By HARRY BAMFORTH, LIVE SPORTS COVERAGE REPORTER

Updated: 13:18 BST, 29 August 2026

Lead singer Jarvis Cocker delighted the 30,000 strong crowd but left them concerned they may not play again

Britpop legends Pulp cemented their spectacular comeback on Friday night – then left 30,000 fans wondering if they’d just seen the end of an era.

Headlining Manchester’s Live From Wythenshawe Park, hip-swivelling frontman Jarvis Cocker told the crowd: “We’ve been touring for a while and this is our last big concert… not forever hopefully, but you never know do you!”

He teased fans about the band’s Manchester history and said: “The first time Pulp played in the Manchester area was Salford University, 28th May 1992… then it was the 13th of October 1992 at the Boardwalk in Manchester…. You weren’t there, you weren’t born!”

Introducing another one of his hits, he said: As I said this is the last big concert we’re gonna do for a while…. So instead of saying Do You Remember the First Time, I should say, will you remember the last time?”

Flanked by Candida Doyle, Nick Banks and Mark Webber, the Sheffield icons had the park bellowing every word of Common People and Disco 2000.

They then proved they’re no heritage act with the crowd favourite Spike Island, from More, their first album in 24 years.

Despite downpours during the week, even the weather behaved. Jarvis joked: “It’s Friday night, it’s stopped raining – that cost a lot of money actually!”

Introducing Got To Have Love, he turned philosopher and said: “I’ve discovered something more powerful than anger, do you know what it is? It’s not Nurofen, this isn’t an advert, this isn’t an item you can go out and buy it’s something you have to search for… love.”

And as the set closed, the clouds parted — leaving Jarvis gobsmacked. Pointing skywards, he added: “Just for a moment looking through the sky, at the end of that song a full moon came out, look everyone!”

Self Esteem’s Rebecca Lucy Taylor warmed up the park with a fearless pop set. The gig closed the 2026 Wythenshawe Park series — and proved Pulp still land like nobody else.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has issued several “do not eat” warnings covering products sold at retailers including Tesco, Waitrose and Home Bargains, with some potentially posing a health risk.

With multiple recalls announced, households are being urged to check their kitchens now to make sure they do not have any of the affected products.

Cheese recall

Shoppers in Northern Ireland are being urged to check their fridges after two Macroom Buffalo Cheese products were recalled over Listeria concerns.

Macroom Buffalo Cheese Products is recalling Mozzarella (125g) and Bocconcini (160g), both with a use-by date of September 7, 2026, after Listeria monocytogenes was found.

Customers who have bought the affected cheeses are being told not to eat them, even if they look and smell normal. They should return them to the retailer for a full refund.

Friday 28 August – Macroom Buffalo Cheese Products recalls Macroom Buffalo Cheese Mozzarella and Macroom Buffalo Cheese Bocconcini due to contamination with Listeria monocytogenes #FoodAlert https://t.co/zPlJT0mZI4 pic.twitter.com/rUKzpFmBVi

— Food Standards Agency (@foodgov) August 28, 2026

Listeria symptoms can include a high temperature, muscle aches, chills, sickness and diarrhoea. In rare cases, infection can cause serious complications including meningitis.

Those most vulnerable include over-65s, pregnant women and unborn babies, young babies and people with weakened immune systems.

Wraps recall

Shoppers are being urged to check their fridges after a small number of filled wraps were recalled over possible E. coli contamination.

The company said: “As part of our routine testing, we have identified a potential food safety issue affecting a small number of our wrap products.

“We are working closely with the authorities and our customers to recall the affected products.

“Consumer safety remains our highest priority. We are sorry for any concern or inconvenience this may cause.”

The recall affects Snacksters Chicken Fajita Wrap, Snacksters Hoi Sin Wrap, East Street Deli Sweet Chilli Chicken Wrap and Target a Snack Chicken Fajita Wrap.

All use-by dates up to and including September 5, 2026 are affected.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) said the products could contain Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), which can cause severe diarrhoea, including bloody diarrhoea, and abdominal pain.

In some cases, infection can lead to haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS), a serious condition that can cause kidney failure and can be fatal.

