I considered the Conservative Party once as my ally. During the 2019 General Election, I found Boris Johnson’s policies admirable. Who wouldn’t want to see the country ‘level up’? Almost all policies I agreed with – except Net Zero by 2050. However, this appeared a relatively insignificant commitment; I assumed they wouldn’t keep it.
Alas, that Net Zero policy I disregarded has turned out to be one of the most significant debates this country would have in 2021. Much fluster was created for the climate summit in Glasgow. COP26, a gathering of globalists and hypocrites was, in my opinion, rather dull. An over-hyped event. I thought to myself that maybe it was a smoke screen to please the ever-growing environmentalists. Maybe it was just a policy that they didn’t want to pursue wholeheartedly after all.
Then I remembered the last 12 months. Chaos after every policy announcement. Chaos with the government. Chaos with the pandemic. It wasn’t just the chaos which I was concerned about, it was the very fabric of the Conservative Party.
Now a Blairite party, the members of the parliamentary Conservative Party have a choice to make. Do Members of Parliament want to reclaim conservative values through the party machine, or do they split off to pastures new?
In this current state, the Conservative Party is no ally to me. If you are a social and moral conservative reading this, then they are no ally to you either.
Social and moral conservatives are losing, for lack of a better term, the ‘culture war’. Recently, four Black Lives Matters protestors were cleared of all criminal charges for tearing down the Edward Colston statue. While this is fundamentally a legal issue, the acquittal speaks volumes to how we deal with protest. Protest should be about voicing concerns peacefully.
Yet, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Ministers are clamping down on protest in completely the wrong way. It seems that while the government loves their opinion polls as direction for policy, they cannot gauge the temperature of the ‘culture war’.
And so, it was with no sadness I ripped up my Conservative Party membership. I cannot support this party. David Cameron once said that he was the “heir to Blair”. These words will ring loudly when the Tories find their membership declining. I hope that the electorate and membership of the Conservative Party will realise that the Tories are no ally to the conservative movement.
But you may be asking, what party do I go to now? Well, if you are searching for my opinion, you will be disappointed. I have been politically homeless for some time now and unless the Conservative Party is destroyed there is no reason that I can see to join any other party. The Conservative Party is too large and established to be challenged from a political party standpoint.
Rather, we should be focusing our attention on the issues that affect our everyday lives, such as Covid restrictions. Fundamentally, we are now in a fight for freedom – you must stand up and be counted.
Quote: Now a Blairite party, the members of the parliamentary Conservative Party have a choice to make. Do Members of Parliament want to reclaim conservative values through the party machine, or do they split off to pastures new?
-
The Tory Leadership Wedge
As the Conservative Party leadership contest has unfolded, an issue wedge has gradually been inserted into its surrounding discourse. What is an issue wedge? It is a tactical device, not an organic manifestation, that is designed to divide ongoing political issues in a specific way. More specifically, it is meant to override organic political divisions with an arbitrary political division which favours the political agenda of the wedge-driver(s).
The problematic nature of the wedge is not its divisive nature. Quite the opposite, the problem of the wedge is that it denies all forms of political division; all political division except the form of division established through the wedge.
Division is the nature of the political; as Schmitt says: “the distinction between friend and enemy”. Where there is division, there is the opportunity for deliberation and conflict, and where there is deliberation and conflict, there is opportunity for change. When the opportunity for change is taken away, all that is left is the status quo. I refer to this as a wedge, rather than “depoliticization” for the sole reason that I am concerned with a specific instance of depoliticization, rather than depoliticization as a phenomenon. Whether it is understood as a strategy to create distance between governments and responsibility for implementing policy, an attempt to remove politics for the formulation of policy, or the more general practice of curtailing the agency of non-governmental actors, depoliticization is underpinned by the idea of removing things from the political arena, inoculating them against political critique, challenge, or change. Who decides what issues are removed from the political arena? That itself is a political matter, and more the focus of this article.
In this case, Tory Leadership discourse has been fractured by a Costalivin-Culture War wedge. In short: you must choose between solutions to Costalivin or fighting the Culture War. You are not allowed to support both.
Are you concerned by the police’s indifference to violent crime, or their willingness to harass normal individuals? Do you approve of vandalising and destroying taxpayer-funded statues of British icons? Are you concerned illegal immigration and immigration-led demographic change? Do you find the idea of “trans children” just a tad ridiculous and possibly very damaging?
