Connect with us

Politics

Miriam Cates: Have polls replaced principles?

Published

on

Miriam Cates: Have polls replaced principles?

Miriam Cates is a television presenter with GBNews and the former MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge.

Has opinion polling ruined politicians?

Polling – rather than principles – now seems to underpin most policy decisions in Westminster. Is the growing abundance of public opinion polls ruining our politicians’ ability to think for themselves?

The science of polling is nearly 90 years old.

Advertisement

The British Institute of Public Opinion (BIPO) was founded in 1937 by Henry Durant, inspired by the American pollster George Gallup, and the first British poll measured attitudes toward the abdication crisis involving Edward VIII. During the second world war, the Government regularly commissioned polls and surveys to test public opinion on issues such as rationing and conscription. Although we often think of Churchill’s defeat in the 1945 general election as a ‘surprise’, most polls correctly predicted a landslide Labour victory, a success that helped to legitimise the polling industry.

The post-war period saw the rise of commercial polling, and after 2000, the growth of the internet transformed the industry. The days of postal surveys and newspaper phone-ins are long gone. Online panels have replaced many face-to-face interviews, large sample sizes can be collected quickly, and complex statistical modelling is performed in an instant.

Opinion polls are now a constant feature of British politics, increasing politicians’ awareness of their own party’s popularity and the public’s opinions on key issues. It is now possible to see the impacts of policy announcements almost in real time.

In the past, polls were taken with a pinch of salt; pollsters were often wrong in their predictions, including about the outcomes of the 1970 and 1992 general elections. In response to a particularly gloomy prediction about their party’s fate at the next election, MPs could tell journalists in all honesty: “You can’t always trust the polls”. But improved methodology has significantly increased polling accuracy. Although under the British First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system, it will always be challenging to project exactly how many parliamentary seats each party will win, pollsters’ vote share predictions in the last two general elections were broadly correct. And besides, polls are now conducted so frequently that taking an average of the different results – a “poll of polls” – gives a pretty accurate idea of the truth.

Advertisement

Every new day brings a new poll, published and shared on X (formerly Twitter). In the House of Commons tearoom, MPs are now just as likely to pour over YouGov analysis as they are the newspapers, checking their phones for the latest voting intentions like a gambler searching for the horse racing results.

Surely access to more information about what voters think is of benefit to our political class? At worst, isn’t an obsession with checking the latest polls just a harmless habit for MPs waiting to go through the voting lobbies late into the night? Or could an over-supply of opinion polling have wider and negative impacts on our political culture?

Frequent polling causes politicians to live in a constant state of anxiety. When confronted with the latest revelation about their party’s low poll rating, you may hear MPs say: ‘there’s only one poll that counts; that’s the general election’. But this is what the kids call ‘cope’. Being confronted every two or three days with fresh evidence of how likely you are to lose your seat is like being a school pupil who is examined constantly, rather than just at the end of a few years of study. It is very difficult to focus on long-term achievement when you are facing continual assessment.

Constant feedback makes it much more challenging for our elected representatives to hold their nerve. Any Prime Minister who tries to pursue a policy that polls badly will quickly have their wings clipped by MPs. When Rachel Reeves announced the means-testing of the pensioner’s winter fuel allowance soon after the 2024 general election, polling showed the policy to be deeply unpopular, and the Chancellor was soon forced into a U-turn. Non-means-tested spending on pensioners has become completely unaffordable, and asking low-wage young workers to subsidise retired people with reasonable incomes is unjust. Yet because of “public opinion” – as evidenced by polling – pension reform is now in the “too difficult” box for this government.

Advertisement

In presidential systems like France or the United States, leaders seem to be less hamstrung by the polls, especially when, in the case of Trump and Macron, a two-term limit means neither can stand for re-election. But British Prime Ministers are not so fortunate; if they want to govern, they must find support for controversial legislation from backbenchers. When those MPs are now confronted daily by the cold hard reality of the polls, they become less and less likely to hold their nerve and support anything ‘unpopular.’ When U-turns are forced, rebels claim ‘success’ and the government claims it has ‘listened’. And precedents are set.

Another consequence of access to reliable, in-depth polling is that it has become much easier for voters to be segmented. In the late 20th century, pollsters developed caricatures such as ‘Mondeo Man’ or ‘Worcester woman’, but these ‘types’ now seem like blurred images compared to the sharp definition of today’s polling avatars. The polling company More in Common has developed a tool called the ‘seven segments’ of Britain, detailing the characteristics of voters from ‘Progressive Activists’ on the left to ‘Dissenting Disruptors’ on the right. This is a brilliant and important piece of research that is fascinating from a sociological perspective. It allows MPs to see which ages, sexes, income levels, geographic locations, and professions are most likely to vote for them and their policies. Yet the temptation then arises for political parties – like advertising executives – to aim their policies at narrow rather than broader segments of the public.

Last week, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch promised to reinstate the two-child benefit cap to pay for an increase of £1.6bn to the defence budget. At a time when low birth rates are one of the greatest economic threats, and when by 2028 Britain will spend £36bn a year on state pensions for people who are wealthy enough to be higher rate taxpayers, it seems odd to single out the only benefit aimed at young families for a cut. Odd that is, until you look at the polls. With the Conservatives’ core voting segment – pensioners – bombs poll better than babies.

We see the same principle at play in Labour’s decisions to put VAT on school fees, introduce an ‘anti Muslim hostility Tsar’ or raise the youth minimum wage. Polling shows these policies are popular with particular segments of society. Politics has always been about appealing to voters – how else does one get elected? But when the environment is so data-rich as to allow politicians to pit one section of society against another – rather than making the case for policies in terms of the common good – the result is fragmentation and disintegration.

Advertisement

Can our electoral system cope with this fragmentation? Last month saw the emergence of ‘Restore Britain’, Rupert Lowe’s new party designed to appeal to voters to the right of Reform UK. According to one poll, Restore Britain’s policies on remigration and ethnicity appeal to 10 per cent percent of voters. On the left, a similar fragment supported Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘Your Party’ when it was first announced. Under a system of proportional representation, these splits would come out in the wash, with coalitions forming in parliament after elections as small parties coalesce around broadly left or right-wing agendas. But under the British system, a fragmented political landscape where parties appeal to niche groups guided by polling, could lead to a parliament that is chaotic, impotent and utterly unrepresentative of public opinion. Whoever coined the phrase “let many flowers bloom” had obviously never heard of First Past the Post.

