What is “fricy” food?

What “swicy” foods can I try?

There’s some science behind it

1935: Winston Churchill (left) in the grounds of Chartwell with Ralph Wigram / Image by: Fremantle / Alamy

4 min read10 min

“One inch ahead is total darkness”: so goes the Japanese proverb. In times like now of global uncertainty, it seems a suitably appropriate dictum to caution the army of prophets, forecasters and poll interpreters, all ready to fire off a take, their visions of the future hedged in a string of qualifications and suitably Delphic in style.

The interesting question is whether any of this kind of activity, from the white-bearded biblical type or the hard-nosed corporate analyst (self-proclaimed or otherwise) in the internet age of total and instant connectivity, has any market or appeal at all.

A thought-provoking booklet appears, published by Haus Curiosities, which makes a valiant attempt to disentangle all the different types of futurology which surround us. From the lofty certainties to the entertaining guesses, and how on earth to evaluate them.

The author of this little volume, an academic and former defence analyst, Kenneth Weisbrode, employs the clever device of focusing on one very memorable instance when a person warned about oncoming world events in the 20th century – and one which, with hindsight, proved to be deadly and tragically right.

The name of this brave character was Ralph Wigram, a middle-ranking Foreign Office official who could see the huge conflagration ahead as Germany re-armed in the 1930s under the belligerent Nazi leaders, but with a generally complacent bien pensant outside world looking on and broadly assuming that it just could not happen again.

The information streams have all become avalanches

Advertisement

How and why did he, among the growing noise of opinions, get heard? Answer: by supplying a flow of detailed and reliable facts (he had been in Berlin and had plenty of German friends and contacts) to a few carefully selected and influential individuals – who in turn had the ear of the public. Top of his list was none other than Winston Churchill.

To me, this makes Churchill as well as Wigram the real prophets in this classic 20th century compound of forecast and prophecy – eventually borne out in the full horror of a Second World War. Wigram peered ahead and saw the facts. Churchill was the magician with language, had the courage to speak out endlessly against prevailing wisdom (or worse, disinterest).

Could any of this most celebrated saga have occurred in today’s information-soaked world?

I reckon not. The information streams have all become avalanches. The iPad and the mobile have connected billions and turned most people into mini-authors and home-made prophets. The cult of transparency, lauded by accountability crusaders, has left little in free societies to expose. The hunters after the truth have found their paths blocked by crowds of truth-seekers with their own different truths. Uncertainty is everywhere and there is talk of people turning back en masse to mysteries larger than the human mind and akin to new religions.

Are eye-catching prophesies and predictions therefore now to be left to who will win the 3.30 at Cheltenham or to financial stock pickers?

No, I think there will always be a market for the most plausible and original analysis – the cautious wisdom that sees just a few inches ahead, even if the message from the future is not a cheerful one, or all that clear.

The overwhelming message which Britain needs today is for a new national story, a sense of direction, articulated with colour, humour and history, but also with deep-rooted awareness and wisdom about the way power on the planet is shifting. That is the kind of prophecy realism which reassures, not a rehash of old ideologies which frighten. Its articulation must reach all, be noticed by all and unify all – or anyway, most.

Is the individual who can lead in performing this miracle of rallying and purpose – who can perceive the world trends and give them a prophet’s coherence and momentum – already in the political forum, or at least just there in the wings? Who knows? It is, after all, an age of deep uncertainty. Radio gurus are telling us every morning that the digital and AI age has rewired our brains as well as our emotions. It looks as though today’s prophets need to do some rewiring, too.

Lord Howell of Guildford is a Conservative peer

Prophecy in Politics: Or, the Wigram Aspect

By: Kenneth Weisbrode

Publisher: Haus Publishing

Feryal Clark was parliamentary under-secretary for AI and digital government until September 2025 (Alamy)

6 min read51 min

Clark, who served as AI minister until the ministerial reshuffle in September 2025, is co-chair of the Digital Creators All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) alongside Conservative peer Ed Vaizey. This week, the group launched an inquiry into how creator-led content can support young people’s education and personal development, as the debate continues in Westminster over online harms and youth access to digital platforms.

