Connect with us

News

Questioning the “One Person, One Vote” Principle in Western-Style Democracies

Published

on

peoples

Western-style democracies accept the dogma that governments are best or most justly run when each citizen has an equal say in deciding who should govern — the “one person, one vote” principle. For example, the US Supreme Court has declared that “the conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing — one person, one vote.” This dogma is misguided.

At the outset, I want to make clear that the objective of this short piece is not to present a coherent upgrade of the current Western democratic system. Instead, it should be perceived as a wake-up call questioning the deep-rooted belief that the one-person, one-vote democratic system is the best we can hope for.

We should be able to ask this question critically. However, in Western-style democracies, it is considered problematic to publicly question the soundness of the electoral process and the one-person, one-vote principle. Westerners either ignore or scorn arguments that would expose this electoral system as fundamentally flawed. I experienced this disdain after I published the article “Chinese Capillary Democracy: What Can Western Democracies Learn from It?” in March 2016.

Rethinking our own systems does not mean imitating authoritarian regimes

In the article, I argued that Western democracies could be strengthened by modifying how their political leaders were elected and adopting a system that would result in more professional, meritocratic and stable governments. This new system could, in part, be modeled after the one that the Chinese have, although they have it mostly in theory alone. At no point did I suggest that the Chinese government itself is adequate for Western countries or that China has a real democracy.

Advertisement

Rather, I used the theoretical structure of Chinese local elections as an example. On the local level, one person, one vote could work, and promotions to higher levels could spring from local democracy. This is not how China actually works. Without a doubt, China is an authoritarian regime that is morphing into an autocracy under President Xi Jinping.

My article received numerous sarcastic comments, such as, “Mr. Meyer has sold his soul to the [Chinese Communist Party] on Alibaba,” “This is such a crap article. The [People’s Republic of China] is a mafia state,” and, “What a naive, narrow-minded, simplistic and ignorant piece of propaganda.” Numerous rigid beliefs and prejudices continue to hamper any attempt to establish a constructive conversation with Western-style democracy supporters.

Majoritarianism is wishful thinking

I agree that we should all be active members of society and participate in the nation’s decision-making process. However, no matter how extensive our individual knowledge and skills are, they will always be just a tiny fraction of what is needed to evaluate complex domestic and international issues. The assessment of the issues at stake — such as how to manage globalization or climate change, how to deal with China and Russia, or whether to bomb Iran or not — is far beyond the analytical reach of any single individual, including those with relevant expertise. This goes just as much for deciding who are the most capable leaders as it does for deciding which are the best policies.

When we are sick, we go see a doctor. When we want to build a bridge, we go to an engineer. When we want to invest, we go to an economist. When we want to find a cure for cancer, we go to scientists. All of them are experts. Also, it is interesting to note that no single successful private company is run as a democracy. Companies are run by teams of experts in the different areas affecting them. Yet managing a country is far more complex than any scientific endeavor or multinational corporation. Obviously, letting the general population decide how to do it does not make much sense.

Advertisement

Basically, a vote is the expression of a personal opinion and for it to be meaningful it must fulfill three preliminary conditions: gathering sufficient information about the issue under consideration, having the necessary background information and skills to analyze the gathered information, and spending sufficient time analyzing the information to, finally, draw sound conclusions. Only after these three requirements have been met can the individual form an opinion and, if he wishes, share it for the benefit of the community in the form of a vote. A common citizen is busy working to make a living and taking care of his family and his personal interests. This citizen cannot be expected to be able to have a working understanding of all the necessary geopolitical, economic, social, military, historical or legal dimensions to develop sound opinions on which to base his voting choices.

Hoping that a numerical majority of tremendously underinformed individuals in a country will make brilliant choices on extremely complex issues is simply an illusion. Or a delusion. Our incapacity is illustrated by the fact that even individuals with extensive relevant expertise are incapable of reaching a consensus on the best options in domestic and international matters. Individual experts frequently disagree and contradict each other and reach conclusions that are diametrically opposed. As soon as the issues go beyond what individuals can sufficiently grasp and relate to, the democratic voting system is ineffective and, therefore, popular voting to elect the leadership of a country is fundamentally unsound.

An editor at Fair Observer raised the objection that, while experts might very well know better than voters, they still should not make decisions for them, because experts can advise and inform elected leaders without overruling them. I do not believe that this holds water. At the end of the day, either experts or voters have to have the final say. If voters have the final say, nothing prevents their elected leaders from running into inadvisable wars, adopting irrational economic policies or ignoring the scientific consensus on climate change. We have all seen these things happen in living memory. As long as one person, one vote remains the rule, popular policies will overrule sound ones, experts be damned.

There is more than one way to do democracy

All this is not to say that people should not participate in a country’s political life. On the contrary, they should, but this should occur in a domain where an individual is capable of making educated, intuitive, critical decisions. For instance, individuals can sufficiently assess issues affecting their local communities and make educated choices in elections for their local representatives.