Polling saturation is turning our politicians from leaders into followers. Polls can tell us what voters think about a particular issue, but they cannot tell us if those voters are correct. The public’s views are often contradictory – for example wanting more public spending and lower taxes at the same time – and voters are often poorly informed. One of the driving forces behind the length and strength of covid lockdowns was that polling demonstrated public demand for these policies. The greatest barriers to NHS reforms, welfare cuts and pension reform are the polls. However fashionable it may be to wish for more ‘ordinary people’ to stand for election, we need to be honest about the fact that very few British adults have a sufficiently sophisticated understanding of data, statistics, probability, economics, science, history, philosophy or law to make good judgements on matters of policy and legislation, which is why we pay politicians to devote their time to informing themselves on the public’s behalf. Yet in trying to reflect the polls rather than attempting to persuade the public, too many MPs are trying to outsource their role back to their employer.

In relation to current events, it is noticeable that the main criticism of Farage’s initial stance on the war with Iran is that his position is in contrast with what we know is the majority opinion. Whether Farage is right or wrong is immaterial; the reaction shows that we no longer expect our politicians to lead the public but to follow. Reform UK has since backtracked on its support for the US. Perhaps they have seen the polls.

Polls can also sometimes lead us up the garden path. Although voting intention surveys are simple to interpret, this is not the case with more complex questions of policy. In the ongoing assisted suicide debate, proponents of Kim Leadbeater’s private members’ bill have claimed that the majority of the public support assisted dying. But when more sophisticated polls are conducted, it emerges that most people equate ‘assisted dying’ with palliative care, and support for a state-sponsored suicide falls sharply when the reality of what is proposed it made clear. Polls, like statistics, can be manipulated. Bad data can be worse than no data.

Advertisement

So where do we go from here? How can British political culture benefit from the obvious advantages offered by frequent and accurate polling, without our politicians becoming slaves to public opinion?

I propose a new challenge for both MPs and pollsters. Perhaps polling could be used to measure how effectively the public can be persuaded to change their mind on an unpopular but necessity policies, for example scrapping the triple-lock, or reforming the NHS. The task for politicians – should they choose to accept it – is to set out to educate and inform the public, and convince them of the case for making difficult and painful decisions in the long-term interest of the country. The change in public opinion could be measured at regular intervals, as the problems and solutions become better understood by a greater share of the population. Polling could be used to demonstrate which messages – and which politicians – are the most convincing in persuading voters to change their minds, rather than just reflecting back to them what they already think.

At present, an obsession with frequent polling too often paralyses and disempowers our MPs, and tempts political parties into narrow rather than broad appeals. Yet it might also be possible for polling to be used to reverse the trend for politicians to follow the crowd; perhaps our leaders can learn to lead again.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Exercise Could Help Students Ace College Exams

Published

on

Exercise Could Help Students Ace College Exams

There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that exercise is good for your brain. It can lower dementia risk, increase focus and attention, and boost your mind’s “fertiliser,” brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF).

And new research from the University of Edinburgh has found that students who regularly participate in their sports clubs got an average 8% higher final exam result than those who didn’t.

Staying physically active was linked to wellbeing, belonging, and lower stress, too.

How much exercise did it take?

Advertisement

In this research, conducted by the University’s Sport and Active Wellbeing team, 93.5% of students who participated in over 150 minutes of activity a week (the WHO guidelines) got a first or second-class degree.

This finding came after looking at student results and fitness group participation across five years.

Students who were physically active were also more likely to say they had a sense of belonging (81%), and said activity helped to reduce stress (74%).

This is not the only research to find a link between physical exercise and academic success.

Advertisement

In schools, getting enough exercise is especially associated with better results in English and maths (partly because, researchers say, these rely heavily on “efficient and effective executive function,” which exercise helps).

What about when I’m out of university?

Exercise can still help with your focus and attention, and has even been linked to better work performance.

Some research has shown that physically active people do better in the office the very next day after working out. And those benefits seemed to continue in the long term, too.

Advertisement

Another study even found that physcially active people tend to earn 6-10% more money than their less sendentary peers.

That’s partly because it seemed to reduce the number of sick days taken and strengthen connections between people.

Don’t mind me, just reaching for my running shoes…

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Zendaya’s Jewellery At Paris Fashion Week Sparks Wedding Buzz

Published

on

Zendaya attends the Louis Vuitton Womenswear Fall/Winter 2026-2027 show as part of Paris Fashion Week on Tuesday in Paris, France.

Zendaya channeled gorgeous bridal vibes in an all-white look during Paris Fashion Week following rumours she had secretly married Tom Holland.

The Euphoria star attended the Louis Vuitton show at the Louvre Museum on Tuesday with one key accessory that’s been getting a lot of attention — a thin gold ring on her left hand. The actor’s outing marked her first public appearance since the news broke of her purported wedding to her Spider-Man co-star.

Zendaya’s diamond engagement ring was also notably missing from her left ring finger at the show.

Zendaya attends the Louis Vuitton Womenswear Fall/Winter 2026-2027 show as part of Paris Fashion Week on Tuesday in Paris, France.
Zendaya attends the Louis Vuitton Womenswear Fall/Winter 2026-2027 show as part of Paris Fashion Week on Tuesday in Paris, France.

Marc Piasecki via Getty Images

The gold band wasn’t the only thing about her outfit that wowed fans. The actor looked radiant while posing for photos in a chic, asymmetrical shirt-style white gown that she cinched at the waist with a sleek black belt. She paired her look with pointed black stiletto pumps and simple silver accessories, making her gold band stand out all the more.

Advertisement

Zendaya’s outing comes days after her stylist and longtime friend Law Roach claimed at the Actor Awards (formerly known as the SAG Awards) she had secretly tied the knot with Holland.

“The wedding has already happened. You missed it,” Roach told Access Hollywood on the red carpet at the awards ceremony.

When asked if his announcement was true, Roach confirmed with a sly laugh, “It’s very true.”

Zendaya and Holland have not publicly confirmed their nuptials, and reps for the couple couldn’t be reached for comment. The Marvel co-stars got engaged during the holidays in late December 2024. They first confirmed they were dating in 2021.

Advertisement
A close-up of Zendaya's gold band and silver accessories at the Louis Vuitton fashion show.
A close-up of Zendaya’s gold band and silver accessories at the Louis Vuitton fashion show.