If you care at all about these matters, you are a culture warrior; a low-status, GBNews-watching, Leave-voting, Union flag-waving culture warrior. If you are a culture warrior, you are indifferent to the cost-of-living crisis. If you are indifferent to the cost-of-living crisis, you are condemning the nation to poverty and suffering. If you condemn the nation to poverty and suffering, you are evil, and so on. Focus on Costalivin, categorically ignore Culture War. If you don’t categorically ignore Culture War, you are categorically ignoring Costalivin. In summary: you can challenge the status quo, just not all of it.
Who decides what aspects of the status quo may be challenged? Supporters of the status quo. Surprise, surprise! Wedge-drivers drives the wedge. By dividing Costalivin against Culture War, attributing public interest to the former and distraction and subversion to the latter, the wedge-drivers hope to ensure that the public are cut off from politically engaging with cultural issues under the guise of public interest.
When called out on their wedge-driving, the wedge-drivers insist they are merely prioritising The Issues. This disguise is immediately betrayed by the fact that priority implies multiplicity. One can have multiple priorities and stratified priorities are nevertheless priorities. To reduce any ambiguity, just note that the wedge-drivers (God save them) have taken it upon themselves to decide our priorities for us.
Discussing cultural issues is, according to the wedge-drivers, definitive proof of having no solution to Costalivin; discussing immigration, crime, censorship in public life, etc. is necessarily a diversion. Given the shallow, often non-existent Costalivin solutions of the wedge-drivers, it can just as easily be argued that their attacks on “Culture Warriors” is also necessarily a diversion.
The wedge-drivers aren’t necessarily conscious of their wedge-driving, but their mentality is generally the same. “Those stupid culture warriors and their divisive Us VS Them tactics. We need to push them out of the discourse so then people like us, those worthy of political participation, can get on with discussing “The Priorities”. It is effectively a way for political participants (especially political commentators) to pull rank on each other.
If Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak were giving speeches about nothing but “men in the women’s bathroom” or “[REDACTED] nonsense in our universities”, that would be one thing. However, despite the crippling un-remarkableness of both candidates, I don’t think it has come to that. Criticising a candidate for failing to have an agreeable answer (never mind a solution) to a concurrent political issue is different to criticising a candidate for having no answer (or solution) to a concurrent issue.
Members of the Tory Party, and the nation collectively, are affected by Costalivin and Kulturkampf (albeit in different ways) and should be allowed (perhaps, expected) to demand effective solutions to both, which necessarily entails the freedom to criticise candidates that fall short of their expectations without being accused of second-hand genocide and in need of censorship, ostracization from the political sphere, etc.
The wedge-drivers don’t want cultural matters to be in the political arena because it would make these matters contestable. By coming out in opposition to the deliberation of these matters, they reveal themselves to be supporters of the status quo; a status quo which denies deliberation and conflict over these matters, leading to the imposition of whatever can be imposed.
Keep in mind: none of this is the same as arguing that certain things are, as a matter of fact, mutually exclusive or heavily contingent on one another. Indeed, wedge-drivers seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that economic policies do have social implications.
It’s one thing to suggest that liberal government handouts, legitimised in the name of responding to a crisis, will drive immigration (legal and illegal) and if one is concerned by the latter, the former is ill-advised. It’s another thing to demand political participants self-censor their concerns about immigration because the wedge-drivers (journalists, policy wonks, commentators, etc.) have decided that talking about immigration is “Culture War Nonsense”, etc.
It is a matter of fact that mass immigration increases demand for houses and that, without any means of placating increased demand, already eye-watering housing costs will increase as well. Given this, one would imagine such a matter would be of interest to Costalivin Warriors, but it isn’t. Why? Because, as I mentioned earlier, earnest solutions are not the “priority”. It’s about preserving a dimension of the status-quo that has come under an ever-increasing amount of criticism.
In summary, the Tory Leadership wedge is an attempt to deny political choice at a time when people need it most. We should not have to choose between low taxes or low crime. We should not have to choose between constructing nuclear plants or controlling our borders. We should not have to choose between building more houses and defunding border-dodging NGOs. We should not have to choose between abolishing the Town and Country Planning Act (1947) and abolishing the Equality Act (2010), etc, etc.