Advertisement

These representatives, elected by popular vote, would become part of the foundations of the national governing structure. This structure would predominantly consist of teams of professionals who aspire to long-term service in the government. Promotions within this governing would be based on a combination of performance (meritocracy) and internal elections. Ultimately, governing a country should be a long-term professional duty, not a temporal personal ambition.

Counting on the magic force of a numerical majority of fundamentally unqualified individuals to correctly elect the most adequate candidates to lead our nations through complex domestic and international matters is delusional. The West needs to take an honest and hard look at its obsolete democratic system and fundamentally redesign it to make it effective to overcome the challenges posed by the complex world we live in.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Business

The new recruitment arms race

Published

on

Hello and welcome to Working It. I’m Bethan, deputy editor of FT work and careers, standing in for Isabel this week.

Yesterday, John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton won the Nobel Prize for Physics for “foundational discoveries” in machine learning and artificial intelligence. Hinton quit Google last year so he could speak more freely about the risks of AI, and he used his acceptance speech to do just that.

The technology, he said, will be “wonderful in many respects”. But we should worry about “bad consequences”. Things could get “out of control”, he added, “we have no experience of what it’s like to have things smarter than us.”

I’m sure Hinton wasn’t talking about recruitment. But the nature of this technology means every sector is already being changed profoundly — including the world of work.

Advertisement

In the past few months, I’ve been reporting on the state of the jobs market — whether employers can find the right people, what jobseekers experience, and whether it is fair and equitable. AI has come up in nearly every conversation I’ve had. More on that below.

Will automation make applying for jobs harder?

In a recent interview, a jobseeker told me a story that made me think.

Struggling, like many candidates, to land an interview, she’d turned to an AI tool that scanned her CV. When she read its automated recommendations, she was surprised. Many of the skills she thought she had included in her resume were flagged as missing.

The problem, it appeared, was that she’d used terms that inferred skills or experience — like the name of employer — but hadn’t clearly articulated specific aptitudes, as they appeared in the job description, in the way automated screening would easily pick up.

Advertisement

“It was a bit of a eureka moment,” she told me. “I realised that unless I used these specific terms, I’d be missed.”

I thought this experience really reflected the weirdness facing job hunters today. You try hard to fluff up your CV and write a characterful cover letter, thoughtfully showcasing your skills. Then it gets fed into a black box and rejected, based on seemingly inscrutable criteria. Are you applying to a person or an automated process? For jobseekers, the uncertainty can feel like shouting into a void.

In the past, stories of mysterious robots were often purely speculative, says recruitment specialist Hung Lee. But increasingly they are more than rumours. Recent product innovations, he tells me, include AI screening assistants — tools he describes as “basically AIs” that “compare CVs (or job applications) against job descriptions” and rank them in order of suitability.

“Previously debunked myths” about automated application processes — such as the idea “that employers had technology that could read CVs and auto-reject them” — are “now becoming reality,” he tells me. And this is leading to an “innovation arms race . . . between tech-enabled candidates and tech-enabled recruiters” as jobseekers learn to tailor their CVs to meet the requirements of the automated screening.

Advertisement

Although most recruitment professionals recognise change is happening, this doesn’t yet amount to an impermeable AI-powered barrier between you and your dream job. According to research by Hays, a recruitment company, in March this year, 4 per cent of organisations — and 11 per cent of very large organisations — said they were currently using AI to evaluate applications, by scoring candidates or scanning CVs. The number is growing: 16 per cent of organisations said they would increase their use of AI to evaluate applications in the future, rising to 36 per cent among very large organisations.

Bonnie Dilber, recruiting manager at workplace tech platform Zapier, believes the idea that job applications are widely judged by AI is a “huge misconception”. While some employers will make use of tools that score candidates based on preset criteria, she says, most do not, in part because products now available are “emerging tools with lots of flaws”. Despite contending with large numbers of applications, many written with the help of AI, humans are still reading CVs, especially at smaller organisations.

I’m not sure this is reassuring for jobseekers, however. Mystery over who — or what — will review your application is not helpful. It hardly makes it easier to craft an application for the greatest chance of success.

For those wishing to “maximise conversions of applications-to-interview”, Lee’s advice is to use AI to customise a CV against specific job descriptions, then manually review it. But he advises, too, that candidates should check first if any use of AI is prohibited. Dilber says the “generic responses” of AI tools are unlikely to be the strongest submission for a competitive role.

Advertisement

It’s also worth remembering, of course, that the experience of being judged in faceless application processes is not totally new. The human judgment that predates any automated screening is (was?) far from perfect. Hurried hiring managers will also scan for keywords and gloss over the nuances of each candidate. When it comes to job applications, new systems are, in many ways, repeating earlier problems. The question is whether they will help solve them — or make them worse.

This week on the Working It podcast

Corporate reorganisations are always a traumatic time for staff and managers, writes Isabel Berwick. That’s true when they happen for “good” reasons — after a merger, for example; or just because a new chief executive wants to “make their mark”.