Months after their engagement, Roach teased that most likely “nobody will ever see” the Dune star’s wedding dress considering the love birds have maintained a private relationship out of the public eye.

“She and Tom are super private about their relationship. They’re trying to be as private as possible,” Roach said during a May 2025 episode of Complex’s Please Explain series.

“There won’t be a Vogue spread or there won’t be pictures of the wedding and the people who she will invite will be really respectful of their privacy, so it will be a really beautiful dress that no one gets to see,” he added.

While Zendaya’s real life wedding gown might not ever see the light of day, the leading lady gave fans a quasi look at her wedding look in promotional footage for her new movie The Drama, in which she dons a wedding dress alongside her co-star Robert Pattinson.

The film — set to hit cinemas on April 3 — follows an engaged couple whose relationship shatters just days before their wedding after a shocking secret is revealed.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Pelosi backs former Capitol Police officer over Hoyer’s preferred successor in Maryland

Published

on

Pelosi backs former Capitol Police officer over Hoyer’s preferred successor in Maryland

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is going against retiring Rep. Steny Hoyer in the race to replace him in Maryland, teeing up what could be the last clash between the two Democratic powerhouses in their decadeslong and sometimes-frosty relationship.

Pelosi on Wednesday will endorse Harry Dunn, a former Capitol Police officer who rose to prominence testifying about the horrors of the Jan. 6 riot, in the crowded primary to succeed Hoyer, according to details shared first with POLITICO.

The California lawmaker and daughter of a powerful Baltimore family hailed Dunn’s courage and leadership during and after the Capitol attack.

“My friend Harry Dunn is a true American hero and exactly the right person to represent Maryland in Congress,” Pelosi said. He “bravely defended our democracy from Donald Trump’s violent MAGA mob. Since then, Harry’s been called to do everything he can to protect Marylanders and all Americans from extremists like Donald Trump.”

Advertisement

Pelosi’s loyalty to Dunn — she also backed his unsuccessful bid for Congress in 2024 — is again pitting her against Hoyer in their shared home state after the two backed different candidates for governor in 2022. Hoyer, Pelosi’s longtime No. 2 and erstwhile opponent, is backing his one-time political aide, state Del. Adrian Boafo, for the seat he’s vacating after more than four decades.

Dunn entered the race after Hoyer made his endorsement. A Hoyer spokesperson declined comment.

The dueling endorsements serve as a capstone of sorts to the decadeslong relationship and rivalry between Pelosi and Hoyer that dates back to their time as Hill interns and spans multiple leadership races as they each prepare to retire next year. The two top Democrats have battled each other politically for years — Pelosi defeated Hoyer to become House Democratic whip in 2001, while Hoyer bested her pick for majority leader in 2006 — though they eventually formed an effective partnership leading their caucus.

Dunn, in an interview, praised Pelosi as a pillar for defending democracy and taking on Trump — saying her efforts remind him of his own crusade for accountability after Jan. 6.

Advertisement

“Anytime that somebody with the stature and political history [of] Nancy Pelosi puts their support behind me, it’s just like ‘wow,’” Dunn said. “It just means a lot to me and that should also resonate with the people that have seen how effective she has been for decades as a fighter.”

Dunn launched a failed bid for Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District in 2024, in which he was unable to overcome millions of dollars in spending by pro-Israel group AIPAC’s super PAC to boost now-Rep. Sarah Elfreth.

He entered the race for Hoyer’s seat last month and raised $1 million over the opening eight days of his new campaign, his team said. Dunn does not currently live in the 5th District, which stretches from the suburbs east of Washington into southern Maryland and includes Prince George’s County, where he was born. But he said he plans to move back from the 8th District if he wins. Whoever emerges from the Democratic primary that’s drawn at least a dozen candidates for Hoyer’s safely blue seat will be the heavy favorite to win in November.

Pelosi and Dunn have developed a close personal relationship since Jan. 6, when Dunn faced off with Oath Keepers outside her office and endured a barrage of racial attacks — both of which he has recounted in highly publicized hearings.

Advertisement

Dunn, who has become outspoken about the lingering trauma he and other officers are dealing with from the riot, described the pair on Tuesday as “good friends” bonded by the attack and its aftermath. He is also among the officers who Pelosi gathers with for lunch on each Jan. 6 anniversary, according to a person familiar with the event and granted anonymity to share details of it.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home Article | Targeted COPD case finding: a practical next step for the UK

Published

on

Targeted COPD case finding: a practical next step for the UK
Targeted COPD case finding: a practical next step for the UK

Shish Patel, Senior Director, Medical Affairs



Shish Patel, Senior Director, Medical Affairs
| Chiesi UK and Ireland

Advertisement

As the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) reviews chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) screening, there is an opportunity to move beyond population-wide approaches and scale-up targeted case finding, to diagnose earlier, reduce inequalities and ease NHS pressures.


This article has been developed and funded by Chiesi UK&I


The true burden of COPD

Advertisement

COPD affects around three million people in the UK, yet nearly two million remain undiagnosed.1 Symptoms such as breathlessness, fatigue and persistent cough are often dismissed as ageing or lifestyle-related, meaning many are only diagnosed once their condition is advanced. COPD exacerbations are the second leading cause of emergency hospital admissions in the UK and a major contributor to winter pressures on the NHS,2,3 costing the NHS approximately £1.9bn annually.4

The burden of COPD is not evenly distributed, with health constituency data showing that the highest prevalence is concentrated in the North of England,5 and likely higher due to the number of people living with undiagnosed COPD.

Rethinking the case for COPD screening

The UK has a strong track record of delivering targeted screening programmes in areas of high need. Three national cancer screening programmes exist for bowel, cervical and breast cancers, and now a lung cancer screening programme is being rolled out across England.

Advertisement

The UK NSC is currently reviewing screening for COPD in the general adult population. Given the breadth of the NSC’s review, it is unsurprising that the committee recommends against population-wide screening for COPD.

This is not a new position. In 2018, the UK NSC determined that population-wide screening did not meet the recommendation criteria, citing uncertainty around cost-effectiveness and clinical benefit.6 Whilst that assessment remains reasonable, population screening is not the only option to achieve improved outcomes for people living with COPD symptoms but who are undiagnosed and potentially untreated.