In January, the government announced a consultation on the impact of mobile phones and social media on children, following a ban on large social media platforms for under-16s in Australia at the end of last year.

On Wednesday evening, peers voted for the second time in support of an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to ban social media for under-16s, put down by Conservative peer Lord John Nash after wider pressure from campaigners and some politicians for tougher safeguards. It is the second time peers have defeated the government over the proposal, with the bill now set to return to the Commons.

Opinion polls have found that a ban on social media for under-16s is popular with the public, and Labour MPs have reported receiving a large number of emails from constituents pushing for them to support a ban. Recent outrage over X’s AI tool, Grok, being used to produce non-consensual sexualised images of adults and children, fuelled calls for the Labour government to regulate childrens’ exposure to the internet.

However, there is scepticism among cabinet ministers about how it would work in practice, with an early Whitehall assessment of Australia’s ban identifying problems like young people moving to other unregulated platforms and being allowed to use their parents’ social media accounts. The House magazine reported in January that Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall all believe the UK should wait to see how it plays out in Australia before making a decision.

Speaking to PoliticsHome before the Lords vote on Wednesday, Clark said she found the Nash amendment “unhelpful” and argued that the government and MPs needed to listen to the voices of children and families, but also of digital creators who share educational content for children.

“I really value the input, the contribution and the educational content,” she said.

The former minister said she first became aware of the importance of digital creators while serving in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology between 2024 and 2025.

“When I was in the department, when we were looking at the AI copyright bill, I just couldn’t see their voice anywhere, considering they contribute hugely to our economy and employ thousands of people,” she said.

Clark said that while concerns about the “full impact” of addictive algorithms on children were valid, policymakers risked overlooking the benefits of online educational content.

“I am concerned that we’re lumping everything together,” she said, adding that digital platforms can help address inequalities in access to education. At a session with the APPG on Wednesday morning, a group of digital creators told PoliticsHome that long-form education content on platforms such as YouTube should be treated differently from short-form videos on platforms like TikTok.

Clark added that she wanted to consider “some of the really important uses of technology that have been instrumental in bridging that gap in society for those young people who don’t have access to tutors, who don’t have parents at home all the time who can help them with their homework, who need that additional help”.

Clark echoed concerns by other MPs, including Labour MP Josh Dean, who have pointed out that plans to expand the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds must be factored into the government’s consultation on a potential ban on social media for under-16s.

Educational creators told the APPG that their videos are already playing a significant role in the classroom, with schools and teachers actively recommending their content for revision and learning, despite barriers to forming formal partnerships with education providers.

“When you’ve got schools and teachers directing their students to this content, where they see the value of it, we then have to ask ourselves a question of why are we looking to put something in place that will cut off these young people from it?” Clark said.

She was also critical of attempts to legislate via amendments, including the Nash amendment aimed at curbing under-16s’ access to social media.

“Legislating on such an important area shouldn’t be done just through an amendment,” she said.

“It just really irritates me. I find it really unhelpful. If you want an issue to be killed off, the best way to do it is that way. We need to understand the evidence, we need to make the best laws. It is the issue of our era, and we’ve got to get it right.”

Content creators themselves told the APPG that their work is filling gaps left by the formal education system. Katie Estruch, who has more than 100,000 subscribers producing biology revision content, said students and parents turn to her videos when they feel that the provisions from their schools are inadequate.

“They might have a teacher who is long-term sick, or they think they haven’t got a good teacher compared to someone else, or their school can’t afford to pay for practicals that a private school might be able to do multiple times,” she said.

She described her videos as a “resource for free that helps to bridge that gap”, adding that they are particularly valuable for neurodivergent students who can find classroom environments overstimulating.

Dr Tom Crawford, who teaches at Cambridge and Oxford and has built a large online following, said digital content can be transformative for students outside mainstream education.