Friday 21 August – Summit Foods is recalling various products because of possible contamination with Shiga-toxin producing E. coli (STEC) #FoodAlert https://t.co/MGnLjK0Al6 pic.twitter.com/OMs3rdsvoY

— Food Standards Agency (@foodgov) August 21, 2026

If you have bought any of the affected wraps, do not eat them.

Instead, dispose of the product and email sales@summitfoods.co.uk with proof of purchase, stating when and where it was bought, to request a refund.

The recall is listed by the FSA under reference FSA-PRIN-40-2026.

Seeds recall

A.Vogel Ltd is recalling Rapunzel bioSnacky Das Original Red Clover Seeds for Sprouts and Seedlings because of the presence of Shiga toxin-producing E.coli.

Symptoms can include severe diarrhoea, abdominal pain and occasionally haemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a serious condition that can lead to kidney failure and can be fatal.

The affected products come in 30g packs, have a batch code of 11293 and a best before date of December 2028.

Monday 8 August – A.Vogel Ltd recalls Rapunzel bioSnacky Das Original Red Clover – Seeds for Sprouts and Seedlings due to contamination with E. coli (STEC) #foodalert https://t.co/vR2Mt6161P pic.twitter.com/zritLd5U5v

— Food Standards Agency (@foodgov) August 10, 2026

A spokesman for the Food Standards Agency warned: “A.Vogel Ltd is recalling the above product. Point of sale notices will be displayed in all retail stores that are selling this product and/or on their website. These notices explain to customers why the product is being recalled and tell them what to do if they have bought the product.

“If you have bought the above product, do not grow it or consume the sprouts or seedlings. Instead, return it to where you bought it from for a full refund.

“Symptoms can include severe diarrhoea (including bloody diarrhoea), abdominal pain and occasionally haemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a serious condition that can lead to kidney failure and can be fatal.

“If you are experiencing these symptoms, you should stay away from work, school or nursery until you have stopped having symptoms for at least 48 hours to avoid passing it on to others.”

 A Rapunzel spokesman added: “We are very sorry for this incident and sincerely apologise.

“Please be assured that we are doing everything we possibly can to resolve this matter.

“We hope you will continue to place your trust in us.”

Home Bargains Recall

Crisps sold at Home Bargains have been recalled, with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) warning shoppers of a potential health risk.

ASR Solutions Ltd has recalled the Lays Sour Cream & Dill Crisps sold in Home Bargains stores in the UK, because of a labelling error.

The crisps contain milk and wheat (gluten) which are not mentioned on the label, meaning they are a “possible health risk” to anyone with an allergy or intolerance to the ingredients.

The affected products come in 125g packets and have best before dates up to and including October 31.

Friday 31 July 2026 – ASR Solutions Ltd recalls Lay’s Sour Cream & Dill Crisps #FoodAllergy https://t.co/sx7VuhfXwi pic.twitter.com/Su9jxthEaG

— Food Standards Agency (@foodgov) July 31, 2026

An FSA spokesman warned: “ASR Solutions Ltd is recalling the above product from customers and has been advised to contact the relevant allergy support organisations, which will tell their members about the recall.

“The company has also issued a recall notice to its customers. These notices explain to customers why the product is being recalled and tell them what to do if they have bought the product.

“If you have bought this product, do not eat it. Instead, return it to the store from which you bought the product for a full refund or contact  support@home.bargains  if you require further information.”

A Home Bargains statement added: “If you have bought Lays Sour Cream & Dill Crisps as detailed above and you have an allergy, intolerance or sensitivity to milk or wheat, do not consume it.

“Check if you have bought the affected best before dates. Only these codes are affected.

“Return any affected product to your local Home Bargains store for a full refund or contact support@home.bargains if you require information.

“We apologise for any inconvenience caused.”

Chocolate Recall

A range of chocolate products sold in England, Scotland and Wales have been removed from UK shelves due to health concerns.

Bon Bons Wholesale Ltd has recalled various chocolate products due to the concerns, telling shops stocking the items to “remove them from sale”, while the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has told shoppers, “Do not eat”.