Importantly, the committee has expanded its remit to consider targeted screening, mirroring the approach in lung cancer, where the NHS does not screen the entire population but instead focuses on defined high-risk groups such as people aged 55-74 with a history of smoking.7,8 The Welsh Government has also committed to introducing a similar national targeted lung cancer screening programme, confirming this will include standardised protocols for managing incidental findings of other conditions, such as COPD.9 The current consultation represents a timely opportunity to evaluate how a targeted approach could improve COPD outcomes.

Advertisement

Learning from lung cancer screening

In England, the NHS Lung Cancer Screening Programme is identifying large numbers of people with suspected COPD through incidental CT scan findings, which are detailed scans that can help identify problems in the lungs.10 Of the approximately 1.2 million lung health checks completed to date, over 7,000 lung cancers were diagnosed, and, incidentally, over 100,000 cases of emphysema were also found.11 While people with lung cancer entered specific care pathways, no consistent pathway exists for diagnosing and managing suspected COPD. This means that for every patient receiving a lung cancer diagnosis and treatment, 13.5 people with emphysema are not getting the opportunity for the same level of care.

A strong case for targeted screening

Recognising the challenges with timely COPD diagnosis, Chiesi is working with the NHS to understand the feasibility and value of targeted case finding in high risk groups through hospital-based and neighbourhood programmes. One example is our FRONTIER Hull programme, a collaborative working project with Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, which invites individuals identified through the NHS Lung Cancer Screening back for COPD assessment.

Advertisement

Nearly 50 per cent of people assessed were diagnosed with COPD.12 Health economic modelling also suggests that targeted COPD case finding could save the NHS an estimated £33m over 10 years.13,14 Beyond cost savings, earlier identification enables earlier intervention, shifting care from avoidable exacerbations and emergency admissions towards prevention, proactive management and improved outcomes.

“Data generated as part of our FRONTIER Hull project clearly demonstrate that case-finding among high-risk individuals with features of disease, rather than population screening, identifies a significant number of people with undiagnosed COPD. COPD is a progressive disease that becomes highly debilitating over time – these patients are often unable to work and struggle with simple day-to-day activities such as walking up the stairs. Earlier identification and diagnosis can enable people to access evidence-based treatments to improve their outcomes.”  

– 

Professor Michael Crooks, Consultant in Respiratory Medicine at NHS Humber Health Partnership and Professor of Respiratory Medicine, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull.

Advertisement

Looking forward

This approach doesn’t require new systems. As the FRONTIER Hull project demonstrates, COPD assessment can be integrated into existing services, with other community models also emerging.

As Lung Cancer Screening and Community Diagnostic Centres expand, we have a pivotal opportunity to align respiratory care with the NHS shifts from hospital to community and from sickness to prevention. The question isn’t whether to screen everyone, but how to scale targeted approaches for those most at risk.

This consultation offers a timely chance for the UK NSC to refocus by conducting a new evidence map that explores targeted screening over a population-wide approach.

Advertisement

Find out more about FRONTIER Hull here.

March 2026                                                                                             UK-CHI-2600116

References

    Advertisement
  1. NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Prevalence and incidence. Available at: https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/chronic-obstructive-pulmonary-disease/background-information/prevalence-incidence/. Last accessed: March 2026
  2. The Health Foundation. Variation in patient pathways and hospital admissions for exacerbations of COPD: linking the National Asthma and COPD Audit with CPRD data. Available at: https://www.health.org.uk/funding-and-fellowships/projects/variation-in-patient-pathways-and-hospital-admissions-for. Last accessed: March 2026.
  3. NHS England. Respiratory disease. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/clinical-policy/respiratory-disease/. Last accessed: March 2026.
  4. NHS England. Respiratory high impact interventions: Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/prevention/secondary-prevention/respiratory-high-impact-interventions/#:~:text=The%20annual%20economic%20burden%20of,the%20UK%20%C2%A311billion%20annually. Last accessed: March 2026.
  5. House of Commons Library (2025) Constituency data: health conditions (How healthy is your area?). UK Parliament. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/constituency-data-how-healthy-is-your-area/. Last accessed: March 2026.
  6. UK National Screening Committee. (June 2018) Screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the general adult population: External review against programme appraisal criteria for the UK National Screening Committee. Solutions for Public Health. Available at: https://view-health-screening-recommendations.service.gov.uk/document/86cb8a05-d1d5-4dcd-84ec-e848631bb4ba/download
  7. UK National Screening Committee. Updated definition of targeted screening will help clarify remit of expanded UK NSC. Available at: https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2022/05/26/updated-definition-of-targeted-screening-will-help-clarify-remit-of-expanded-uk-nsc/. Last accessed: March 2026.
  8. NHS. Lung cancer screening. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/lung-cancer-screening/. Last accessed: March 2026.
  9. Welsh Government (2025). Written Statement: A National Lung Screening Programme for Wales. Available at: https://www.gov.wales/written-statement-national-lung-screening-programme-wales. Last accessed: March 2026.
  10. NHS. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): Diagnosis. Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/chronic-obstructive-pulmonary-disease-copd/diagnosis/. Last accessed: March 2026.
  11. UK Parliament. Written question 67321: Lung Cancer: Screening (answered 25 July 2025). Available at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-07-14/67321. Last accessed: March 2026.
  12. Chiesi Ltd. FRONTIER Hull data reveals 50% diagnosis rate in COPD case‑finding programme… Available at: https://www.chiesi.uk.com/media/press-releases/frontier-hull-data-reveals-diagnosis-rate-in-copd
  13. Brindle K, Watkins K, Gilroy-Cheetham J, Maxted C, Niazi-Ali S, Crooks M (2025). The burden of undiagnosed COPD among lung cancer screening participants. Presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) Congress 2025.
  14. Chiesi UK and Ireland. Data on File.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Labour “needs to deliver” for coastal communities

Published

on

Gas-Powered Data Centres Endanger Net Zero Targets, Warns Polly Billington
Gas-Powered Data Centres Endanger Net Zero Targets, Warns Polly Billington

Polly Billington MP (Photography by Dinendra Haria)


9 min read

Polly Billington, chair of Labour’s coastal grouping of MPs, talks to Noah Vickers about how her party can deliver for the seaside, why Ed Miliband was ahead of his time as leader, and the need for a ‘national conversation’ about data centres

Advertisement

Polly Billington is something of a Westminster lifer – she spent several years as a BBC political reporter before becoming an adviser to Ed Miliband, including during his time as Labour leader.