This attempt to declare a state-of-exception on political discourse itself must be resisted. We must not allow wedge-drivers to give the British people the illusion of no alternatives. People are quick to note British democracy’s negative turn; the increasingly common habit of voting for “the least bad option” rather than “the good option”. Though they are right, I fear this is becoming an understatement. Not only is our politics degenerating, so too is our political commentary. The sorry state of our politicians creates political deprivation. The wedge-driving from many in our political commentariat not only makes this deprivation worse, it adds insult to the initial injury: expecting people to listen to you whatever you have to say, after having whittled down almost all their means of response.
-
The UK has a child obesity problem and tax cuts are the solution
Today, nearly 30% of children in the UK (Year 6 and younger) are classified as ‘Overweight or obese’. This figure raises serious public health concerns, as it means many children in the country are not just facing early health scares in their youth, but also potentially lifelong healthcare issues.
Recent studies have revealed that one-third of children now leave British education overweight or obese. So, it’s safe to say that the UK is grappling with a severe child obesity problem – as this aptly titled article suggests.
We need to identify the factors driving this increase, which will soon become evident, and the issues exacerbating the situation.
Historical data on obesity and overweight statistics from 1974 to 2006 show an average annual increase of 0.47%, rising from 9.7% in 1974 to 25.3% in 2006. Based on this trend, we would expect the current statistic to be around 27%. However, the actual figure exceeds this projection, reaching around 30%, or in some cases, such as Hartlepool and Middlesbrough, as high as 42.6%.
The Recession
The recession and financial crash not only caused widespread unemployment and economic instability but also led to a boom in fast-food establishments.
Before 2008, Little Chefs were a common sight on British roads. Today, however, the landscape is dominated by the golden arches of McDonald’s, the flame-grilled burgers of Burger King, and the “finger-licking” goodness of KFC. These fast-food giants are now omnipresent, not just on roadsides but also deeply embedded in every facet of towns and estates.
This proliferation of fast-food outlets is not merely coincidental but a reflection of changing consumer behaviours during tough financial times.
While I occasionally indulge in fast food, there is a stark difference between my infrequent visits and the daily fast-food consumption habits of many younger children in modern Britain. According to a 2021 BMJ study, 10% of children consume fast food daily, and more than half purchase food from fast-food or takeaway outlets at least twice a week. This staggering reality highlights a significant shift in dietary habits with concerning long-term health implications.
It might seem harsh to blame the recession for yet another issue, but the evidence is compelling. While the broader economy struggled and many sectors faced downturns, the fast-food industry experienced a surge.
According to the Financial Times, the number of fast-food chains in cities across the UK increased by 8.2% in 2009, following a 6.6% increase in 2008. The rise in fast-food outlets, particularly during an economic downturn, demonstrates the fast foods sector’s resilience and profitability amid financial distress, highlighting the ubiquitous presence of fast food in our society.
So, while the broader economy struggled to recover, the fast-food industry appeared largely unaffected by the recession’s impact.
Perceptions of the costs associated with fast food
Although, and through a Government policy lens it might sounds like an effective strategy to increase the NHS’s messaging that “fast food is bad and home food is good”, we must explore why people go to fast food restaurants.
A 2022 study shows that 32% of people stated that they ate fast food because it is cheap. Now regardless of how true this is, why do people think this? Part of the reason lies in pricing strategies, like that of McDonald’s, which has remained relatively stable.
In 2008, McDonald’s introduced their saver menu, featuring the now legendary Mayo Chicken priced at 99p. Fast forward to 2023, and the Mayo Chicken now costs £1.39, representing a 40.4% increase. Meanwhile, the Bank of England has confirmed that from during the same period, the British pound has inflated by 55%, with £1 in 2008 now equivalent to £1.55. For struggling families, this suggests that in a world where supermarket products like olive oil have seen price hikes of up to 115%, fast food remains one of the few goods with consistent and reliable pricing.
However, the crucial message that the government and councils need to convey is that cooking at home is a more cost-effective option. Despite price increases in certain supermarket goods, cooking at home remains healthier and cheaper. Yet, in my opinion, this is almost an undeniable fact – most people are aware of it. The real challenge lies in breaking the psychological barriers that perceive McDonald’s competitive prices as low and consistent, coupled with its convenience and quick service.
Why we need to prioritise healthy eating vs exercise
Physical activity is essential for children to maintain fitness and a healthy weight. Studies show that children today take 90 seconds longer to run a mile compared to kids in 1975. However, while physical activity is important, it’s only one piece of the puzzle.