The items have been recalled because they may contain milk and soy which are not mentioned on the label, making them a potential health risk for anyone with allergies.

An FSA spokesman said: “These products contain milk and soya making them a possible health risk for anyone with an allergy or intolerance to milk or milk constituents and/or an allergy to soya.”

25th July – Bon Bons Wholesale Ltd recalls various chocolate products because of undeclared milk and soya #FoodAllergy https://t.co/WrIP1T09q5 pic.twitter.com/ps2AV2kcLh

— Food Standards Agency (@foodgov) July 25, 2026

These are the Bon Bons Wholesale Ltd items affected by the recall:

• Medium Coloured Ladybird with best before dates of March 1, 2027, and January 16, 2028
• Small Red Ladybird with best before dates of January 21, 2027, and January 25, 2027
• Large Red Heart with best before dates of November 22, 2027, December 23, 2027, and December 26, 2027
• Mini Butterflies with best before dates of March 21, 2027, and September 9, 2027
• Sports Car with best before date of August 15, 2027

An FSA spokesman said: “Bon Bons Wholesale Ltd is recalling the above products from customers and has been advised to contact the relevant allergy support organisations, which will tell their members about the recall. 

“The company has also issued a point-of-sale notice to its customers. These notices explain to customers why the products are being recalled and tell them what to do if they have bought the products.

“If you have bought the above products and have an allergy to milk and/or soya do not eat them. Instead, return them to the store you purchased them from for a full refund.

“For more information, or to receive a full refund, please contact enquiries@bonbons.co.uk or call 01937 840681.”

A Bon Bons Wholesale Ltd statement added: “We take our responsibility to consumers extremely seriously and always aim to ensure the highest possible standards of product safety.

“We are sorry for any inconvenience or disappointment this product recall may cause you.”

Gü recall

Shoppers at Tesco and Waitrose have been issued a “do not eat” warning after a Gü dessert was recalled.

The Gü Double Sea Salted Caramel Frozen Dessert, sold at Tesco and Waitrose, has been removed from supermarket shelves because it may contain hazelnuts and soya not mentioned on the label.

As a result, the dessert is a health risk to anyone with an allergy to nuts or soya.

The affected product has a lot number of 126135 and a best before date of June 30, 2027.

A spokesman for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) said: “Gü is recalling the above product from customers and has been advised to contact the relevant allergy support organisations, which will tell their members about the recall. 

“These notices explain to customers why the product is being recalled and tell them what to do if they have bought the product.

“If you have bought the above product and have an allergy to hazelnuts (nuts) and/or soya do not eat it. Instead return it to the store from where it was bought for a full refund.

“No receipt required. For more information, please contact recall@gupuds.com .”

A Gü spokesman added: “The issue is limited to a very small number of products (believed to be less than 10 units). However, as a precautionary measure and in line with our commitment to consumer safety, the affected date code is being recalled.

“We have taken proactive steps to further mitigate the issue, including strengthened allergen and packing controls within production.

“We believe the majority of consumers who purchased the affected products will already have been contacted or notified.”

Recommended reading

What is a product recall?

If there is a problem with a food product that means it should not be sold, then it might be ‘withdrawn’ (taken off the shelves) or ‘recalled’ (when customers are asked to return the product).

The FSA issues Product Withdrawal Information Notices and Product Recall Information Notices to let consumers and local authorities know about problems associated with food.

In some cases, a ‘Food Alert for Action’ is issued.

This provides local authorities with details of specific actions to be taken on behalf of consumers.

WARNING: DISTRESSING CONTENT The woman had previously attacked a bear herself to stop it coming into her home. Tragically, one male bear succeeded in breaking in and bit her neck.

A murderous black bear broke into an 71-year-old woman’s home and mauled her to death. The tragedy came after the brave pensioner had fought off other bears with her bare hands.

It was the first fatal attack of the kind in the area in 2023. Patrice Miller, was killed by the bear in her California home. Police entered her home to conduct a welfare check, initially thinking the bear had found her dead body.