But now, at the second time of asking, Billington is a player herself rather than a journalist or adviser. And since her election as Labour MP for East Thanet, the 58-year-old has positioned herself as a champion of coastal communities.

Psephologists may argue about why it was that Labour won so many coastal seats. Was it really down to ‘Whitby woman’ switching to Keir Starmer – or just the type of seat profile where the vote split evenly between Reform and Conservatives? If Labour wants to hold any of them, however, it had better deliver meaningful change to coastal voters.

Advertisement

It’s a message the former journalist is pushing hard, while also representing backbench concerns to the party’s leadership as a Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) committee rep. But she is vocal too in her defence of her former boss. Miliband, she says, was right before his time on the key political questions of the day. And, as battle lines begin to be drawn up over AI and the environment, Billington is prepared to question just how much we should sacrifice to energy and water-hungry big tech.

We’ve now got more coastal Labour MPs than we’ve ever had

Advertisement

“I set up the Coastal PLP again for the first time since the New Labour government because we’ve now got more coastal Labour MPs than we’ve ever had, even in 1997 and especially in 1945 when Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate did not go Labour,” she says, name-checking the towns which make up her seat.

“So, we’re a considerable chunk of the PLP, and that gives us not only an electoral opportunity but also a policy obligation and a delivery obligation,” she adds. “Labour’s majority is partly rooted in those communities and we therefore need to deliver for them.”

Nine out of the top 10 areas in 2025’s English indices of multiple deprivation, she points out, are in coastal areas. Seven of those 10 alone are in Blackpool. Life expectancy can often be significantly lower, and public transport links poorer.

Billington insists the group is not simply playing “deprivation bingo”. Rather, she and her colleagues are arguing that their constituencies contain untapped economic potential and can make a key contribution to the government’s growth mission.

Advertisement

The MPs want to see the government produce a bespoke coastal strategy that recognises the nation’s seaside as a “strategic economic region” in its own right. In the absence of that strategy, less well-off coastal areas like Billington’s risk being lumped in with affluent parts of inland Kent.

“I’ve got more in common with Lowestoft, Scarborough, Blackpool, Worthing, Bournemouth, Truro, than I have with Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks,” she says. “That’s why we need to start seeing those places as having a specific economic strategy and approach.”

Billington also wants to see the creation of a coastal minister, though she refuses to say whether she is volunteering for this post herself.

“Listen, those decisions are absolutely ones for the Prime Minister, not me.”

Advertisement

 Would any of her colleagues do a good job of it?

“I’m not going to name anybody, am I?” she replies, before adding: “I am pitching the role, but I think the discussions about personnel need to be done with the people making the decisions – not in The House magazine.”

The Coastal PLP has already secured some wins, she argues, as the recent schools white paper contained a ‘Mission Coastal’ commitment, while the National Cancer Plan pledged to “rebalance cancer and diagnostic medical training places to remote, rural, and coastal areas”. Changes to the Treasury Green Book are a further source of optimism.

Billington now wants to see ministers use “other economic levers” to generate growth on the coast, especially where funding has already been allocated or institutions already established.

Advertisement

“The National Wealth Fund, GB Energy, the British Business Bank. How can they, like the Green Book, be rewired in order to be able to prioritise growth in our coastal communities?”

The MP also hints at possible future tax changes that may benefit the hospitality sector on which many coastal economies depend. Currently, once a business’ taxable turnover exceeds £90,000 in any 12-month period, they are suddenly required to register for VAT. According to Billington, “ministers themselves will acknowledge” that this threshold “drives fraud and keeps businesses small”. 

“I’m not expecting a massive VAT cut. We continue to talk about how the VAT regime, and particularly the VAT threshold, causes unintended consequences and perverse incentives. Ministers are not unalive to that.”

After 15 years as a BBC journalist, Billington left the corporation to become Miliband’s special adviser in Gordon Brown’s government, then worked on Miliband’s leadership campaign, and finally advised him on communications during his first 18 months as leader.

Advertisement

Ed [Miliband] was right, really early on, about the squeezed middle and intergenerational fairness

Despite his failure to win the 2015 election – and her own failure to win the marginal seat of Thurrock that year – she remains convinced that Miliband was ahead of his time in his diagnosis of the nation’s ills.

“Ed was right, really early on, about the squeezed middle and intergenerational fairness,” says Billington.

Advertisement

“I remember him doing a speech very early after he’d got elected as leader. He was talking about this anxiety that he had about the country, that people no longer had confidence that their children would have a better life than they did.

“Even some of his greatest supporters were scratching their heads and saying, ‘I don’t know really what you’re talking about’. That’s 16 years ago, and he saw then the big economic trends which were causing these levels of intergenerational unfairness…

“There’s the housing crisis, but not only the housing crisis. Pensions, social care and so forth – those things Ed saw a long time ago.”

Her time working for Miliband also taught her that “being right is not enough – especially in opposition”.

Advertisement

Now a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee, Billington is tasked with scrutinising the man she used to advise – and the work of his department, which is trying to achieve its clean power target by 2030.

But concerns have been flagged over recent weeks about whether the government’s plans to rapidly grow the number of AI data centres across the country could put that target at risk. At a January select committee meeting, Billington pressed Miliband’s junior minister, Michael Shanks, on whether the government is open to data centres using gas power to get around grid connection delays. He suggested those discussions were ongoing.

“We’ve got to have a national conversation about this,” says Billington. “You can’t have a situation where you have data centres asking to be powered by gas, which is clearly counter to the government’s overall decarbonisation plan.”

She then raises a more fundamental issue with the UK’s race to become an AI superpower.

Advertisement

“We have to ask some questions about whether we want data centres which take up an enormous amount of water, and an enormous amount of electricity, and don’t create very many jobs.

“We can hurtle towards a data centre future, but is that overall in the best interests of the country? For the kind of jobs that we want, the kind of growth that we want and for our natural resources, like water and how we want to manage our energy supply?”

Polly Billington MP
Polly Billington MP (Photography by Dinendra Haria)

As well as holding Miliband’s department to account, Billington is also vice-chair of the PLP and sits as one of six Labour parliamentary committee reps, tasked with relaying concerns from the backbenches to the party’s leadership.

What does she make of complaints from longer-serving MPs that she and the other reps – most of whom were first elected in 2024 – are not being robust enough in passing on those complaints to the Chief Whip and the Prime Minister?