I have often been struck by how badly most reorganisations are handled (we are all imperfect humans, after all) so for this week’s episode of the podcast I called in two workplace experts. Christine Armstrong is a researcher, speaker — and also the funniest person on LinkedIn. Along with my colleague Andrew Hill, the FT’s senior business writer, we talk about the dos and don’ts of reorganisation.

Five top stories from the world of work

  1. What is the point of corporate art collections? Why do big companies collect artwork? Investment and prestige have always been part of the reason, but employers are increasingly using artwork to help tempt their workers back to the office, and strengthen relationships with clients.

  2. How Jane Street rode the ETF wave to ‘obscene’ riches: This deeply reported look at an under-the-radar trading company that has become incredibly profitable is packed with fascinating insights, including an unusual approach to risk and hierarchy. 

  3. CEOs turn to podcasts to control their messaging: There has been an increase, of late, in the number of senior business leaders using buzzy media productions to communicate with the world. But do these new media offerings fall short of journalism that holds those in power to account?

  4. The case for office pettiness: When you send a group email, do you pay much attention to the order of the names of recipients? Perhaps you should. This column shows up some of the ridiculousness of meaningless office disputes — but also acknowledges why they might matter to some.

  5. Online gig platforms focus on profits as workers return to office: I’ve always been intrigued by upstart gig platforms that allow people to more easily hire themselves out for one-off tasks. So I enjoyed this look at how names such as Fiverr or Upwork are looking for new ways to boost their profitability after slowing business post-pandemic.

One more thing

Who is government? The question might sound a bit cryptic, but I really enjoyed this Washington Post series answering it. The paper has got some great writers to profile unexpected and influential public servants working for different departments of the US government — from the Department of Justice to Nasa to Veterans’ Affairs, which oversees war cemeteries. Author John Lanchester profiles the Consumer Price Index. It made me think differently about what makes up government and how we think and write about work.

Advertisement

And finally . . . apply for expert AI support (and help develop good governance 🏆)

Isabel Berwick writes: The Institute for the Future of Work (Ifow) is an independent research and development institute. Among other things, it’s the home of the Pissarides Review into the Future of Work and Wellbeing. We’ve covered Ifow’s previous research about the impact on workers of AI and tech in this newsletter.

Ifow is currently running an “open call” for industry partners to join its new “Responsible AI Sandbox”. Intrigued? Here’s what Ifow’s head of partnerships, Jo Marriott, says about it:

“With the need for better governance of workplace AI becoming clear . . . Ifow is looking for businesses from across sectors, which are looking for support as they adopt new technology to improve productivity.

“Within the Sandbox, firms will gain a greater understanding of the risks and opportunities of AI deployment. Through this process, Ifow is helping to shape a pro-innovation approach to AI regulation, and will provide tools and frameworks that give firms the confidence to adopt new AI technologies in ways that support both growth and ‘good work’, and comply with existing legal regimes.”

To learn more and submit an expression of interest, please visit Ifow’s application page.

Advertisement

 

Source link

Continue Reading

Money

Tesco shoppers slam ‘selfish’ change to car parking rules they complain ‘discriminates’ against some customers

Published

on

Tesco shoppers slam 'selfish' change to car parking rules they complain 'discriminates' against some customers

TESCO shoppers have been left raging after finding out about a major change to car parking rules.

Two branches have implemented restrictions on how long customers can park their vehicles while filling up baskets.

Tesco has changed the parking restrictions in two of its branches sparking a backlash

1

Tesco has changed the parking restrictions in two of its branches sparking a backlashCredit: Alamy

One Tesco Extra in Ryde on the Isle of Wight has now put a new policy in place restricting drivers to a maximum three hour stay when there were no restrictions before.

Advertisement

Between 8pm and 12am the maximum stay is now one hour and 30 minutes between 12am and 6am.

Another store in Shaftesbury, Dorset, has reduced the maximum stay for shoppers leaving their vehicles in the car park between 10pm and midnight to one hour and 15 minutes from midnight to 6am.

The Sun understands the new parking restrictions were put in place at the Ryde store this month and at the Shaftesbury Superstore in September.

The move to restrict how long customers can park their vehicles at night has been branded “selfish”, with others claiming it discriminates against shoppers working during the day.

Advertisement

Commenting on the changes at the Ryde store, one shopper said on Facebook: “That’s clearly not been thought about, what happens with shoppers who need longer in the evening or is it going to be a supermarket sweep job and just grab it all while knocking things down and hope for the best?”

Another said: “Oh, great, so those that work in the day, get just one hour to dash round the store, then get in a massive queue at a till because they only have four tills open at one time.

“Discriminate against working customers.”

Commenting on the changes at the Shaftesbury store, one shopper said: “What…….They really are a bloody selfish store. I have never had any problems with parking at any time.

Advertisement

“And sometimes it takes longer than hour to get round the store.”