An initial investigation determined that the woman died before the bear came into the home, However, horrifyingly, an autopsy of Patrice’s body determined that the bear had actually killed the elderly woman.

“Upon showing up, [they] immediately saw evidence of bear intrusion into the house,” Mike Fisher, the county sheriff, told KCRA3. “The door was broken. There was bear scat on the porch.”

Patrice’s daughter said this was not the first time a bear had tried to get in he mother’s home “through broken windows, and that her mother had physically hit one to keep it from entering her residence”, KCRA reported. She had reportedly named one bear who attempted multiple break ins a “big bastard”.

Authorities said Patrice, who lived in the small mountain community of Downieville is often fed her cats on the porch and had trash on the property.

Patrice had previously physically hit one bear to stop it entering her home, according to her daughter.

“The coroner’s report confirmed that, ultimately, the bear caused the woman’s death,” the California Department of Fish and Wildlife said.

Police from the Sierra County Sheriff’s office said the bear was nowhere to be seen when they entered Patrice’s home when they discovered her body in November of 2023. The male bear was later found and euthanised, adhering to state policy with a DNA test of the bear confirming it was the killer.

Following the autopsy report, Sierra County Sheriff Mike Fisher told local media Miller was killed when the bear swiped or bit her neck.

Bear attacks on humans are uncommon, state wildlife officials said. However, the animals “lose their natural fear of people and their actions get bolder and bolder” when homes and campgrounds are viewed as easy food sources.

“This is the most extreme example we’ve seen in state history,” Peter Tira, a spokesperson for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, told the Los Angeles Times.

“Since early May, the sheriff’s office has been inundated with daily reports from distressed homeowners and business owners regarding bears breaking into residences and vehicles, creating havoc and endangering local residents,” the sheriff’s office said.

“Given the escalating danger posed by the bear’s behavior and the imminent threat it presented to residents, deputies were left with no choice but to euthanize the bear in the interest of public safety.”

There are between 50,000 to 81,000 black bears in California according to the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife. Adult males can weigh roughly 400lb.

A butcher has shared a simple tip to make cheap steak taste more “premium” and “meaty”

Steak is a widely enjoyed cut of meat, prized for its robust flavour and succulent texture when prepared correctly. While cooking steak can be fairly straightforward, even minor adjustments can dramatically alter the finished result.

Most people rely on traditional seasonings like salt, pepper, herbs and butter when cooking meat.

Yet a number of unusual ingredients can be used to enhance the taste of a steak. According to a butcher, the secret ingredient is likely already sitting in your fridge.

A quality steak doesn’t necessarily need an extensive list of ingredients, given its naturally bold flavour.

However, a butcher from Campbells Meat has revealed one “unexpected” final flourish that will deliver the “meatiest” tasting steak possible.

The expert suggested lightly sprinkling grated Parmesan cheese over the steak while it rests.

They said: “We’re not talking about the amount you would throw over a bowl of pasta.

“Just a very light dusting, almost like you’re seasoning it a second time. It melts into the steak and brings out a deeper, more savoury beef flavour.

“I didn’t believe a steak could taste even beefier by adding one unlikely ingredient. Done properly, it instantly feels like a more premium or aged cut.”

Both aged beef and aged Parmesan contain elevated levels of glutamates, the compounds behind that profound savoury taste.

When combined, they complement one another, the butcher explained, resulting in steak that tastes far more intensely beefy rather than distinctly cheesy.

The butcher added: “It works best on ribeye and sirloin rather than leaner cuts as the marbling helps carry the flavour, something a fillet doesn’t have.”

For other meats, such as chicken, experts suggest using a straightforward brine of salt and water to enhance both flavour and tenderness.

The saline solution allows the chicken to absorb moisture and salt before cooking. This proves particularly beneficial for chicken breasts, which are prone to being overcooked and can otherwise become dry.

Ministers would be ‘stupid’ if they increased wealth taxes and ‘scared, lazy and constrained’ if they failed to tackle welfare reform, a senior Burnham ally has warned.

Lord Jim O’Neill, who turned down an expected government role only days ago, said more wealth taxes in the government’s crucial first budget would damage economic growth and see entrepreneurs quit the country.

