Pick a tax, any tax.

That tax almost certainly needs serious reform. It is probably creating large and unjustified distortions to how much people work, how much businesses invest, or to choices people and businesses make over how to allocate their time and resources. All those things make us less productive and leave us poorer. There’s a good chance the tax is also creating unfairness by giving different tax rates to very similar people.

Did you pick income tax or national insurance contributions? These are our biggest revenue raisers. Together, they bring in almost half of UK tax revenue. There are plenty of issues here, not least why we have two taxes on income in the first place.

But the one that troubles me most is the tax penalty on employment. Employment income is taxed at higher rates than income people get from investments or from running their own business. It’s also taxed at higher rates than capital gains. This set up, often described as lower rates for the self-employed, but is not justified by differences in government benefits or employment rights and is not a well targeted way to boost entrepreneurship. Having different tax rates on different types of income adds a lot of complexity and is unfair in the sense that similar people can face drastically different tax bills depending on how they get their income.

If you picked VAT you might think you’ve picked a straightforward tax. It’s been described as “unquestionably the most successful fiscal innovation of the last half-century” and “perhaps the most economically efficient way in which countries can raise significant tax revenues”. It has certainly been popular with governments. It raises almost a fifth of UK tax revenue, double what it did when introduced 50 years ago. But the UK’s VAT is plagued with zero-rates and exemptions. These are expensive, representing £100 billion in foregone revenue annually, and create a huge compliance burden.

Millions of valuable hours are spent applying and disputing these rules. And the rules don’t even make sense! A gingerbread man is zero rated for VAT as long as the chocolate decoration is ‘no more than a couple of dots for eyes’ – add a smile, and you’ll also need to add 20% VAT.  Chocolate Nesquik – no VAT. Strawberry Nesquik – 20% VAT.  And these are relatively straightforward examples. What madness is this? And what do we get in return? Zero-rating for goods such as food helps lower income households but in an extremely poorly targeted way. Equivalent support could be provided at much lower cost through the benefits system.

If you’ve picked a tax on housing, you’ve hit on a very troublesome part of the tax system. Council tax in England is based on property values from over 30 years ago. As such, the tax we pay bears increasingly little relation to the actual value of the property we live in. Council tax is also regressive. Not all parts of a progressive tax system need to be progressive; it’s the overall effect that matters. But it’s hard to justify lower tax rates for people living in more expensive homes. Council tax should be reformed.

In contrast, stamp duty should simply be scrapped. It imposes a heavier tax charge on properties that change hands more often. There is no good reason to do this. It gums up the housing market meaning people find it harder to move to where the jobs are, young families struggle to trade up, and older people hold onto bigger properties than they need, because it costs so much to move.

The list goes on. Inheritance tax is easily avoided by the healthy, wealthy and well advised. Corporation tax discourages some profitable investments while subsidising some unprofitable ones. A jumble of environmental levies creates inconsistent incentives to reduce emissions, making it more expensive than necessary to reach net zero.

Most of these problems have been around for decades. People who had my job before I was born were writing about them. Depressingly, it’s likely my successors will say the same thing. But it’s not inevitable.

As the general election starts to come into focus, and political parties prepare for their autumn conferences, there will no doubt be debate about the overall level of taxation. UK tax revenues are historically high. Spending pressures will grow, most notably because an aging population will increase the cost of providing healthcare, social care and state pensions. Without tax rises or a major pick-up in growth, UK public service and benefits provision will either have to be scaled back or it will deteriorate. The level of tax needs serious debate.

But our living standards will be shaped not only by how much tax revenue is raised (and what it is spent on) but also by how it is raised. Taxes could be simpler, fairer and less damaging to our productivity. And if there is one thing that will make our choices over tax and spend easier, it’s productivity. Caring for an aging population, reaching net zero, improving public services or even cutting taxes, would all be easier if we were richer.

Missing that opportunity seems to me to be almost as silly as a tax that applies to marshmallows, unless they are intended to be roasted and eaten from a stick. There’s no shortage of choice on where to start reforming. Pick any tax.

By Ben Szreter and Alexandra Burns

Who wants to pay more tax? Probably more people than you think.