“I think anyone who were to be a witness to those meetings certainly wouldn’t come to that conclusion,” she replies. “We feed back, where we can, to the people who raise those questions.

Advertisement

“We have worked on a number of different ways of making sure that we have constructive feedback loops, but I think what is most important about that is that the first people to know about what happens in parliamentary committee are members of the PLP.

“We as backbench committee reps take it extremely seriously to ensure that it is our colleagues who are the first to know, not members of the press.” The now gamekeeper clearly feels the need to keep her former fellow poachers in their place.

Polly Billington MP
Polly Billington MP (Photography by Dinendra Haria)

Billington is also clear that, following Morgan McSweeney’s departure from No 10, more fundamental changes will be needed to overhaul what some have characterised as the “boys’ club” in Downing Street.

“Personnel is one thing,” she says, “but culture, and understanding about how misogyny works, is another.

“That’s why myself and many of my colleagues in the women’s PLP were delighted to hear Keir say that there was such a thing as structural misogyny.

Advertisement

“We look forward to, and continue to engage with No 10 about, seeing a plan to change things significantly, to challenge that structural misogyny.”

But she emphasises this will be “a lifetime-long battle”, adding: “You don’t smash misogyny by one sacking, one resignation… This is not something that happens quickly or easily, or simply with a few movements or reshuffles.

“This has to be a different way of exercising power, of conducting professional politics, because without that change, we will not have the kind of transformed, fairer, more respectful, equal society that those of who came into politics for the Labour Party actually want to see.” 

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

BBC Expert Says Trump Is Making It Up As He Goes Along

Published

on

BBC Expert Says Trump Is Making It Up As He Goes Along

Donald Trump is “making it up as he goes along” in Iran, according to a BBC expert.

Jeremy Bowen, the corporation’s international affairs editor, said the US president “might learn that starting wars is much easier than ending one”.

Trump has been sending mixed signals about the conflict since America and Israel began bombing Iran 11 days ago.

The exact purpose of the war remains unclear, with the president initially suggesting it was about regime change, but also claiming the country was on the verge of obtaining a nuclear war and was preparing to attack the US.

Advertisement

Earlier this week, Trump said: “We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough.”

That was dismissed as “nonsense” by the Iranian regime, which remains in place despite the death of the country’s former Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

On Radio 4′s Today programme this morning, Bowen said: “It is hard to know when to stop if you don’t know exactly where you’re going.

“It is even harder to do that when the US, the world’s most powerful country, seems to have gone to war without a coherent political strategy under a president who the evidence suggests is making it up as he goes along.”

Advertisement

His comments come a day after he said there was “no evidence” for many of the claims Trump is making about the war.

“He’s still actually claiming erroneously that Iran was a few weeks away from getting a nuclear weapon – there’s no evidence for that,” Bowen said.

“He’s also said that Iran has Tomahawk cruise missiles that could have destroyed that girls’ school where so many were killed. There’s no evidence for that either because they’ve only sold them to Britain and Australia.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Zelenskyy Plays His Cards Right With A Sly Dig At Trump

Published

on

Zelenskyy Plays His Cards Right With A Sly Dig At Trump

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has mocked Donald Trump after the US asked for Ukraine’s help in defeating Iranian drones.

The US president humiliated his Ukrainian counterpart in February last year by attacking him in the Oval Office in front of the press.

He claimed Zelenskyy did not “hold the cards” when it came to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, suggesting Kyiv needed to compromise against its aggressor in the name of peace.

Trump has since withdrawn direct military support for Ukraine amid their wavering alliance, though America does still provide vital intelligence to the beleaguered country.

Advertisement

But the US is now combating the same Iranian drones in the Middle East that Ukrainians have been taking down for more than four years.

After “requests from the American side,” Zelenskyy said last week that he would deploy Ukrainian specialists to assist.

In a new interview, the Ukrainian president said it was a “good feeling” now the tables have turned.

He said: “We’re proud that we can help American partners.”

Advertisement

Asked if he would say Ukraine has the cards now, Zelenskyy smiled and said: “You tell me.”

“I would say so,” journalist Caolan Robertson replied.

Zelenskyy said: “I think yes – but I think we had [the cards]. It’s like [being] a good player, you can have goods cards but it’s not important to show to everybody that you have them.

“I think one year ago I also had it. We didn’t show it. But now that everyone understand that we have.”

Advertisement

“So you had it all along?” Robertson asked.

“Yeah, it’s true,” Zelenskyy admitted.

Russia started supporting the Iranian regime with drones. It will definitely help with missiles, and it is also helping them with air defense. What’s next? Given the situation, there is only one question: when and which country will be the first to support the Iranian regime by… pic.twitter.com/L2BCG1sZ2C

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) March 11, 2026

Zelenskyy revealed America’s call for support last week.

Advertisement

He wrote on social media: “It is clear what their main request to Ukraine is.

“Anyone who has faced Iranian strikes encounters a serious challenge – Shaheds, which are difficult to intercept without the proper expertise and adequate weapons.”

He added: “It is in our common interest to help people defend themselves and to restore stability in critically important supply routes.

“Partners are reaching out to Ukraine for assistance in defending against Shaheds – for expertise and practical support. There have also been requests from the American side.”

Advertisement

Ukraine has been targeted by Russian-made Shahed drones – one-way unmanned aircrafts which are based on an Iranian design – for years.

When asked about the proposal last week, Trump said: “I’ll take any assistance from any country.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Signs Your Teen Is Disconnected And How To Get Back On Track

Published

on

'Social Thinning' Might Be Impacting Children's Mental Health

There comes a time in almost every parent’s life where their teenager starts to push away. While it’s a very normal part of development, it doesn’t mean it’s easy to navigate after years of being needed.

This drive to establish independence and develop identity can result in teens spending more time with friends or even in their bedrooms.

But sometimes, spending a bit too much time in their rooms can be a sign of disconnection – and parents need to be aware of this.

Therapist Jeffrey Meltzer, from Therapy To The Point, acknowledged in a TikTok video that while teens do need space and privacy, if they are “chronically” in their room and “barely interacting” it could signal they “don’t feel safe or seen in family interactions”.

Advertisement

Sometimes this can happen if every conversation turns into a chore list, or their emotions get routinely dismissed, noted the therapist.