The former Tory treasury minister, who was hotly tipped to be Andy Burnham’s Chief Economic Adviser, said rises in taxes like inheritance tax and capital gains tax could in fact ‘end up losing money’ for the Treasury with business owners deferring selling companies and moving money out of the country to avoid tax.

Lord O’Neill, who last week said the government must tackle welfare spending to bring down debt and called for a ‘sensible, realistic approach to welfare spending’, said: ‘I do think it would be stupid. At a time where a lot of business still struggles from Brexit and struggles from the changes in national insurance and the labour market changes to zero hours to have that and inheritance tax, it’s just like it would be yet more, and obviously at a time where the country’s growth rate has been so weak.’

And the cross-bench peer told today’s Times that if ministers went ahead with tax rises in the budget on October 28 it would show they were not thinking about growth ‘as sincerely as they claim they are’.

‘I don’t get why they would raise tax,’ he said. ‘All that’s telling you is that they’re not thinking about growth as sincerely as they claim they are. They’re just being scared and lazy and constrained in dealing with the sacred cows.’

His comments will come as a blow to Burnham who apparently spent more than a month fruitlessly trying to persuade him to join the government.

Meanwhile, ministers apparently blind to calls to tackle spiralling welfare spending – which costs the country £1bn a day – have urged Burnham to instead increase taxes like capital gains tax which is levied on profits from assets ranging from shares to second homes, buy-to-let properties and personal possessions.

Lord Jim O’Neill (pictured), who turned down an expected government role only days ago, said more wealth taxes in the government’s crucial first budget would damage economic growth

Traditionally, CGT rates have been applied at lower rates than income tax because profits tend to come from people taking a risk – whether an entrepreneurial or an investment one.

The chancellor John Healey also faces a headache over how to fund shortfalls in defence spending to cover the promises in the defence investment plan, how to counter the impact of the Iran war on the economy and how to fund spending promises.

The fiscal headroom, a cushion against future spending, is thought to have shrunk from £22billion to £15billion.

Lord O’Neill, who is from Stockport and chairs the Greater Manchester Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Advisory Board, also warned that Burnham would have to make some ‘hard choices’ when parliament returned after the recess and should focus on areas that could deliver growth like London, the West Midlands and the northern powerhouse region of Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds rather than attempting to fulfil his ‘growth in every postcode’ pledge.

Formerly the chief economist at investment bank Goldman Sachs, Lord O’Neill said last week in a BBC interview that he was a ‘supporter of a lot more sensible approach to government spending and taxation’ and was not in favour of wealth taxes.

The well-respected economist said he had turned down the key government job because he did not want to be under ‘financial constraints’ and would rather just be a ‘voice’ to turn to when needed.

Yesterday economists warned that record capital gains tax receipts raked in by the government after former Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ tax hikes would not last as people adapted their behaviour to compensate, echoing Lord O’Neill’s concerns.

It was revealed the treasury had collected £24.2billion in the 2024 to 2025 tax year, an 89 per cent increase from the previous year as the hike to the main rates of CGT took effect midway through the year.

That followed rises in the 2024 budget raising rates from 10 to 18 per cent for basic-rate taxpayers, while higher-rate taxpayers faced a 24 per cent levy on disposals from 20 per cent previously.

A small number of taxpayers bore the brunt of changes to rates, with 45 per cent of receipts coming from those who made gains of £5million or more, representing less than one per cent of total CGT taxpayers each year.

But Elizabeth Bradley, partner at law firm BCLP, said the meteoric rise in CGT liabilities might offer ‘short-term relief, but it may be a sugar hit caused by forestalling’ meaning future declines in tax takes.

She said yesterday: ‘If today’s exceptional spike reflects forestalling before the 2024 Autumn budget, the behavioural response to potential CGT rate changes may now shift.’

Pete Fairchild, National Head of Private Clients at tax firm Crowe said: ‘The concerns over rising Capital Gains Tax rates have no doubt led many people to bring forward a transaction and sell an asset earlier than expected. Whether the rate ultimately increased, the government has collected tax anyway.’