Another added: “With Christmas approaching it’s going to frustrate people wanting to do late night shopping or early hrs as not enough time allowed!”

Tesco said it doesn’t have parking limits in place at all stores, but uses “local usage” information to put measures in place where needed.

The supermarket also said parking restrictions are managed on a location-by-location basis and any changes are reviewed based on customer feedback.

Advertisement

A spokesperson added: “It is important to us that all our customers can find a space when they visit our stores and, where we have parking limits in place, this is to allow us to better manage spaces, and to deter anti-social behaviour in the car park at night, especially outside of opening hours.”

WHAT OTHER SUPERMARKETS DO

Customers can spend up to two hours in Sainsbury’s car parks for free.

However, some do charge you even for a quick stay, like the Superstore branch on Clapham Common.

Aldi has a limit on how long shoppers can use its car parks before being charged but this varies from store to store.

Advertisement

The retailer says signs are put up at each branch telling you how long you can stay for free and how much it costs beyond this point.

The amount of time you can spend in a Morrisons car park varies from branch to branch with signs in each one telling you how long you can stay for free before you are charged.

Some let you stay overnight for free, like its Aldershot branch where you are not charged for any parking between 5pm and 9am.

The latest change from Tesco is not the first in recent months to spark backlash in recent months.

Advertisement

Earlier this year, the UK’s biggest supermarket started charging shoppers 10p if they wanted to keep clothes hangers, as exclusively revealed by The Sun.

Tesco said it was trialling the new policy in a handful of stores in a bid to reduce plastic waste.

But one angry shopper posted on Facebook: “Never in my life have I heard so much rubbish, Tesco don’t only charge for plastic bags but now for hangers, 10p a hanger. What is the world today?

“I didn’t even want the hanger but was just in shock.”

Advertisement

In August, the supermarket revealed it had gone cashless at 40 of its cafes across the UK.

Shoppers have since had to order their food and drinks on a digital self-service screen and pay by card.

Martin Quinn, of Campaign for Cash told The Telegraph: “Many of the customers will be elderly or retirees who want to order in person, not press a computer screen. This is a mad decision.”

What can I get with Tesco Clubcard?

Advertisement

TESCO’S Clubcard scheme allows shoppers to earn points as they shop.

These points can then be turned into vouchers for money off food at the supermarket, or discounts at other places like restaurants and days out.

Each time you spend £1 in-store and online, you get one point when you scan your Clubcard.

Drivers using the loyalty card get one point for every two litres spent on fuel.

Advertisement

One point equals 1p, so 150 points gets you a £1.50 money-off voucher, for example.

You can double their worth when you swap them for discounts with “reward partners”.

For example, £12 worth of vouchers can be swapped for a £24 three-month subscription to Disney+.

Or you can swap 50p worth of points for £1 to spend at Hungry Horse pubs.

Advertisement

Where you can spend them changes regularly, and you can check on the Tesco website what’s available now.

Tesco shoppers can also get Clubcard prices when they have the loyalty card.

The discounted items change regularly and without a Clubcard you’ll pay a higher price.

These Clubcard prices are usually labelled on shelves, along with the non-member price.

Advertisement

But it’s worth noting that just because it’s discounted doesn’t necessarily make it the cheapest around, and you should compare prices to find the best deal.

You can sign up to get a Tesco Clubcard in store or online via the Tesco website.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@news.co.uk.

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Biden and Netanyahu speak as Israel mulls Iran response

Published

on

Biden and Netanyahu speak as Israel mulls Iran response
Reuters In front of US and Israeli flags, Joe Biden sits with his legs crossed while to his left sits Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu who clutches his hands in front of his chestReuters

US President Joe Biden met with Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv on 18 October 2023 – just days after Hamas killed some 1,200 Israelis

US President Joe Biden has held a much-anticipated call with Israel’s prime minister – believed to be their first dialogue in weeks.

Benjamin Netanyahu and President Biden are thought to have discussed Israel’s response to Iran’s missile attack last week amid escalating tensions in the Middle East.

The White House said US Vice-President Kamala Harris also joined the call on Wednesday, although details of what was discussed are yet to be released.

Defence Minister Yoav Gallant has said Israel’s retaliatory attack against Iran will be “deadly, precise and above all surprising”.

Advertisement

“They will not understand what happened and how it happened, they will see the results,” Gallant said.

Elsewhere in the Middle East region, fighting has continued between Hezbollah and Israel, with four people killed in an Israeli air strike on a Lebanese village near the southern city of Sidon.

In the small Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona, a couple out walking their dog were killed by Hezbollah rockets fired from Lebanon.

They are the first Israeli civilians to die since the cross-border conflict dramatically escalated 12 days ago.

Advertisement

Rockets have also struck the Israeli port city of Haifa, injuring at least five people.

Israel said it has carried out more than 1,100 air strikes since its ground invasion began in southern Lebanon on 30 September.