He suggested other signs a teen might be disconnected include:

  • They don’t come to you when something is wrong,
  • They constantly argue with you,
  • They can’t wait to move out,
  • They stop explaining themselves.

What to do if your teen is disconnected

The therapist advised a back-to-basics approach: connecting with your teen in ways that don’t involve expectations.

“Not every interaction needs to be productive. Create moments of presence, not pressure,” he said, suggesting a weekly board game night can help bring families together.

Advertisement

This focus on connection is a tried-and-tested formula that plenty of mental health experts approve of.

Therapist and BACP member Amanda MacDonald previously told HuffPost UK regular check-ins can help parents to get a sense of what is happening in their teen’s life. It can help to do these check-ins while you’re doing something else together – gaming, shopping, baking or driving in the car, for instance.

Joseph Conway, psychotherapist and mental health trainer at Vita Health Group, also suggested that “side-by-side talking” can help teens, especially boys, feel comfortable enough to open up.

When teens come to you with problems, Meltzer advises properly listening, getting curious, offering validation of emotions – and only then helping them come up with solutions or offering advice.

Advertisement

Lectures don’t typically help, nor does judgement – and this kind of response might deter them from coming to you in the future.

Ultimately, while teens do need more space as they get older, parents can still play an important role in their lives – and offering structure and low-pressure connection is a key part in all this.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Labour’s efforts to brand critics of its stance on Iran as warmongers is the apex of cynicism

Published

on

Labour's efforts to brand critics of its stance on Iran as warmongers is the apex of cynicism

Tony Blair’s former speech writer, the journalist and academic used to say that the perfect speech is when “you can’t see the scaffolding”.

He meant – one suspects thinking of the good ones he penned – when you can’t see every focus group appeal line, the elephant on the room dodge, the botch welding of two seemingly contradictory positions into one. When you can’t hear the dog whistle, the over blown clarion call, or the deliberately obfuscating wording to ensure you don’t say the thing you can’t say out loud. The scaffolding.

I have long applied this to political communications. When it’s clumsy but trying to be clever, you can ‘see the scaffolding.’

While the US and Israel turn Iranian regime buildings, and – let’s not ignore – a school to rubble, Labour, and the Greens have rapidly built towers of visible scaffolding having spotted an opportunity to try and pick at, and pick off the Conservative position on the Iran war.

Advertisement

Let’s be clear. The foundations for this scaffolding were laid some time ago. Donald Trump is may not now be as popular in America but here, he’s down right unpopular. Within the British public the only Western leader liked less is Netanyahu. Then add a cementing layer of the result of the Gorton and Denton by-election. Labour know that being seen to side with Trump is toxic for them, being seen to side with the Palestinian cause is better and war, especially in the middle east, after the second Iraq war is kryptonite.

Given Starmer is no superman, and was the most unpopular PM of modern times before Trump issued a single pilot into the skies these domestic electoral concerns have become mainstays of the scaffolding erected hastily in recent days.

Labours Comms, and it is transparently co-ordinated, has looked at Reform’s biggest weakness – something that comes out of many focus groups and polling –  the perception that they are too close to Trump, use a Trump playbook, and are trying to emulate the Trump  election success of 2024. Miriam Cates argues this morning on ConHome that endless polling is getting in the way of political principle. Here I’d argue is a case study.

Labour also know, and frankly I’d be shocked by a country that didn’t, that most of the public don’t ‘like’ war. Who would? In the four years I’ve monitored both the public and not so public evidence of the realities of war in Ukraine it is ugly brutal and dehumanising.

Advertisement

Nobody sane wants or likes war, and those that do seldom fight them.

Yet they happen all the same, presenting such countries with stark and difficult choices.

The facts are that a third of the US fleet arrived weeks ago in the Gulf. Trump repeatedly threatened – not least when the Iranian regime was murdering thirty thousand of its own citizens for protesting– that he could resort to bombing Iran. No idle threat since a year ago he did. Netanyahu has had a forty year desire to take the Islamic Republic out of the middle east equation for good. We know that the US requested the potential use of the base at Diego Garcia that the Prime Minister is still wedded to paying billion to give away, and RAF Fairford.

Since a GCSE student in these circumstances could divine that an attack on Iran was very possible, and many officials could divine how Iran, and Iranian proxies might respond, based on track record and perceived enemies, it seems very odd that Starmer ended up vacillating, lacking foresight and damaging diplomatic relations far beyond the ‘special relationship’ and why HMS Dragon has only just left port for the Med, while Macron visits a French vessel already in the area.

Advertisement

A weakened and unpopular Prime Minister before was open to valid criticism of his decision not to allow the use of our bases and to have been flatfooted in the face of something that was happening whether he decided to be ‘involved’ or not. Note Iran does not reward those who are ‘not involved’ it shoots at them anyway. Iran backed Hezbollah – most likely – fired on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. British sovereign territory. With our service personnel on the site.

The Conservative position was that Government’s first role is to defend its people. Kemi Badenoch suggested since the war was happening regardless of Britian’s position the bases should be used to allow targeted strikes on “the archers not just the arrows”. In the context of the strike on Akrotiri this meant strikes on Hezbollah launching areas, and stockpiles in southern Lebanon.

Quite clearly a narrative has been built in Labour, from top to bottom, and across its supporters and allies to spread a message. A very distorted version of the truth.

This is a cocktail of their narrative, from numerous sources, freely available for others to find but goes something like this:

Advertisement

‘Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage are Trump’s poodles, two war mongers who back bombing women and children, and support illegal wars in a bid to try and be relevant. Thank God Starmer is in charge’

The fact that within days the Government were actually doing, and still are, almost exactly what the Conservatives first proposed is not to be mentioned. Verboten. The only difference is that Labour are letting others do our defending for us.

Now it is true, that still drunk on the so called Cold War peace dividend almost every party in every European country spent decades shrinking defence spending because the world was a safer, rules-based place and America would always step in, but the world has changed and those choices look poor for all parties. It is the Conservatives who have suggested a way to fix it.

It’s also worth remembering that whilst being accused of ‘slashing defence’ the Conservatives still ensured the UK stepped up to help Ukraine as a nation when threatened with total eradication by Vladimir Putin. I didn’t get that from CCHQ, I’ve heard it hundreds of times – from Ukrainians.

Advertisement

So, you can see the scaffolding of this Labour narrative from space.