He added: ‘While cabinet ministers will possibly pat themselves on the back for achieving this outcome, some words of caution – the trend of wealthy people leaving the UK continues because of these measures, not helped with further concerns about the potential of an exit tax being brought in.’

They were among defendants sentenced recently at York Magistrates Court.

Jaimee Reilly, 26, of Far Moss, Selby, pleaded guilty to stealing razor blades and alcohol worth a total of £131 from Sainsbury’s, coffee worth £56 from B&M,  razor blades and alcohol worth a total of £185.50 from Tesco and bank card fraud, all committed in Selby.

She was given an 18-week prison sentence suspended for 12 months on condition she does six months’ drug rehabilitation and 10 days’ rehabilitative activities. She must pay £185.50 compensation to Tesco, £56 compensation to B&M and £131 compensation to Sainsbury’s.

Keith Harrison, 52, of Buile Hill Avenue, Little Hulton, Worsley, Salford, pleaded guilty to stealing sunglasses worth £40 and £887 in separate visits to Sunglasses Hut, items worth £370 from Swarovski, items worth £139 from Hugo Boss, items worth £98 from Reiss, items worth £123 from Cosmetic Company, all at York Designer Outlet. 

He was jailed for 12 weeks and ordered to pay £404 compensation.

Connor Atkins, 30, of no fixed address, pleaded guilty to failure to comply with the requirements of the sex offenders’ register.  He was jailed for eight weeks.

Craig Callaghan, 37, of no fixed address, pleaded guilty to stealing flowers worth £40 from Tesco in Selby, and deodorant worth £80 from Poundland.

He was jailed for four weeks and must pay £120 compensation.

Eliza Carthy, 51, of Mount Pleasant East, Robin Hoods Bay, pleaded guilty to drink driving in Scarborough.

She was banned from driving for three years, fined £120 and ordered to pay £85 prosecution costs and a £48 statutory surcharge.

Vicky McClure has opened up about her demanding schedule after reuniting with her Line of Duty co-stars

Advertisement

Actress Vicky McClure has shared her experience of working with her former co-stars Adrian Dunbar and Martin Compston once again.

The trio were last on-screen together six years ago when Line of Duty came to a dramatic end in 2021.

With many fans demanding more instalments from the programme, their calls were answered when the BBC confirmed that the show would come back for a seventh series in 2025.

Now, filming for the upcoming season has officially come to an end with actress Vicky McClure speaking to The One Show presenters on how it was being with Adrian and Martin again, reports the Mirror.

When asked what it was like working together after all this time, Vicky told the BBC presenters it was ‘surreal’.

Although she explained that they’ve kept in touch over the years, which meant it wasn’t unusual to be together, it was ‘weird’ to act alongside one another as they had to be ‘really serious’.

Asked how she maintains composure on-set, given their close friendship, Vicky revealed that the demanding timetable plays a crucial role.

“The schedule is tight,” she confirmed, adding that they didn’t have time to ‘mess about’.

A synopsis for the upcoming series reveals that AC-12 has now been disbanded and rebranded the Inspectorate of Police Standards.

As anticorruption has ‘never been more difficult’ in the challenging climate, the trio are given their ‘most sensitive case so far’.

In the upcoming series, fans will also see Robert Carlyle join the cast as Detective Constable Shaun Massie. His role is described as ‘a Specialist Rifle Officer (SRO) and veteran marksman, operating with Tactical Operations Unit 7 (TO-7) to take down Organised Crime Groups’.

While DC Shaun Massie is a ‘gruff loner’ who keeps himself to himself, things take a turn when his boss, TO-7’s commanding officer DI Dominic Gough (Tom Weston-Jones), is accused of being a sexual predator, which results in Massie’s otherwise detached demeanour changing drastically.

TO-7 will also feature Line of Duty newcomers Laura Aikman as DC Paula Beckman, Levi Brown as DC Luke Tobin, and Amy Leigh Hickman as DC Nira Rashid.

The previous series of Line of Duty is available to watch on BBC iPlayer.

For all the latest news, visit the Belfast Live homepage here and sign up to our What’s On newsletter.

