lying dormant now get their chance to germinate. To enter the struggle for life as they compete with their surroundings. Leaves emerge, they twist and turn to channel the energy of the Sun. It’s Spring. A time for new beginnings. Longer days. Shorter nights.

UK Government Ministers are often their own worse enemies. These are smart people. Yes, I say that with no sense of irony. If they have fought their way up the greasy pole of a political career, they are not the numskulls that it’s soothing to think that they are. Well, there are naturally exceptions. God only knows why Liz Truss became Prime Minister of this great country.

Amongst the skills that are mandatory in the role of Minister, communications is surely one of them, if not the most important. Because if a Minister can’t communicate what they are doing the chances are that they will not be in a job for long. The cacophony of noise that pervades the everyday media will distort all but the clearest messages.

Let’s say there’s a 5-minute slot available on the national media to address a matter of public concern. There’s a massive pile of matters of public concern. It’s wise to stick to the ones that the individual has a modicum of knowledge about or at least has recently been briefed.

My instinct would be to us a tried and tested formula for public communications. It goes like this – tell them what you are going to say, tell them, and then tell them what you have told them. Doing this focused on one key point. Not wandering off onto tangential subjects and getting sidetracked. I know this is easier said than done. An interviewer, worth their salt, will want to extract as much new information as possible. They will be driven by the common journalist’s creed. The instinct that the greatest accolade is to get a “scoop.”

What happens, if this morning is anything to go by, is a jumble of slogans come out in an almost involuntary way. The speed of speaking increases as the clock ticks away the precious minutes. Then phases, probably implanted by civil servants, pops out of the conversation. Jargon terms like, implied wholesale element, third party intermediaries, or qualifying financially disadvantaged customers. These will mystify the listener unless they have already read chapter and verse of the subject the Minister is talking about.

As the interview progresses then Ministers become parodies of themselves. I’m sure they walk away from their media interviews with the voices inside their heads saying, I should have stuck to the script. Why didn’t I – keep it simple.

There’s a resort to catch phrases that seems irresistible too. It’s one thing to say that a government is working at pace but what on earth does that mean? The alternative would be to be sitting on one’s backside waiting for something to happen.

There’s also the pretence that an action is taking place immediately. Fixes are happening now. I think most listeners are mature enough to know that doing things takes time and resources. So, being evasive about an action that will take place in April next year, as opposed to now, sounds shabbily. Switching to a defensive mode is never a clever way to win over supporters.

It’s Spring. A time for new beginnings. It should be a time to elevate people’s spirits. The prospect of summer and the shaking off a dull dark winter is reason enough to be optimistic. Someone needs to tell government.

Understanding Primary and Secondary Legislation in the UK

Clear again is the conservative politician’s propensity to trade on ignorance. Remember the slogan of the big red bus of the Brexit campaign. All the abject nonsense that was said and written in 2016. It would be extremely charitable to call these intentional inaccuracies. There’s a three-letter word that sums them up. In theory, Parliament has rules. In practice, those rules are abused. That is until miscreants are exposed. Those politicians that misled the House of Commons over parties in Downing Street during the COVID pandemic shouldn’t be forgotten.

It’s a simple question. How many people know the difference between primary and secondary legislation? As far as I know these aspects of the UK’s method of making laws is not taught in schools. I think it’s vital that people of all ages get the opportunity to explore how their democracy works. Including its inherent peculiarities.

[Here’s a national event, later in the year, which can help. It’s free and already possible to plan for UK Parliament Week in November 2026[1].]

Back to the difference between primary and secondary legislation? A tabloid newspaper editor may see that question and fall about laughing. On the basis that the subject is not widely understood, instead of explaining, they may choose to write any drivel that serves their agenda. Day after day this sleight of hand provides bold headlines and support for misleading political campaigns. Then, if the truth pops its head above the parapet cries of Fake News ripple through the right-wing media.

By the way, the sad fact about this common distortion is an erosion of trust[2]. It’s no wonder that Parliament can be seen as remote from real-life. It’s regular inhabitants a strange breed of people who go native as soon as the walk through its hallowed doors.

During the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) it expanded. In certain specific technical areas, its “competence” grew. Member States agreed to give it new roles and responsibilities. As an example, before aviation legislation was harmonised in Europe, national legislation had to be amended to accommodate every major change that developed. In the UK, both primary and secondary legislation were applied. They are now. That consists of a UK Air Navigation Act and an Order[3]. The Act being the primary legislation and the Order being the secondary legislation. These two rules are not new as they have been part of the UK’s national aviation landscape for decades.

Above here I’ve kicked at the UK’s tabloid media. Well, they are merely doing what they have always done. There’s something in morbid consistency. What’s more disturbing are the lines being taken by a national media that might be expected to be objective. Read this short article and the predisposition shines through, and this is the BBC[4].

Sir Keir Starmer is planning a law which will mean that the UK government can adopt EU single market rules, without a normal parliamentary vote.

One, it’s the personalisation. This is the government of the day and not an individual. Two, it’s the incorrect use of the word “normal.” As I’ve stated, secondary legislation is perfectly normal. In fact, the UK’s normal regulatory structures depend upon it being in place and up-to-date.

[1] https://www.ukparliamentweek.org/en/sign-up

[2] https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/full_fact_report_121021.pdf

[3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c937jkvp3w8o