Describing one student who had been homeschooled after experiencing bullying, he said that the student had passed his entire GCSEs and A-levels by watching YouTube videos.

“That’s obviously one specific case, but imagine someone who can’t go to school for various reasons: without that, he wouldn’t have passed these GCSEs, and obviously wouldn’t now be studying Maths at Cambridge,” he said. 

“There are going to be quite a lot of individual stories like that with our audiences, and just generally across the country, where this is actually how they learn, or how they get excited about learning.”

Dr Lauren Bull, safeguarding lead at Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust and TedxNHS speaker, wrote in The House that a ban was necessary to safeguard children from online harm.

“Delaying exposure to highly polarised, adult ideological content gives young people the time to develop the cognitive and emotional capacity required to critically evaluate what they encounter,” she said.

Bull argued that Louis Theroux’s recent “manosphere” documentary had “brought into view what many of us working on the frontline have been witnessing for years”.

“For doctors, teachers, and youth workers, this is not a sudden crisis. It is a predictable outcome,” she wrote.

Misnahar and newborn son, Sarid. (Credit: UNICEF/2025/Saikat Mojumder)

4 min read18 min

Her son, Sarid, had arrived far too early – weighing just 900 grams, and immediately showing signs of respiratory distress. Health workers rushed him to the Special Care Newborn Unit, placing him on oxygen and surrounding his tiny body with tubes and wires. For the first 24 hours, Misnahar could only wait and watch through the glass.  

Today, Sarid weights 1.5 kilograms and is growing stronger. He survived because skilled care was there when he needed it, enabled by sustained investment – from governments, partners and organisations like UNICEF. It is proof that we know how to save children’s lives. The question is whether the UK will continue to help fund it.  

Last week, the UN released its most comprehensive picture of annual child mortality globally. The findings are sobering. In 2024, 4.9 million children died before their fifth birthday – nearly half in their very first month of life.  

Child mortality has more than halved since 2000, but that momentum has flatlined. In 2020, 5 million children died before their fifth birthday; in 2024, that figure had barely shifted. These are not inevitable deaths. The leading killers of children under five – preterm birth complications, malaria, pneumonia, diarrhoea, malnutrition – are largely preventable with proven, low-cost interventions. Immunisation. Skilled care at birth. Quality antenatal services. The tools exist. Yet the past few years have seen the gradual erosion of the political commitment and investment required to reach every child.  

We know that investing in children delivers some of the highest returns on investment. Children who are vaccinated, well-nourished, educated are more likely to grow into adults who support their communities, strengthen their economies and contribute to a more stable world. That is why UNICEF UK has repeatedly warned that last year’s decision to slash the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget by 40 per cent would have devastating consequences for the world’s most vulnerable children. Last Thursday’s aid allocation offered the first glimpse of what this will mean in practice. 

The consequences for children are stark. Multilateral commitments to global health will be reduced by 23 per cent, while regional bilateral aid to African countries – where the majority of child deaths occur – will collapse by 56 per cent. Funding to safeguarding programmes is disproportionately reducing, putting children’s safety further at risk. Support for the Global Polio Eradication Initiative has been cut entirely, just as the world was on the verge of eliminating a deadly yet preventable disease for good.  

The UK government’s decision to use the aid budget to cover refugee costs at home is a significant part of the problem. In 2026/27, £2.2 billion – significantly more than all multilateral spending combined – will be spent in the UK rather than reaching the children who need it most. When that forces a choice between funding polio eradication and other life-saving programmes for children, it is hard to argue that UK aid is still serving its original purpose – protecting the world’s most vulnerable people.  

The progress of the past 25 years – child mortality more than halved, diseases driven back, millions of live saved – was built on global partnership and sustained investment. The UK has been a major part of that. To step back now, when that progress is most fragile, would be a betrayal of the children who still need it most.  

UNICEF UK is calling on the UK government to commit at least 25 per cent of the UK aid budget to children – the investment needed to protect immunisation and nutrition programmes and to train the frontline health workers who make these life-saving services possible. Next month’s Global Partnerships Conference offers the government a key opportunity to show that children are central to its new vision for development. 