In an update shared on Wednesday evening, the Israeli Air Force said it had used fighter jets, helicopters and remotely manned aircraft to attack Hezbollah’s sites – and has also attacked 300 targets in northern Gaza as part of the fighting in Jabalia.

Previously, Netanyahu has vowed Iran will “pay the price” for the Iranian barrage – which Tehran said was in response to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and high-profile assassinations of Hezbollah leaders, including the late Hassan Nasrallah.

Advertisement

The US has defended Israel’s right to retaliate, but has also appeared to be trying to limit its response to Iran.

Lebanon’s government says as many as 1.2 million people have fled their homes over the past year. Almost 180,000 people are in approved centres for the displaced.

In addition, more than 400,000 people have fled into war-torn Syria, including more than 200,000 Syrian refugees – a situation that the head of the UN’s refugee agency described as one of “tragic absurdity”.

Hezbollah – a Shia Islamist political, military and social organisation that wields considerable power in Lebanon – has remained defiant despite suffering a series of devastating blows in recent weeks, including the killing of its leader and most of its top military commanders.

Advertisement
Reuters A woman talks with a child in a school turned into a temporary shelter for displaced people in LebanonReuters

A woman talks with a child in a school turned into a temporary shelter for displaced people in Lebanon

On Monday, the group insisted it was “confident… in the ability of our resistance to oppose the Israeli aggression”.

Israel’s government – which designates Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation – has pledged to make it safe for tens of thousands of displaced residents to return to their homes near the Lebanese border after a year of cross-border fighting sparked by the war in Gaza.

Hostilities have escalated steadily since Hezbollah began firing rockets into northern Israel on 8 October 2023 – the day after its ally Hamas’s deadly attack on southern Israel.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

meet the next Conservative leader

Published

on

The next Conservative leader will be from the right wing of the party.

The surprise elimination on Wednesday of the final moderate Tory candidate in the race — James Cleverly — leaves Tory party members with a choice between Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick.

Both have set out a staunchly right-wing prospectus, proposing a smaller state, a crackdown on immigration, and outlining scepticism about net zero targets.

As leader of the opposition, the winner will hold Sir Keir Starmer to account each week at Prime Minister’s Questions in the Commons — and will hope to lead the Tory party into a general election within the next five years.

Advertisement

Kemi Badenoch

Kemi Badenoch

Kemi Badenoch was the bookmakers’ favourite going into the Tory leadership race this summer.

The former business secretary has styled herself as a truth-teller who will deliver difficult messages to the party, which she says needs to rebuild from first principles.

She has said truth, family, citizenship, personal responsibility and equality under the law are the principles that would underpin her leadership.

Allies say she has the most intellectual critique of where the party should go, publishing a 40-page pamphlet during the party conference entitled “Conservatism in Crisis: Rise of the Bureaucratic Class”.

Her contention is that this ballooning group, who inhabit roles linked to the state, is socially intolerant and driving an economic slowdown.

Advertisement

She describes herself as a “net zero sceptic”, has challenged views around the rights of transgender people, and revels in attacking what she proclaims to be “left-wing nonsense”.

Known for her pugilistic style and sometimes brusque manner, her critics say she would cross a road to get into an argument, and wanders too easily into controversy. She says she fights on behalf of her party, not with it.

During the party’s annual gathering she sparked rows with suggestions that maternity pay was “excessive” and that the minimum wage too great a burden on some businesses.

Badenoch, 44, also raised eyebrows by signalling the public may back a move to charge for access to healthcare and suggesting, apparently in jest, that a large number of UK civil servants deserve to be in prison.

Advertisement

A raft of Tory rising stars on the front bench have backed Badenoch during the contest, including former energy secretary Claire Coutinho and former Treasury chief secretary Laura Trott, alongside party grandees such as former Cabinet Office minister Lord Francis Maude.

Born in the UK, she grew up in Nigeria before returning to Britain as a teenager. She studied engineering and worked for private bank Coutts and in a digital role at the Spectator magazine before entering politics through the London Assembly.

Badenoch was first elected to the House of Commons in the Essex seat of Saffron Walden in 2017.

Liz Truss first put her in the cabinet as international trade secretary and women and equalities minister. Rishi Sunak appointed her business secretary.

Advertisement

She ran for leader after Boris Johnson resigned in 2022 and came fourth, a result that gave her the confidence to try again given her low profile going into that race.

Badenoch has two daughters and a son with her husband Hamish, who works for Deutsche Bank.

Robert Jenrick

Robert Jenrick

Robert Jenrick gathered momentum early in the Tory leadership contest, topping the first two MP ballots and impressing colleagues with a slick campaign.

The former communities secretary has focused heavily on immigration, becoming the only candidate vowing outright to quit the European Convention on Human Rights, or ECHR, if he comes to power.

He is also one of only two Tory leadership candidates — the other was Tom Tugendhat — who has called for a concrete ceiling on net inward legal migration to the UK, which he says should be capped at 100,000 people a year.