If you were paying attention to the Conservative leadership campaign that played out last summer, you’d have noticed that tax – or rather tax cuts – were the hot topic. It wasn’t the first time that the promise of tax cuts formed a core component of a political campaign and it won’t be the last – both main Westminster parties are already starting to float different forms ahead of the next general election.

Tax is critical: for governing because it affects the balance sheet available for spending on public services, for politics because where the taxes fall indicates differing ideology, and for the public because it affects individuals very directly.

That’s why, working with the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), we are taking a closer look at the tax landscape as part of our UK 2040 Options work. Today, with the IFS, we have jointly published a set of fundamental facts, and we are developing more work together for release next year.

Large demands for public spending are being created by a combination of demographic pressures, high inflation, rising debt costs, sluggish economic growth and weakened public services. The choice for politicians is difficult –  there are no easy cuts to make. The major tool for tax increases has been freezing tax thresholds, stealthily bringing in substantial revenue. But if the economy continues to struggle, rather than tax cuts, the government will be forced to consider increasing taxes in a more visible way. The concern for all parties will be whether the public are prepared to pay more.

But what do the public think about taxes? We’ve used survey data, both existing and new,  to try to answer three questions. Firstly, what does existing data tell us about how people in Britain feel about the amount of tax they pay, and how has that changed over time? Secondly, how much does the framing of the question asked about tax matter? And finally, how accurate are the public about what others think about tax? According to our findings, the answers are likely to surprise you.
 

How do people feel about taxes in the UK overall?

The prominence of tax in the political debate doesn’t seem to match the level of importance the public assigns it. For example, the Ipsos Issues Index in August 2023 shows that only 4% of the public identify tax as one of the most important issues facing Britain today. The highest level this figure has ever reached is 14% and that was in March 1979, a year before our current prime minister was born.

What does the public feel about the level of tax we pay? If you were to consult the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey for an answer to this question, the answer is that a majority of the British public are in favour of higher taxation, with 52% of survey respondents saying so in 2021. They’ve been reporting on this for decades, and while the “raise taxes” and “keep them the same” options have both vied for the top spot over the years, “reduce taxes” has never come close, staying in the single digits.
 

 
This is publicly available information from a nationally representative survey so you might wonder why politicians would be so focussed on tax cuts in this context. One hypothesis could be that different kinds of voters have different views on this issue and therefore those wanting to appeal to a certain group focus on it for this reason.

We also asked this question to people in battleground constituencies in our recent polling for UK 2040 Options. Asking the same question as the BSA, we found broadly similar results. Respondents were divided between those who want to keep tax at current levels (38%) and those who want to raise taxes (36%). Just 12% expressed a preference for lower taxes. Even among people who previously voted Conservative and thus who may traditionally support a smaller state, we found just 15% in battleground constituencies want to cut taxes and spend less.

So, at this level at least, that hypothesis doesn’t seem to hold out. What else could it be?

The answer is in part that these survey headlines mask an important detail – the question asked directly links tax to spend.
 

Framing makes a difference

The specific question asked in the BSA survey is:

“Suppose the government had to choose between these three options. Which do you think it should choose?

• Reduce taxes and spend less on health, education and social benefits
• Keep taxes and spending on these services at the same level as now
• Increase taxes and spend more on health, education and social benefits.”

The way this question is framed draws a direct link between taxes and spending on “health, education and social benefits” — topics that we know the public care about. What happens if we remove that framing?

We ran a further piece of polling, this time with just over 3,000 people across England. For around 2,000 of them we asked the same question that BSA uses (see left column of the table below). For the other 1,000 we changed the response options to link tax to spend more generally (right column):
 

 
With the standard question used in the BSA, the answers from our new polling were close to the other surveys: 35% say they want increased taxes, 41% say they want taxes kept the same and 15% want taxes reduced. But the new framing made a big difference. There was a 15 percentage point drop in those saying taxes should increase, a six percentage point drop in those saying taxes should stay the same and a 22 percentage point rise in those wanting taxes to reduce.
 

 
These differences are pretty stark. Framing matters.

Some would argue that the BSA framing is a crucial reflection of reality, being clear that tax cuts mean having less to spend on key public services. But others would say that the impact of tax cuts for the public is dependent on other economic or fiscal choices, that where public spending cuts fall is a matter of priorities, and therefore the framing is too leading.