Misnahar’s dream for Sarid is simple: that he grows up to become a doctor or nurse. “The people here saved my baby’s life,” she said. “Maybe one day he can save others.” That future is possible – for Sarid and other newborns like him – if the support systems that saved him are still standing.  

Dr Philip Goodwin is chief executive of UNICEF UK

Daniel Herring is Researcher for Fiscal and Economic Policy at the Centre Policy Studies.

The UK government’s financial position was precarious even before war in the Middle East blew up Treasury borrowing forecasts.

We have not run a budget surplus in over 25 years and debt is now approaching 100 per cent of GDP. But the situation is even worse than it looks on the surface, not least because of a big hidden debt on the government balance sheet: public sector pensions, which add £1.4 trillion – equivalent to 45 per cent of GDP – to the national debt.

Thankfully, there are some politicians and public figures who are taking action.

The Pensions Schemes Bill is currently being taken through Parliament, and the Lords have voted in favour of an amendment by Conservative Peer Baroness Neville-Rolfe that would require the government to conduct and publish a review of public sector pensions. This is an excellent amendment as a review of public sector pensions is urgently needed.

Public sector pensions are incredibly generous. Most private sector workers have defined contribution schemes, where the employee carries the risk and must manage their retirement pot throughout their retirement. In contrast, public sector pensions are defined benefit schemes, meaning a guaranteed, inflation-protected retirement income for as long as someone lives. And unlike private sector pensions, where you might get as little as 3 per cent of your salary as an employer contribution, public sector workers usually get 25-30 per cent from the government.

However, the main problem is not the generosity, but the fact that these pensions are entirely unfunded. Unlike a private sector defined benefit scheme, where the money is set aside in a managed fund to pay for future costs, no money is set aside for public sector pensions. This means that contributions made for employees’ future pension provision are spent on current pensioners.

The numbers are big. The pension schemes cover three million active members in the civil service, NHS, schools and the armed Forces (local government employees are in a separate funded scheme). There are also 2.2 million deferred members and 2.8 million pensioners. Contributions to the scheme are currently £57.3 billion and pensions paid are £56.8 billion.

It’s not helped by the obscure (some might say dishonest) way this is presented in the public accounts. A quick look at the OBR’s website will tell you that net public service pension payments are in surplus.

Nothing to worry about then!

Not so fast – ‘surplus’ just means that the employer and employee contributions are larger than what is being paid out to retired public sector workers.

This is perverse – it means that if the government were to vastly increase the size of its workforce, current contributions would increase, and the surplus would grow. This might look better today, but it would create a much larger bill for future taxpayers. This is already happening – increased contributions since 2020 have been driven in part by a growing NHS workforce.

This is irresponsible: like the national debt, future taxpayers are being forced to pay for our choices today. In contrast, our goal should be that each generation of taxpayers pays for its own choices.

There’s plenty of challenges to reforming the system. The biggest fiscal challenge is that moving public servants onto autoenrollment will mean the government continues to pay for current pensioners and make an employer contribution for current employees. That will be costly in the short-term, so the government would have to find savings elsewhere.

The second challenge is how to convince employees and trade unions of the reform. It is undoubtedly true that many public servants work hard and deserve fair compensation. However, public sector workers are paid, on average, similar wages to private sector workers (before their employer pension contribution is taken into account).

For many public servants, a promise for a pension in 30 or 40 years’ time is just not worth that much, and they might prefer a higher salary today so that they could afford a house or start a family. We could increase take-home pay for public servants and still save the government money in the long run.

Reform will be hard and should not be rushed. But a review that sets out the actual costs to future taxpayers is a good place to start.

We need an open debate about how much these pensions are costing the taxpayer, otherwise our children and grandchildren – probably on far less generous pension schemes themselves – will pay the price for £1.4 trillion worth of political convenience today.