Advertisement

Jenrick, 42, has said he would reject mass migration, focus on cheap and reliable energy, get Britain building again, cut the size of the state and build a more united country.

He opposes “crazy interim binding targets” on net zero, and has vowed to cut the international aid budget to fund an increase in defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP.

After winning the first two rounds of voting, his momentum had appeared to have stalled, when he lost ground in the third round of voting by Tory MPs on Tuesday.

Tory MPs believed then that his lacklustre speech at the party’s annual gathering in Birmingham last week may have dented his chances.

Advertisement

He also stoked controversy by claiming in a campaign video that Britain’s special forces are “killing rather than capturing terrorists” due to the constraints of the ECHR, raising questions about his judgment.

Jenrick is viewed as a centrist who has tacked to the right in order to curry favour in the race with the party base and MPs. However, some in the Tory fold say he is a natural right winger who kept his true colours hidden during the Coalition years when the party was led by moderate Conservatives.

He backed Remain in the EU referendum, but has since said he would back Brexit if he had his time again.

Last month he told the Financial Times that he believed the Treasury and the UK’s independent fiscal watchdog had been “gaslighting” the British public over the benefits of migration.

Advertisement

Right-wing Tory veterans Sir John Hayes and Mark Francois have backed Jenrick, alongside centrist former health secretary Victoria Atkins.

He won his seat of Newark in a 2014 by-election and joined the government ranks four years later, when Theresa May made him a Treasury minister.

Boris Johnson later made him housing secretary, a job in which he sparked a slew of negative headlines after he approved a controversial planning application submitted by Tory donor Richard Desmond after sitting beside him at a party fundraising dinner.

In 2019 he was one of three rising stars in the Tory party who joined forces to back Johnson for the party leadership — alongside Rishi Sunak and Oliver Dowden.

Advertisement

Friends said he later felt let down when Sunak arrived in No 10 and appointed Dowden as deputy prime minister, but did not give Jenrick a full cabinet role, appointing him immigration minister instead.

Jenrick dramatically resigned from the role around six weeks later, insisted Sunak’s legislation to save his Rwanda deportation plan was too weak to succeed.

He is married to Anglo-Israeli lawyer Michal Berkner, with whom he has three daughters.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Money

From bubble wrap to tape: seven household items you already have that can help you avoid heating and slash bills

Published

on

From bubble wrap to tape: seven household items you already have that can help you avoid heating and slash bills

IF you’re concerned about keeping warm this winter, turning the heating on doesn’t have to be the only option.

Millions are predicting tough times this winter with an increased energy price cap and a raid on winter fuel payments for pensioners.

Bubble wrap, hairdryers and even candle wax could be useful to help you stay warm this winter

1

Bubble wrap, hairdryers and even candle wax could be useful to help you stay warm this winter

But with some simple everyday household items, you could prolong having to splash out on bills.

Advertisement

We’ve put together a list of DIY ideas which could add some warmth to you and your home this winter for free.

However, remember that if you are vulnerable due to illness or old age and you’re really cold, you should still turn on your heating.

You should reach out your local council or supplier, and some available schemes will also be detailed at the end of this article.

It is also worth keeping in mind for all readers that the NHS currently advises to switch the heating on when temperatures dip below 15C.

Advertisement

But if you’re simply looking for some new ways to adapt to the colder weather, here are a few basic items you can use.

You likely already have them around the house – meaning it won’t cost you a penny.

Bubble wrap

Yes, bubble wrap. If you have this item lying around your home, you could be just steps away from some free insulation.

DIY buffs have said that if you cut some bubble wrap to fit your window, spray the window with water, then press the bubble side of the wrap against the glass, you can make your own double-glazing.

Advertisement

Bubble wrap is a good insulator as the air gets trapped in the bubbles and reduces heat transfer, preventing it escaping your home.

I’m a cold girly & layering is my best friend – here’s how to look warm but stylish

According to Urbane Eco, around 15% of heat is lost through windows.

And window insulation film can typically reduce heat loss by 35%, while double-glazing saves 70%.

By double glazing your windows, you could save £155 a year and 375kg of carbon dioxide.

Advertisement

While bubble wrap may not be as effective, it certainly helps the cause, and for free – the average cost of secondary glazing is £1,000 to £2,000 per window.

And if you don’t have bubble wrap at home, you can buy 5m for just £1 at Wilko and Asda.

A blanket

Another trick which can help prevent heat from escaping through windows is doubling up your curtains.

Some people buy special thermal curtains for winter, such as a set on Dunelms website which is selling for £145.

Advertisement

However, if you have spare curtains lying around, those will work just as well – if not, you could simply hang up a blanket for extra insulation.

If you really want to block out the cold, you could hang a quilt and attach velcro to the curtain hanger to keep it from being too heavy and falling down.

You should also remember to close your curtains during the night and open them when the sun shines, so your house can soak up all the rays.

Any fabric you have lying around

Another culprit for heat escaping the home are gaps under doors, with heat rising through rooms and up and out the house.