Our findings do not tell us what’s right or wrong, or give us the entire picture. They do not tell us whether people’s attitudes on tax are a strong predictor of their actual voting behaviour, or what happens to opinion when the rubber hits the road on the campaign trail and tax is made a totemic issue.

Indeed, support for increased tax in a general sense may not always translate into an increased willingness for individuals to pay more tax themselves. But it does show us that framing matters when talking about taxes with the public, and political parties will want to be mindful of it, whichever argument they’re trying to make.
 

Are our instincts about what others think about tax right?

Pluralistic ignorance, a social phenomenon where people as individuals misjudge the public mood, can be striking. For example, in Saudi Arabia recent research showed that most men personally thought that women should be allowed to work outside the home, but when asked how other men think, the majority (incorrectly) expected other men to be much less accepting of this.

Could this kind of incorrect assumption be at work when it comes to our views about tax? In short, yes.

We asked the same 3,000 people to imagine 100 average adults in the country and guess their collective appetite for tax rises, status quo taxes or tax cuts.

In both of the question styles (with and without the specific spending framing), people consistently thought that others were more likely to want tax cuts than is true. They also thought that people were less likely to want tax increases than they actually were.

On average across all respondents people thought that others were 13 percentage points more likely to want tax cuts than they actually are (39% vs. 26%), eight percentage points less likely to want taxes to stay the same than they actually were (34% vs. 42%) and four percentage points less likely to want tax increases than they actually were.
 

 
If looking at this across the whole electorate (using the 2019 general election registered voters of 47.5 million as a baseline) this means that people on average think around 18.6 million voters want tax cuts when actually only around 12.4 million do; an average overestimation of more than six million people.
 

Death and taxes

“In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes” – a phrase most closely associated with Benjamin Franklin. But while taxes (and indeed death) remain a certainty, it seems the perceptions of them are highly influenced by the precise question asked, and our understanding of attitudes towards tax certainly isn’t certain.

This has implications for the way that policymakers of all political stripes should seek to understand and interpret the public view on tax, and also how they then apply that to decision making and communication.

By Giles Wilkes, senior fellow at Institute for Government and specialist partner at Flint Global

The topic of growth tends to attract a certain kind of obsessive. The great economist Bob Lucas said that once you start thinking about it, it is hard to think about anything else. The consequences of making the right or wrong decisions on growth are staggering to contemplate. Arguably, Britain is suffering some of these consequences right now.

A couple of weeks ago, Nesta gathered a dozen or so of the growth-obsessed to debate stagnation in the UK economy. The gathering came on the heels of a ‘Delphi’ exercise intended to collate the views of many more such experts and kick off the discussion. The ultimate point of this: to feed into Nesta’s UK 2040 Options project that will generate policy options to spur growth.

There’s a well-worn joke about a camel being a horse designed by a committee. It is meant to be a dig at committees – though I have always thought it rather mean about camels – and the idea of decision by consensus. Of course, sometimes this is justified. I have particularly excruciating memories of Whitehall roundtables convened to puzzle through solutions to an impending no deal Brexit. Gathering generalists in a room to deliver ceremonial five-minute speeches is no way to plan the future of the country. I cannot recall much ever being decided on the back of such meetings, and it is probably just as well.

Thankfully, Nesta’s gathering of productivity professionals could not have been more different. There were experts on skills, regional growth, macroeconomic policy, investment, politics, technology, energy, tax and more. Such heterogeneity is vital. Britain’s productivity problem is a crime mystery with multiple culprits. The worst trap to fall into is impatience, which can lead to an urge to use ‘one simple trick’ to solve something as longstanding, multifaceted and intractable as the UK’s productivity problem, like it is some clickbait article about losing weight.

There is a fine line to tread between due acknowledgement of the scale of the problem and trying to eat an indigestible everything-burger of economic ailments, and I think our roundtable managed to tread it. Certain strong themes emerged. Lagging investment, and the structural reasons for this, was one of them. It is hard to find anyone who really thinks the country’s centralised-yet-fragmented political structure is good for investment. Too much is hoarded to an overburdened, under-resourced and politically-diverted Westminster, and the only power to have been thoroughly devolved – planning – is one that holds up growth. Local communities are disengaged and consequently obstructive.