An annual ‘State of Protest’ report on the policing of demonstrations says the repression of dissent in Britain in 2025 has not only become worse. In fact, it is now increasingly routine. This is not just in London. It applies more widely across England, Wales, and Scotland.

Policing protests

The report, “How Repression Became Routine” by the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol), says that protests are increasingly policed as threats rather than an exercise of fundamental democratic freedom and expression.

Netpol was set up in the aftermath of G20 protests in London in 2009. Its work challenges police tactics, intrusive police surveillance and the expansion of public order powers.

The report concludes that new and overlapping laws have contributed to the normalisation of surveillance and confrontational policing. There is also a growing tendency to treat protest as a security issue. As a result, the report states that punishment has also been normalised. The impacts are disproportionately felt by marginalised groups.

Speakers at the report’s launch included Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori, and NHS doctor and campaigner Ayo Khalil. He was racially profiled and arrested at a prisoner solidarity protest outside HMP Bronzefield in December 2025.

Police impunity

Netpol also reported that the public’s ability to scrutinise police powers has been weakened. Their reporting suggests that journalists and legal observers documenting police violence and repression are operating in an increasingly unsafe environment.

This aligns with the appalling but entirely unsurprising claim that human rights legislation makes policing “untenable,” Met Police commissioner Mark Rowley has claimed.

He laid out his position in a recent LRB interview:

There will always be a bit of grey at the margins of legislation[…]but the current public order legislation has far, far too much grey.

It was designed in the 1980s in a different time and has had the Human Rights Act overlaid over the top of it, which creates such complexity for the decision making of police officers and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Commenting on the police’s remit, Rowley said:

It’s not for me to say how permissive or restrictive they should be, but as a police officer, me and my colleagues just want clarity.

Repressive policing, Britain’s new norm

The report’s finding imply that repressive policing—far from being ‘drift’ or isolated to some police forces—is recognised as a standard “routine” practise. “Layered legislation,” as Rowley alludes, create a legal situation that is not just open to interpretation but is also confusing and open to abuse. Consequently, this makes it equally difficult for protest groups to predict how demonstrations will be policed.

Typically, the Met force determines the application of the law. Other forces then adopt this into their practices. These are widely perceived by activists and excessive and draconian.

Powers initially applied to marches have been expanded to static protests including those held outside of weapons factories. Both are treated as a security threat rather than a human and civic right.

Additionally, politicians who talk about disloyalty or British values render racialised people at protests as ‘Other.’ This dog-whistling places minorities at greater risk of aggressive policing. For example, this was seen at the recent Quds Day demo. Legal observers and “journalists” specialising in civic protest movements are also at greater risk.

The report’s findings are based on deep-dive qualitative research on protest movements. It features interviews, testimonies, legal observer notes, court records, police and government data, media coverage, and twenty-one freedom of information requests.

The report went live on 25 March. In-person events will be taking place in April across Manchester, Brighton, and London to discuss its findings.

Kevin Blowe of Netpol said:

Last year we raised the alarm about state-supported measures designed to impose social control on protests on a scale reminiscent of the ‘war on terror’ two decades ago. A year on, we have now documented how these practices have become the norm.

Repression does not happen overnight: it creeps up on us gradually. Frontline campaigners and human rights are all now saying that attacks on protest rights are repressive. Yet the government plans even more new laws in 2026.

As well as new legislation, we are seeing a growth in police powers used as tools of surveillance, particularly against anti-racist and anti-fascist opponents of the increasing number of far right demonstrations across Britain against migrants.

Britain’s most senior police officer, Sir Mark Rowley, is now also seeking to further undermine human rights laws and crack down on protests even more in the name of ‘clarity’. Our research, however, found it is the excessive and arbitrary use of police powers, not the Human Rights Act, that appears intended to confuse and intimidate protesters and discourage them from exercising their rights.

Advertisement

The human cost

At the report launch, psychiatrist and medic Ayo Khalil spoke of the impact of these policing tactics, stating that given:

the state of our country, [the roots of depression, anxiety and other mental health problems] are in the seats of power and institutions [and] the state’s efforts to pathologise people who care. We are told we are the problem … The system does not value human life.