Advertisement

Draft excluders are really useful, and there are some really simple instructions online on how you can make your own.

All you need to do is measure the length of your door or window and cut a piece of fabric, sew it together and fill with stuffing.

With your own creative input and fabric prints you could end up with a prettier product than one you would buy.

If you don’t have the sewing skills then stuffing tights with old T-shirts will do the trick and you can just tie up the ends.

Advertisement

Tape

Another unexpected place where heat may leave your home is your letter-box or cat flap.

Sometimes these are slightly opened without you noticing and bring in cold drafts.

A simple way to patch this problem up is to seal the flap with duct tape.

If you have a cat which likes to go outdoors, you can take this off and put it back on when you need, or just keep an extra eye on when they need to be let out over the colder months.

Advertisement

The same trick works on draughty keyholes too.

Move your rug

Over the winter 10-20% of heat loss happens through floors on average.

Insulating your floor is a good preventative method, but can cost as much as much as £3,000 for suspended insulation, and £80 per square meter on average for solid insulation.

While it may not make quite the same impact, you’ll be surprised how much warmth could be locked in your home by covering drafty floorboards.

Advertisement

By moving your rug, or even your furniture, on top of these areas, you could stop a lot of precious warmth leaving the home.

Newspaper

If you have a chimney, you’ll definitely be using it to stay cosy this winter – but when its not in use, it could actually be costing you money.

All you need is a bin bag filled stuffed newspaper to fill your fireplace to stop heat escaping.

According to the chimney draught excluder brand Chimney Sweep, preventing chimney draught can cost you around £90 per year and reduce bills by about 5%.

Advertisement

Aluminium foil

If you are turning your heating on, it really helps to make sure you’re making the most of it.

DIY lovers have discovered they can attach aluminium foil to a large square of cardboard and place it behind their radiator so it reflects extra heat into the home and away from walls.

By enhancing your radiator use, you could have it on for less time over the day.

4 ways to keep your energy bills low 

Advertisement

Laura Court-Jones, Small Business Editor at Bionic shared her tips.

1. Turn your heating down by one degree

You probably won’t even notice this tiny temperature difference, but what you will notice is a saving on your energy bills as a result. Just taking your thermostat down a notch is a quick way to start saving fast. This one small action only takes seconds to carry out and could potentially slash your heating bills by £171.70.

2. Switch appliances and lights off 

Advertisement

It sounds simple, but fully turning off appliances and lights that are not in use can reduce your energy bills, especially in winter. Turning off lights and appliances when they are not in use, can save you up to £20 a year on your energy bills

3. Install a smart meter

Smart meters are a great way to keep control over your energy use, largely because they allow you to see where and when your gas and electricity is being used.

4. Consider switching energy supplier

Advertisement

No matter how happy you are with your current energy supplier, they may not be providing you with the best deals, especially if you’ve let a fixed-rate contract expire without arranging a new one. If you haven’t browsed any alternative tariffs lately, then you may not be aware that there are better options out there.

    If you’re really worried

    We’d like to remind readers that while these hacks are useful, they won’t always cut it if you’re struggling with bills this winter.

    If you are in this position you could be eligible for the Household Support Fund, and information is available via the Gov.uk website.

    Plenty of energy suppliers are also offering support schemes for customers, such as Octopus Energy which is offering pensioners discretionary credit of between £50 and £200 this winter.

    Advertisement

    To find out what help your supplier is offering, ring their phone line or visit their website.

    Some energy support funds are also offering free electric blankets to customers who are struggling this winter.

    OVO and Octopus Energy are both suppliers who have aimed at “heating the human, not the home”.

    Octopus have said they will distribute 20,000 electric blankets from Dreamland to its most vulnerable customers, keeping them warm for “as little as 3p an hour”.

    Advertisement

    While OVO Energy has launched a £50 million Extra Support Package which includes complimentary energy-conserving items.

    Electric blankets are also sometimes available from your council under the Household Support Fund, which renews a fresh pot of £421 million today.

    To find out if this is available with your supplier or council, and whether you are eligible, go to their websites and read the terms and conditions of the scheme.

    Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@news.co.uk.

    Advertisement

    Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories

    Source link

    Continue Reading

    News

    Kym Marsh among parents cherishing new baby loss certificates

    Published

    on

    Kym Marsh among parents cherishing new baby loss certificates
    PA Media Kym Marsh dressed in blackPA Media

    Actor Kym Marsh spoke to BBC Breakfast about the death of her son Archie

    Every year, actress Kym Marsh celebrates the birthday of her son Archie, who died in 2009 after being born just 21 weeks into her pregnancy.

    She held her son and organised a funeral for him. Now, her family remembers him at Christmas, and her 13-year-old daughter, born after his death, knows all about him.

    But Marsh had no official government certificate of his loss.

    Now, she can apply for one as part of an expanded programme for parents in England who lost a baby during pregnancy.