According to one shadow Cabinet member “Labours comms plan seems to be make out the right are recklessly gung-ho, or dangerous, even war mongering freaks, who appal the public but still slavishly support Trump’s illegal war! It’s cynical rubbish”. I would go further and say Labour are simultaneously draping themselves in a mantle of being ‘sensibly cautious, thoughtful custodians of common sense’ who claim, and I’d bet will again at PMQs today, that politics should be left at the door and opposition should just respectfully agree. And how awful that they don’t.’

It’s an argument.

It’s just not a very good one when all the scaffolding tells you there is politics literally dripping from their position. We should all deplore real anti-Muslim hostility – though whether we need a Tsar or a definition for it is moot at best – but confronting Islamism would seem long overdue. It’s an odd thing to see parts of the left hate Trump and Israel so much they’ll put in a good word for the murderous mullahs of Tehran. Even cardboard cut out ones.

Advertisement

Badenoch isn’t itching to ‘do war’. She’s advocating defending British interests, and if you think Starmer hasn’t damaged those in the long term, even as John Redwood argues this morning, before all this started, then you are living in an isolationist virtue bubble that has no basis in reality or realpolitik.

When this very dangerous and difficult situation is over, and indeed we don’t know how and with what result – part of Trump’s real problem here – the ramifications of our own Government’s early position to sit atop a global fence and watch which way to jump will become very apparent.

You can book mark that.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Labour’s Islamic blasphemy code is a sop to the sectarians

Published

on

Labour’s Islamic blasphemy code is a sop to the sectarians

The UK government has formally adopted an official definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. There was no debate in parliament and no opportunity to vote on it before it was adopted last night. Nor was it in the Labour Party’s election manifesto. And no wonder – the purpose of this definition is to give special protections to Islam that other religions and worldviews do not have. There is no other way to understand it.

The new definition avoids using the contentious term ‘Islamophobia’, recasting this instead as ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. A serious problem with this is that ‘hostility’ can be interpreted to mean just about any disagreement. Dictionary definitions include ‘not liking’, ‘not agreeing’, or being ‘opposed’ to something. Being opposed to, say, the growth of Muslim schools could therefore constitute ‘anti-Muslim hostility’. One can easily see how activists will quickly weaponise this term to silence any objections to Islamic doctrines or demands.

According to the definition, anti-Muslim hostility includes ‘prejudicial stereotyping’ of Muslims, ‘with the intention to encourage hatred against them’. It is not clear who will decide whether hatred is intended to be stirred up or how this will be decided. Doubtless, some Muslims will claim that any stereotyping is intended to stir up hatred. There are a lot of legitimate statements that could therefore fall foul of this. What if I say that Muslims don’t drink alcohol? Or that Muslims don’t worship the same God as Christians? Or that Muslims are increasingly demanding more influence in society – as demonstrated by the government’s adoption of this very definition? Any such statement could be understood to be prejudicial stereotyping intended to stir up hatred. Certainly, this is how activists could interpret them.

Advertisement

The definition is full of hidden snares. Anti-Muslim hostility is said to include ‘engaging in unlawful discrimination where the relevant conduct – including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions – is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life’. Well, who defines what these alleged biases are? If a school decides to ban Islamic prayers, you can be sure that activists would describe it as bias intended to disadvantage Muslims. Would it be biased to argue that the burqa ought to be banned in public? Would it be biased to suggest that Islam is affecting our culture in negative ways, not least in relation to free speech? Activists will certainly say so.

The definition does include some important caveats. For example, it ‘must not and will not prohibit free speech nor stop issues being raised in the public interest’. Other examples of protected speech include ‘criticisms of a religion or belief, including Islam, or of its practices, or critical analyses of its historical development’. It also protects ‘ridiculing or insulting a religion or belief, including Islam, or portraying it in a manner that some of its adherents might find disrespectful or scandalous’. These are encouraging to see, but it is concerning that such things need to be spelt out.

Advertisement

Enjoying spiked?

Why not make an instant, one-off donation?

We are funded by you. Thank you!

Advertisement




Please wait…

Advertisement
Advertisement

The new definition looks even more ridiculous in light of recent events. Former diplomat Sir John Jenkins has raised concerns that the proposed definition risks silencing Iranian protesters on the grounds that any criticism of the ayatollahs’ regime in Tehran would likely imply ‘hostility towards Islam’. ‘The connections between the Iranian regime and organised Islamism are absolutely central to what the regime is’, he said. ‘Protests against the Islamic Republic take on an anti-Islamist flavour.’

The concerns don’t stop there. The government’s own counter-terror advisor, Jonathan Hall, has said that the proposed definition could ‘inhibit’ criticisms of Islam. ‘How far are people going to be allowed to push definition effectively in their own political interests?’, he asked. There is no doubt that this is precisely what activists will do. They will try to use this definition to restrict what can be said about Islam.

Advertisement

I have consistently argued that no new definition is needed. Existing laws already protect Muslims and others from discrimination or harassment because of their religion. Giving special additional protection to Muslims is in itself discriminatory, and may well be unlawful as a result.

The government also proposes to police this definition by appointing a new ‘anti-Muslim hostility tsar’, whose job it will be to ‘champion efforts across the UK to tackle hostility and hatred directed at Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim’. This is ominous. We can rest assured that a well-paid bureaucrat, armed with a legion of staff, will suddenly find ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ anywhere and everywhere.

While this new definition is non-statutory, it will be used by all government organisations, the police and the courts. The government wants schools, the NHS and other employers to adopt it. It may not be a criminal offence to say something which falls foul of this definition, but it could well cost you your job. This will, then, amount to a de facto blasphemy code.

Advertisement

It seems all but certain that the government’s new definition will only make a bad situation worse. In recent years, the Crown Prosecution Service has attempted to prosecute people for burning a copy of the Koran as an act of political protest. Police have arrested street preachers for questioning what the Koran says. Officers even got involved when a school pupil had a copy of the Koran knocked out of his hands at a school in West Yorkshire, leading to the suspension of four students. With the adoption of an official definition, such clampdowns will only become more frequent.

The government has come at this question from entirely the wrong angle. Rather than giving in to the demands of the UK’s increasingly assertive Muslim voting bloc, Labour should be standing up for the principles of free speech and secularism. The latest definition is yet another capitulation from a government that has made an art form of appeasement.

Tim Dieppe is head of public policy at Christian Concern.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025