Dietary research supports this. Approximately 80% of your weight is influenced by diet, with exercise contributing the remaining 20%. Therefore, promoting healthy eating habits should be our primary focus when addressing child obesity.
This emphasis on nutrition is crucial, particularly considering the alarming trend of reduced time allocated to cooking meals.
Researchers have observed a significant decline in cooking duration over the past three decades, with this time decreasing by almost a minute each year – from a full hour in 1980 to just 34 minutes today. In fact, a staggering 52% of Brits now spend less than 30 minutes on meal preparation.
Policy Recommendations
The new Labour Government has confirmed that advertising to children will be a focus of their national health policy. They plan to empower the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to regulate the amount of fast food, vaping, and other harmful product advertisements targeting children. While this is a step forward, it is a very small one and its impact may be limited.
Major fast food brands like McDonald’s have become so ingrained in our daily lives that even if they ceased advertising for the next 20 years, people would still know where to find them. Given that 10% of children consume fast food daily, the effect of reducing advertisements alone will likely be minimal. Therefore, the government should consider additional measures.
The Argument for Tax Cuts on Healthy Foods
The Government needs to act quickly.
We find ourselves in a situation reminiscent of the 2000s recession, with people short on cash, grappling with higher shopping bills, and generally disheartened by their finances.
So what can we do?
Let’s start with an option the Government has direct control over: tax policy. Contrary to Labour’s usual stance on increasing taxes, I propose doing the opposite by providing targeted tax cuts for food producers and supermarkets that sell healthy foods.
To make healthy eating more appealing, the government should consider implementing tax cuts specifically for healthy foods. By reducing the cost of nutritious options, people might be more inclined to choose them over fast food. Additionally, supermarkets could receive tax breaks for meeting certain quotas of healthy food sales.
This would somewhat replicate the successful South Korea model, where the government provides tax cuts and subsidies to farmers who produce fruits and vegetables, aiming to make healthy foods more affordable and accessible to the public.
The South Korean government also promoted healthier eating through the implementation of “healthy food corners.” These corners, launched by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, mandated that stores set aside dedicated sections for healthier food options. These sections prominently feature products with lower sodium, sugar, and fat content, making it easier for children to make healthier choices.
Support School Restriction Zones (Planning Policy)
While I believe that tax cuts are the most effective and well-placed policy approach, it is essential to consider other options that health bodies have proposed to central government and local authorities.
One effective strategy used by local authorities is to implement School Restriction Zones.
This policy prevents new fast-food or hot-food restaurant planning applications within 400 meters of a school. Evidence shows that proximity to fast-food outlets significantly increases the likelihood of students being overweight or obese.
The Issue: without government backing, local councils may face legal challenges from planning applicants, potentially costing them money and leading to the construction of more fast-food establishments near schools.
Junk Food Tax
Labour will love this one.
Similar to the sugar tax on sugary foods, a “Junk Food Tax” could challenge the affordability of fast food while increasing government revenue.
This policy could help change the perception that fast food is a cheap option, acting as a deterrent without restricting consumer choice. Though it may seem like a centralising measure, there is a strong case for its introduction, as evidenced through its effectiveness in Mexico.
Parent Supervision Policy
A potential, albeit controversial, measure could be requiring children under a certain age to be accompanied by an adult to purchase fast food.
This policy would aim to curb the habit of children frequently visiting fast-food outlets without parental guidance. However, this would be difficult to enforce and would not be appropriate, as it limits children’s autonomy and access to food.
Conclusion
Among the various solutions, implementing tax cuts for healthy foods stands out as the most effective and balanced approach.
Unlike restrictive policies that infringe on individual autonomy, this strategy makes nutritious options more competitive, supports British farmers, and promotes healthier eating habits. By making healthy foods more affordable and accessible, we can shift consumer behaviour away from fast food and towards home-cooked meals.
The current state of child obesity in the UK is unsustainable, and without swift intervention, the NHS will face overwhelming pressure from an aging population struggling with obesity-related health issues.
Tax cuts for healthy foods provide a practical, immediate, and sustainable solution that benefits both public health and the economy.