This is a problem that will take an act of political courage to break out of the loop. People are used to blaming central government for the state of their neighbourhood. Never being given full responsibility, local actors never gain the skills to take on the powers they need. Central government, in turn, evaluates devolution as a risky idea, given the lack of local capacity. Some future government needs to go ahead anyway, take the risk that money will be spent badly, and stay the course. Waiting for the perfect moment means nothing happening.

It would have been odd if the problem of inconsistent policymaking was not brought up. What passes for industrial strategy in the UK has been started, stopped and started again too many times to count. Once-a-generation strategies appear every year or two. Institutions to support a more consistent policy framework are missing, or are scrapped soon after coming into existence. Policy uncertainty also shows itself through a lack of long-term budgets, and a consequent inability of local authorities, businesses or government departments to plan ahead or even gain the skills to.

The last theme I would like to emphasise is the closest I will ever come to the ‘one simple trick’ delusion. Economic growth is a scale game. The more exposure there is to customers, ideas, competition and capital, the better the economy will be. You can see this at the level of the business, which is an inherently geared creation, always trying to generate more sales out of the same fixed cost base, and the same applies to the whole economy. Scale is what motivates investment, and scale is what justifies government intervention. There was definitely a lot of frustration that the UK government, when it does act, does so in such a tentative way, as if every footstep it takes needs to be piloted first. The problems are not going to be solved with subscale ideas that fail to be followed through.

Once again, in my view if there is an answer it has to come from the politicians. When they set out a policy goal – be it to build a series of giga factories, become a world-leader in quantum technology, or install five million heat-pumps – they need to become much more demanding about the “how” of the policy, not just the press release on the day of its announcement. Too often the government machine reacts to ambition with concern about the risks; with pilot schemes, consultations and so forth. The politicians need to demand to know what will actually happen, and then stay on the case to make sure it is delivered. Officials will be nervous, because they are blamed when things go wrong, which means the politicians being clear that they, not their staff, are to be held responsible.

Far more was debated than can be summarised in a short post like this; had I enough words, I would love to relate more what was said about tax, energy, skills and the labour market. We barely touched upon the immediate choices facing the next government, whatever it may be: its fiscal pressures, the relationship with Europe, and how to push greater devolution. At the end I was relieved we had been set a 15+ year timescale to think about, rather than the more typical “give me five good ideas for a speech next Thursday” schedule that is regrettably normal in politics. But as the UK 2040 Options programme proceeds, I expect the sense of urgency to increase and the focus to narrow. There’s an election next year and the need for genuinely good ideas has never been greater.

By Ben Szreter, Senior Policy Manager at UK 2040 Options
 
What do the public perceive as the most formidable challenges for the government to tackle by 2040? Our recent polling in battleground constituencies affords us some insight, looking not only at which issues the public think are most important for the future, but also the long-term challenges they think government is responsible for, and will most struggle to address.

The results of the polling encapsulate not only a snapshot of current societal anxieties and aspirations, but also a forward-looking expectation of the government’s role in society over coming years. It’s a reflection of the collective mindset when it comes to what government is capable of, and should be held responsible for, in the UK.
 

The easiest and hardest issues to solve by 2040

In our polling of 4,000 people in battleground Westminster constituencies, we asked: “Which of these issues do you think will be easiest and hardest for the government to solve by 2040?”

The issues that those in battleground constituencies believed would be the most difficult for the government to resolve by 2040 were:

1. Reducing carbon emissions to levels that combat the effects of climate change

2. Reducing inequality and poverty across society

3. Managing the numbers of both legal and illegal migration to the UK.

These views were fairly consistent across different ages and genders, with some slight differences such as people over 65 believing managing migration would be harder to solve (33% compared to an average of 22% for people under 65).

On the other end of the spectrum, the issues perceived as easiest to solve by 2040 were:

1. Ensuring the NHS is fully funded and staffed (note: this was also the fourth highest on the list of the most difficult)

2. Reducing inflation and the high cost of living

3. Ensuring energy prices are affordable for ordinary people.

Again, there was a lot of consistency across age and genders, though those under 35 tended to think reducing the cost of living would be easier, compared to older age groups.

 

 
In areas where the public view challenges as harder for the government to solve, there may well be more willingness to consider a variety of options for solving the problems.