“The members of the Board of Directors acknowledge that Atletico de Madrid is open to standard transfer market negotiations when conducted in a professional, ethical and respectful manner. We fully stand behind the club’s previously communicated position that FC Barcelona failed to meet these requirements and, as a result, there will not be any negotiation and there is zero consideration of an Alvarez transfer to Barcelona. citing their concerns over how they believe the Catalan club conducted the negotiations.”

What kind of society would you rather live in: an equal one where everyone is just about getting by? Or an unequal one where most people are doing substantially better, but a small group consistently falls behind? Now imagine having to choose that society before you were even born, but with no idea of where you’ll end up in it.

Seen this way, inequality becomes a question of risk. Would people gamble on the unequal world, knowing they might be among the unlucky few? Or would they stick with a basic but adequate life for all?

Back in the 18th century, philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham would probably have taken the gamble. Two hundred years later, egalitarian philosopher John Rawls, who was behind this thought experiment (which he called the “veil of ignorance”), argued against it.

Economists call this an efficiency-equity trade-off; balancing fairness with the sometimes competing priority of making the most of society’s finite resources. Political scientists point to such attitudes on inequality as a fundamental difference between left and right. Yet it turns out most people want more details before answering the gamble. How big are the gains, how severe are the losses, and how likely are they?

À lire aussi :
Where should governments spend your money? The impossible maths of political and moral decisions

To quantify this, our work (together with our colleague Tommaso Reggiani) measured wellbeing through subjective life satisfaction. Such measures have been used extensively in public policy over the last 20 years, reflecting a broader shift away from purely economic measures towards a fuller picture of how people actually experience their lives.

The Office for National Statistics asks citizens about life satisfaction on a scale from zero to ten: in the UK, 94% of people rate their life satisfaction at five or above, with the average around 7.5.

We asked people to rate various hypothetical situations to help us understand how each individual uses the zero-to-ten scale. We could then put numbers on the gambles Rawls asked us to imagine. Suppose you had a debilitating medical condition. Would you accept a risky treatment that improves your life satisfaction by one point nine times out of ten, but decreases it by one point the other time in ten?

We also scaled up such questions. What if you were a policymaker, deciding on behalf of the whole population? Would you end a pandemic lockdown, improving the wellbeing of most but causing the death of one person in 10,000?

The mathematics of empathy

As expected, we found that people’s decisions were naturally spread over a wide spectrum, from the risk-taking to the risk-averse. It is heartening, however, that most people were more cautious with the lives of others than with their own. What’s more, 87% were willing to trade away some of their own life satisfaction in exchange for greater equality.

With a computer-simulated model of people’s choices, we can assess both existing and new situations. We compared the UK’s unequal distribution of life satisfaction with the hypothetical case of a society where everyone has the same life satisfaction. The results imply the average person would be willing to accept roughly a one-point reduction in average life satisfaction to get there.

Although such an extreme situation would be impossible in practice (perhaps even dystopian), this one-point figure still gives us a useful measure of how much people value greater equality in wellbeing.

These findings suggest that policy based on wellbeing alone is not enough – it should also reflect fairness. UK government policy already does this to some extent, with gains for the worst-off being given greater weight.

But our research offers a more precise way to quantify fairness. These values should be embedded in decisions on everything from transport to the NHS, and should inform the AI systems increasingly being used to assist decision-makers (the AI community already recognises the relevance of the veil of ignorance). Governments could then quantify how well their wellbeing-equity trade-offs align with the values of the public.

This research is far from over. In particular, we would like to explore how we might reach a better consensus between the risk-takers and the risk-averse.

The promising part is that these differences do not appear to be political. In our sample of the UK population, the gambles people accepted on behalf of both themselves and others had surprisingly little to do with how they voted, or with their broader political views. In this sense, the model captures something we might describe as a common empathy.

This challenges a familiar narrative. Inequality is often framed as a political divide, with the left emphasising redistribution and fairness and the right focusing on incentives and individual reward.

But when we look at outcomes – how well people’s lives actually go – there is far more agreement than you might expect. The disagreement may lie less in what people want, and more in how they think it can be achieved.