-
On the Alabama IVF Ruling
On the 19th February 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that embryos created through IVF are “children”, and should be legally recognised as such. This issue was brought by three couples suing their IVF providers due to the destruction of their children while being cryogenically stored under an existing Death of a Minor statue in the state. This statute explicitly covered foetuses (presumably to allow for compensation to be sought by women who has suffered miscarriages or stillbirths which could have been prevented), but there was some ambiguity over whether IVF embryos were covered prior to the ruling that it applies to “all unborn children, regardless of their location”. It has since been revealed that the person responsible was a patient at the clinic in question, so while mainstream outlets have stated that the damage was ‘accidental’, I find this rather implausible given the security in place for accessing cryogenic freezers. It is the author’s own suspicion that the person responsible was in fact an activist foreseeing the consequences of successful Wrongful Death of a Minor lawsuit against the clinic for the desecration of unborn children outside the womb.
The ruling does not explicitly ban or even restrict IVF treatments; it merely states that the products thereof must be legally recognised as human beings. However, this view is incompatible with multiple stages of the IVF process, and this is what makes this step in the right direction a potentially significant victory. For those who may be (blissfully) unaware, the IVF process goes something like this. A woman is hormonally stimulated to release multiple eggs in a cycle rather than the usual one or two. These are then exacted and then fertilised with sperm in a lab. There is nothing explicitly contrary to the view that life begins at conception in these first two steps. However, as Elisabeth Smith (Director of State Policy at the Centre for Reproductive Rights) explains, not all of the embryos created can be used. Some are tossed due to genetic abnormalities, and even of those that remain usually no more than three are implanted into the womb at any given time, but they can be cryogenically stored for up to a decade and implanted at a later date or into someone else.
In this knowledge, three major problems for the IVF industry in Alabama become apparent. The first is that they will not be able to toss those which they deem to be unsuitable for implantation due to genetic abnormalities. This would massively increase the cost to IVF patients as they would have to store all the children created for an unspecified length of time. This is assuming that storing children in freezers is deemed to be acceptable at all, which is not a given as any reasonable person would say that freezing children at later stages of development was incredibly abusive. The second problem is that even if it is permitted to continue creating children outside of the womb and storing them for future implantation (perhaps by only permitting storage for a week or less), it would only be possible to create the number of children that the woman is willing to have implanted. This would further increase costs as if the first attempt at implantation fails, the patient would have to go back to the drawing board and have more eggs extracted, rather than trying again from a larger supply already in the freezer. The third problem is that, particularly if the number of stored children increases dramatically, liability insurance would have to cover any loss, destruction, or damage to said children, which would make it a totally unviable business for all but the wealthiest.
The connection between this ruling and the abortion debate has been made explicitly by both sides. Given that it already has a total ban on abortion, Alabama seems a likely state to take further steps to protect the unborn, which may spread to other Republican states if they are deemed successful. The states that currently also impose a total ban on abortion either at any time after conception or after 6 weeks gestation (where it is only possible to know of a pregnancy for 2 weeks) are Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, and Utah. There are other states with an exception only for rape and incest, with some requiring that this be reported to law enforcement.However, despite the fact that the ruling was made by Republicans appointed to their posts at the time of Donald Trump’s presidency, he has publicly criticised this decision saying that “we should be making it easier for people to have strong families, not harder”. Nikki Haley appeared initially to support the ban, but later backtracked on this commitment. In a surprisingly intellectually honest move, The Guardian made an explicit link between the medical hysteria on this topic and the prevalence of female doctors among IVF patients. Glenza (2024) wrote:
“Fertility is of special concern to female physicians. Residents typically finish training at 31.6 years of age, which are prime reproductive years. Female physicians suffer infertility at twice the rate of the general population, because demanding careers push many to delay starting a family.”
While dry and factual, this statement admits consciously that ‘infertility’ is (or at least can be) caused by lifestyle choices and priorities (i.e. prioritising one’s career over using ideal reproductive years in the 20’s and early 30’s to marry and have children), rather than genes or bad luck, and is therefore largely preventable by women making different choices.
I sincerely hope that, despite criticism of the ruling by (disproportionately female) doctors which a vested interest, the rule of law stands firm and that an honest interpretation of this ruling is manifested in reality. This would mean that for reasons stated above it will become unviable to run a profitable IVF business, and that while wealthy couples may travel out of state, a majority of those currently seeking IVF will instead adopt children, and/or face the consequences of their life decisions. Furthermore, I hope that young women on the fence about accepting a likely future proposal, pulling the goalie, or aborting a current pregnancy to focus on her career consider the long-term consequences of waiting too long to have children.