This could create the space for fostering deeper public engagement and a conversation about the choices we face. By developing a variety of options, we can encourage a collective and considered approach to tackling society’s most pressing challenges. This necessitates a more transparent, flexible approach to problem-solving and policy-making including the need for collaboration between government, businesses, NGOs and individuals in solving these immense challenges.

What is government completely responsible for?

We also explored the views of the public in these battleground constituencies on the UK government’s level of responsibility for issues. A clear majority believe the government is ‘completely responsible’ for three key areas. These are: accountability and trust in government (73%), ensuring the NHS and the education system are fully funded (70% and 61% respectively), and wide-ranging socioeconomic concerns such as managing migration (63%) and reducing inflation (59%).

 

 
People (in these battleground constituencies at least) hold the government in Westminster responsible for a wide variety of issues, from public services to energy prices. There seems to be a fairly maximalist view of the role of the state in the UK. If the government is viewed as responsible for many of these things, then developing workable options for dealing with these issues will be viewed as an important part of developing a vision for the country.

It’s worth noting that those who said that they intend to vote Labour held the government more responsible for issues than those who said that they intended to vote Conservative. This was by an average of 10 percentage points per issue and was true for all issues except for managing migration and promoting respect for British values. For these issues, Conservative-intending voters held government more responsible than Labour-intending voters by a small margin.

Complex tapestry of expectations

The charts above illustrate a complex tapestry of expectations and realities, in which some issues are seen as more solvable than others, and the government’s perceived role varies from being the primary actor to part of a wider societal response.

The role of government is multifaceted and complex, with challenges that range from those within its direct control to those that are largely beyond its influence. For example, while it would be unreasonable to expect the UK government to single-handedly resolve the war in Ukraine, it seems more plausible to anticipate the UK government addressing the NHS backlog.

As we look towards the horizon of 2040 in the UK 2040 Options project, these insights offer a roadmap for navigating the complex terrain of public expectations and government responsibilities. They underscore the need for a government that is not only proactive in addressing the issues within its control but also innovative and collaborative when it comes to tackling those that seem insurmountable.

The public perception of the UK government’s capabilities and limitations serves as both a challenge and an opportunity – a challenge for the next government to meet high expectations, and an opportunity to engage the public in an honest dialogue to find solutions to the toughest problems.

By Ben Szreter, Senior Policy Manager at UK 2040 Options

What issue does the government most urgently need to address? It’s a question that has no correct answer – but one that’s been put to the public again and again over the years.

Public concern has evolved over the decades, shifting from unemployment to public services to the economy to the EU. In this blog, we map these changing priorities and explore their implications for what the government should focus on.

The aim of UK 2040 Options is to bring fresh angles and insights about how we shape the the UK’s future by exploring the choices that the country faces over the next two decades. And the first question to ask is: what should the government prioritise?

Public perception is a dynamic landscape

Over the past four decades, the public’s perception of what the most important issues are has changed significantly. The chart below shows data from the monthly Ipsos Issues Index for the 12 months preceding each election since 1974 (see notes on the methodology below).

For elections in the 1970s, inflation gripped the nation’s attention, followed by unemployment in the 1980s and public services – in the form of education and healthcare – in the 1990s and early 2000s. More recently, economic issues, immigration and the EU have taken the spotlight. As we can see, these public concerns are not fixed: some fade away, as unemployment seems to have done, while others resurface – sometimes due to external factors and sometimes as a direct result of political strategies.

So what are the most important issues in the public mind right now? The chart below shows the most important issues for the public in the 12 months to May 2023.

It’s evident that the public’s concerns change over time and that they are both influenced by and influence the political choices of the day. But what do levels of public concern about these issues have to do with governmental priorities?

The other factors involved in governing effectively

While public opinion plays a significant role in shaping policy decisions, it is, of course, not the sole factor to consider. There are many more issues to consider beyond immediate public concerns. At a recent UK 2040 Options event, project sponsor Lord Gus O’Donnell argued that an effective government would prioritise issues of deep importance such as climate change regardless of how highly rated it is at any point in time as an issue of concern by the public.

A part of the conclusion of the Options for a New Britain work of 2009 (a precursor to our current UK 2040 Options project) was that there are various categories of government priority that go beyond those in the public consciousness but that must be addressed in order to effectively improve lives. As well as the issues focused on by the public, there will be a mix of political projects (think reducing inequality or reducing the size of the state), external imperatives such as climate change or geopolitical factors and more administrative concerns that must be addressed for effective delivery, such as public sector performance or devolution. Of course, there will be overlap between these categories too.