    Advertisement

    Every year in the UK, an estimated 250,000 pregnancies end through miscarriage before 24 weeks, a loss experienced by about one in five women.

    “These certificates mean so much. It makes your baby not just a statistic,” Marsh told BBC Breakfast.

    “He mattered to all of us, and for us to not get anything that recognised he was here was absolutely heartbreaking, because he was a little person and he was our little person.”

    “We’re so delighted,” she said about the certificates. “This is a huge win for all of us.”

    Advertisement

    The government launched the certificate programme in February for parents who experienced baby loss since September 2018, so the system would not be overwhelmed.

    It has now opened up to more parents. Parents can obtain a certificate in memory of their baby if the pregnancy ended before 24 weeks. They can also obtain it for pregnancies that ended before 28 weeks prior to 1 October 1992.

    Women and campaigners told the BBC how much the certificates matter to millions of people who have suffered what can often be a hidden loss.

    Charley Day received one of the more than 50,000 certificates issued since February after her son Rory died 11 weeks into her pregnancy in July.

    Advertisement

    She told BBC Breakfast the piece of paper has “changed the whole grieving process”.

    “For us, that’s just really been incredible – that our baby’s life has recognition,” she said.

    ‘The loss is real’

    Others applied on Wednesday after waiting for recognition of their losses.

    Advertisement

    Tracy Fishburn suffered three miscarriages in 2016 and 2017 and said she was “really disappointed” by the initial cut-off date for the certificates. When she heard the restriction was removed, she rushed to apply.

    “I was in the middle of the school run. I was crying when I was doing it,” she told the BBC.

    All three of her miscarriages happened before 12 weeks.

    “I had no scan photos, I hadn’t reached the point of buying them clothes,” she said.

    Advertisement

    She said that had left her feeling “almost like they didn’t exist, apart from in our family”.

    She said the certificates would bring comfort after the “darkest” period of loss.

    Tigz Rice A woman smiles in a homeTigz Rice

    Tracy Fishburn experienced “missed miscarriages” where the mother does not show any physical signs of loss

    Before 08:00 on Wednesday, Kate Jennings had already applied for a certificate to remember her daughter JB, whose heart stopped beating 22 weeks into Kate’s pregnancy in 2016.

    “Not having that record was really hard and impacted the healing process,” she told the BBC.

    Advertisement

    JB remains a “massive part” of the family, as Kate keeps her daughter’s ashes in a ring.

    “We literally carry her everywhere,” she said.

    She said she hoped to see other system reforms in the future as well, such as maternity benefits for pregnancy loss before 24 weeks.

    Kate Jennings A hand-drawn child's picture of a family including a baby in heavenKate Jennings

    Jennings’ daughter drew a picture of her family including JB

    Kirsty Jackson and her husband also immediately requested certificates for the six babies they had lost between 2004 and 2015.

    Advertisement

    To her, the certificates mean acknowledgment that “you were a mum and dad” and “the loss is real”, she told the BBC.

    Kirsty wished she had a certificate following her first miscarriage, after she became visibly upset when a pregnant customer came into the bank where she was working.

    She said her manager told her to “get a grip, you only had a miscarriage and a D&C” (a procedure to remove tissue from the uterus).

    She ended up moving branches and receiving counselling.

    Advertisement

    “It would have been great to have a certificate to say I lost a baby. No-one believes it’s an actual loss,” Jackson said. “It’s still very much a taboo subject.”

    “People don’t talk about it and share their experiences and what they’ve been through, or they feel like their loss isn’t recognised. Now you’ve got this option to get these certificates.”

    Jackson said it was great to see government support and more openness among a younger generation.

    She finally had her only son in November 2009 – a “complete miracle”.

    Advertisement

    ‘The grief never leaves you’

    For other women, Wednesday’s news is the result of years of advocacy.

    Baroness Benjamin, who introduced a bill to create certificates in the House of Lords, said she would also be applying for the three babies she lost – the first 40 years ago.

    “I think about them all the time when it comes to that certain time of year,” the former BBC children”s TV presenter told BBC Breakfast.

    Advertisement

    “The grief never leaves you.”

    Lady Benjamin said the certificates matter not only to women, but also to men, as she and her husband “used to cry together when I went through a loss”.

    The founder of Saying Goodbye Charity, Zoe Clark-Coates, who lost five babies, also said she would be applying after spending nearly 10 years campaigning on behalf of others.

    “It’s a really pivotal moment for people, whether they’ve lost their babies yesterday or 80 years ago, who can finally apply for a certificate,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    Advertisement

    “They want something to keep in their family records, for future generations, to be able to see their child was here, even though they didn’t get to stay,” she added to BBC Breakfast.

    Kym Marsh said official physical documentation is “massively part of the grieving process”, making loss more real and helping you to acknowledge and accept.

    “Because (Archie) was our child, and he matters just as much as the ones that are lucky enough to be here do,” she said.

    “A loss is a loss and they were our children.”

    Advertisement

    Additional reporting by Maia Davies

    Source link

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com