Khalil also pointed to the attempt by Starmer and the General Medical Council to treat doctors who oppose genocide as antisemitic.

It’s this constant push to treat opposition to genocide as a threat of violence or putting patients at risk. [Doctors] at protests outside hunger strikers’ prisons have even been choked unconscious… [yet] there is no accountability for the police officers.

Khalil noted a pattern in the violence used against protesters, particularly targeting their back, neck, and other areas during arrests. This elevates the risk of lasting injuries or even permanent disability. Families of people that have been injured or arrested also suffer from crippling anxiety and fear, which may pressure dissenters and dissuade them from future protests.

That said, Khalik told the Canary that the protest movement has been galvanised and redoubled its efforts in response to hostile policing. In response, the government has been trying to neutralise protest and its impact. Khalil also highlighted that prisons—in many cases—are run by private companies, holding hunger strikers use “systematic” violence, abuse and the withholding of rights as a further form of punishment.

What is protest if you can’t disrupt? The point of protest is to shake things up. If we allow ourselves to be reduced to a bit of noise in the corner, we will lose our potency and we can’t allow that … The British government is directly responsible for so many of these [wrongs] around the world.

Starmer’s protest U-turn

Ammori, whose legal success in obtaining a judicial review that reversed the ‘terror’ ban on Palestine Action (currently being appealed by the Starmer regime) said that direct action is essential to ending genocide. However, it inevitably triggered a backlash:

Even one day of a weapons factory being shut down is a victory … The proof is in the pudding and in the process we annoyed a lot of powerful people [especially those] sponsored and paid for by the Israel lobby. All that lobbying pressure built up and…it was very clear that the government had decided to prioritise the needs and interests of a foreign weapons manufacturer over the rights of its own citizens.

She added that the government had redefined actions as terrorism, even though they had already been convicted as breaches of the peace or criminal damage.

What is becoming more and more apparent was that the reason they arrested those people [the Filton 24] was because they needed those arrests to justify the ban on Palestine Action and their claims of terrorism. [But] when the cases went to trial, not a single one of them was convicted of a single offence. Those people were held without being convicted of a single offence [and] Sam continues to be held.

They tried to put these ridiculous charges against them and they couldn’t land a single conviction. And [The ban on protest supporting Palestine Action] made Palestine Action a household name.

Ammori said that because of this, if the government’s appeal fails and Palestine Action comes back, then:

It will come back stronger than ever before.

She condemned the government’s violence and denial of human rights, especially against hunger strikers. Additionally, she said that it’s “only a matter of time” before Palestine Action is back. She believes it will be more of a thorn in the side of the apartheid lobby than ever.

Feature image via Barold/the Canary

Palestine activists disrupted the North West Apprenticeship and Careers Expo on 25 March, which was held at the University of Central Lancashire (Uclan). They were targeting the presence of BAE Systems, the largest arms manufacturer in Europe.

Close ties to BAE

Activists disrupted the event to challenge the university’s close ties with BAE, which has a major production facility in Samlesbury, Lancashire. The factory manufactures the rear fuselage for every F-35 warplane, including those supplied to and used by Israel and the US. F-35 pilots have massacred hundreds of thousands of civilians in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen and many more countries.

UCLan has strengthened its partnership with BAE Systems through a memorandum of understanding. Their aim is to create career pathways for graduates and apprentices, further integrating the university into the defence sector and facilitating student access to roles within the company.

A spokesperson from the BAE Out Campaign said:

We call on UClan to immediately cut all ties with the death merchants BAE Systems, who continue to profit and delight from the suffering of innocent people.

Until then, we will continue to take action and hold those responsible to account.

Components used in Iran

London-based research charity Action on Armed Violence has confirmed that two UK defence companies – BAE Systems and Raytheon UK – produce components used in Tomahawk cruise missiles. This is the same type of missile that struck a girls’ school in Iran, killing over 160 children.