Public opinion will clearly be one of the major factors determining the debate we have about policy choices over the next year – but it won’t be the only one.

Our charts above offer an insight into the landscape of public concerns now and before elections over the last 50 years. As part of the UK 2040 Options project, we will be studying public concern, but also considering the intricate web of other challenges the next Government will need to consider in order to deliver effective government for the people of the UK. We can then aim to provide an assessment of the major decisions that the next government must consider and the options they could pursue in order to improve people’s lives.

Notes on the Ipsos Issues Index

• The Ipsos monthly issues index asks: “What would you say is the most important issue facing Britain today?” and “What do you see as other important issues facing Britain today?”
• The responses are unprompted and the data used in the graph is the percentage of respondents specifying the relevant issue across either of the two questions. This means that the total percentage of all issues is above 100% as individuals can choose multiple issues.
• The monthly sample size is around 1,000 every month and includes England, Scotland and Wales.

By Alexandra Burns, Director of UK 2040 Options

In a world that sometimes feels like it’s in a state of permacrisis, it can be difficult to look up from the now. But in order to chart a path ahead, we must lift our heads from the immediate and look forward.

That is why we’re launching UK 2040 Options next month. We’ll be combining the need to look to the future with the reality of policy, governing and ultimately tackling the big challenges the country faces – mapping out the big choices and then testing and interrogating the ideas that surface.

The vast majority of those making policy are driven each day by wanting to make things ‘better’. Tony Blair said at his final Prime Ministers’ Questions that “whilst politics is on occasion a place of low skullduggery, it is more often the place for the pursuit of noble causes.”

I spent ten years working in Government with a range of politicians, on topics like health, education and online safety. And, while there has been more talk of skullduggery in recent times, I still believe that underneath it all, the aim for most – whichever party you represent, however you vote – remains those noble causes, that appetite to make things better.

Starting a healthy, constructive debate about the country’s future

But what does better mean? Who do we most want things to be better for? How do we achieve better? In my experience, the level of disagreement grows the further down that list of questions you go, and the number of options you have multiplies.

Take childcare policy, for example: an area on which everyone agrees we must do better. But there are choices to be made about the main objective. One version aims to enable or incentivise work; another way would eliminate the inequality in access to high-quality early years education. Both are ‘better’, but they can lead you to different policy answers. There are examples like this in most policy areas.

We want to look at that next level of what ‘better’ means. And over the next year, there will be no shortage of proposals, opinions and recommendations. UK 2040 Options will be different for a few reasons.

The options that will shape 2040

Firstly, we are going to stay focussed on the future. A child born today will become an adult in the early 2040s. There are some things we can predict with relative confidence about that period – the global population will be around nine billion and the number of people in the UK aged over 85 will have almost doubled compared to in 2020. What will the defining challenges be between now and then? And, crucially, what steps do we need to take now to affect them?

We want to lift our heads up from the acute challenges we are feeling right now and look across a set of defining issues: economic growth, net zero, health, education and wealth and income inequality.

We’ll also be assessing some enabling areas: technology, tax, power and place. Across all of these themes, we’ll ask: where are these areas heading as it stands? What can we change? And what can we learn by looking at them together, in the round?

Secondly, we won’t be advocating just a single point of view. We want to create a space where a range of people from established experts to emerging voices, academics to policymakers, can debate the options. We won’t represent a single worldview either – we will draw on solutions from across the political spectrum.

And thirdly, we won’t only state ideas, we will test and interrogate them. We will look at where there is consensus or divergence using Delphi-style exercises and workshops, and where there are gaps that need filling in with evidence or ideas. We’ll then work together to improve those ideas by red-teaming them, conducting pre-mortems, challenging ourselves and each other to take them to the next level.

In the coming months, we’ll host private workshops and public events. Nothing is off the table, but we will be honest about the trade-offs (there always are some) because we want a transparent debate. We’ll share our thoughts and findings with you as we go.

How to play your part

That’s our plan as it stands, but we’ll be iterating as we go – and we’ll need your ideas.

If you think you or your organisation could work with us on a particular theme, get in touch. To stay up to date on our work, follow us on Twitter and sign up to our newsletter.