4 min read12 min

A memo that held the promise of new ways of thinking, that could unlock progress on huge issues like climate change, NHS efficiency and prison overcrowding. But government didn’t even recognise the language it was written in, far less comprehend it.

Sometimes it feels like that’s a situation we find ourselves in. The mystery language is maths. There’s  real potential for more people in government and parliament to draw on mathematical insights when shaping policy. However, mathematical expertise isn’t as widespread across government and parliament as it could be, which means opportunities to use it are sometimes missed.

This week, we took a huge step to changing that. The Academy of Mathematical Sciences appointed its first 100 Fellows. Their remit is to represent the maths community to the public and to policy makers and to collaborate on some of the conundrums that face us as a nation.

The Fellows range from the head of GCHQ, our national codebreaking centre, to University Challenge champ and TV personality Bobby Seagull. From a primary school teacher from Cambridge to the Scottish Government’s maths adviser. They not only demonstrate the range of levels and livings that the mathematical sciences can lead to they bring the necessary breadth of expertise to tackle pressing policy issues.

For example, only this week the Secretary of State announced a programme of free AI training for all workers. It’s impossible to avoid AI and its impact. But how many recognise that under the bonnet it’s mathematical algorithms that underpin this transformative technology? Mathematician Marcus du Sautoy has characterised the way government and business has embraced the advantages of AI without supporting mathematicians and mathematical sciences as being like buying a Ferrari without any knowledge or curiosity about the fuel might actually make it go.

The Academy of Mathematical Sciences Fellows will work on solutions to ensure AI is safe and accurate by interrogating and improving the maths it relies on.

Unfortunately, national security is probably the number one priority for government right now. We are not safe without the mathematical sciences. Maths is fundamental to code breaking, defence strategy, even to mundane but vital calculations like how many tins of beans do you need to stock on an aircraft carrier to feed the crew for an entire deployment to ensure our servicemen and women don’t go hungry but our fighting capability is at maximum efficiency.

The Academy of Mathematical Sciences Fellows will collaborate to support the effort to stay ahead of the curve. That means keeping ahead of our adversaries on new technologies like quantum that will transform cryptography and ahead of the hackers launching thousands of hacks and online attacks every day against our digital infrastructure and our companies.

These are just a few of the challenges that the Fellows will take on. They will also consider energy policy – how to maximise production and efficiency and maintain and expand the grid for example.

And they will keep a profile in Whitehall and across the nation in an effort to alter and update the image of mathematics.

Too many people think of maths as equations on a blackboard. When in fact it is plotting a space flight, tracking a storm, improving outcomes for cancer patients, or forming an all conquering rock band (like Coldplay’s Jonny Buckland).

It’s a mindset that is  common in Westminster too, and it’s holding us back. There are a few former teachers in parliament like me, Chris Vince and Mark Sewards that champion the subject. S/  While Parliament has plenty of talented people from wide range of backgrounds, including maths and STEM, for many colleagues, their last real encounter with maths was at school, and their perception hasn’t changed since.

The Fellows appointed this week are leaders who come together to harness the power of the mathematical sciences for the common good. I shall be encouraging government to engage with them at the earliest opportunity.

I love maths. Which is why know it has more to contribute to policy and society. The appointment of the Academy’s first 100 Fellows is a step towards that goal. The nation’s brightest future has maths at its heart.

Dave Robertson MP is a former teacher

Help and support:

Meta, the parent company for Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, plans to introduce new face scanning tech while people are distracted by current political turbulence. The Trump-adjacent corporation plans to package the feature in new smart glasses. An internal Meta document seen by the New York Times (NYT) says:

We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.

The media outlet provides further info on what the tech would allow:

The feature, internally called “Name Tag,” would let wearers of smart glasses identify people and get information about them via Meta’s artificial intelligence assistant.

Smart glasses are typically paired with AI, enabling voice activated interaction with the specs. Users can instruct the device to send a text message, take a photo or record a video. Some models feature an LED that changes colour to indicate the wearer is recording.

Meta: disaster capitalism following in ICE’s wake

The cynical internal memo likely references the tumult currently sweeping the US amidst the mass criminality carried out by the brownshirts of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Trump’s personal paramilitary goons have been violating laws left and right as they beat and kill their way around the US, under the pretext of an immigration crackdown.

ICE have already made extensive use of face scanning tech. Meta’s glasses would represent another privacy violating move, capturing massive amounts of personal data which may ultimately find its way into the hands of an authoritarian state. Meta has form when it comes to handing over info about customers to governments.

Metadata – which shows who called who and when – has been used by authorities, including seemingly by so-called ‘Israel’ for its genocide in Gaza. WhatsApp records are one means used by the terrorist entity to determine which Palestinians are marked for death in its genocidal AI programs Lavender and Where’s Daddy. Paul Biggar of Tech for Palestine put a series of questions to Meta about how they should be policing rogue regimes like ‘Israel’ using its data. These included:

How will Meta prevent private information being used by governments to kill WhatsApp users and their families?

Will Meta immediately rescind access to any WhatsApp information from the Israeli government, army and law enforcement?

It appears no answer was forthcoming. Meta’s plan to roll out the tech during politically chaotic times has echoes of the ‘shock doctrine’ described by author Naomi Klein. It outlines a process of ‘disaster capitalism’ in which natural disasters or political upheaval are seized upon by corporations to ram through major changes that benefit them.

It represents another example of practices first deployed by hegemonic powers abroad, only to be revisited upon a population at home. Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been an eager licker of the Trump boot, and clearly sees this as an opportune time to introduce the privacy violating tech.

Corporate and state surveillance powers must be opposed

A previous version of the glasses were able to successfully identify faces and reveal huge amounts of personal info about those it scanned. Two Harvard students paired the specs with a smartphone app they created, enabling them to almost instantaneously identify strangers.

The scan was then sent to the app, which trawled the internet for information about people, bringing back details like their job and home address within seconds. A built-in version of this tech would be even more powerful, creating even greater privacy concerns.

The British government intends to extend its use of facial recognition tech, going from 10 vans with the system, to 50. Civil rights groups are challenging this in the courts, describing it as “stop and search on steroids“. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) are looking into its use, which would be a disaster in a region where violation of rights by state authorities has previously had devastating consequences.

Fascism is often described as the fusion of corporate and state power. Both these power centres are ramping up their ability to surveil us, enabling them to amass enormous power. The prospect of them uniting to utterly crush dissent will be an ever more tempting prospect. Their efforts to advance spying powers must therefore be snuffed out in their infancy.

Featured image via the Canary

Photo by Richard Stachmann on Unsplash

How parents can support children with ADHD to sleep better

1. Keep bedtime consistent

2. Focus on light

3. Consider nervous system input earlier in the day

4. Try quiet, focused activities before bed

5. Let them offload their worries

6. Gently help kids back to bed

6. Consider their sleep quality

A note for parents struggling with the long evenings

We’re accustomed to bringing an umbrella with us wherever we go, and we know that bringing an extra layer ‘just to be safe’ is mandatory.

But when the seasons start to shift from winter to spring, even the most savvy dressers can be caught sweating their face off on public transport because they grabbed the wrong coat before dashing out of the door.

If you’re in the market for a layer that works when it’s a bit chilly out, instead of freezing cold, give these seriously stylish trench coats a look in.

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.

The Labour government is moving leftwards.

Whether Keir Starmer survives as Prime Minister or not, a shift in direction is inevitable.

It has been evident ever since the retreat on welfare cuts that the Parliamentary Labour Party was to the left of its frontbench and – given a fight between the two – the PLP was capable of prevailing.  Abolition of the two child benefit gap was to follow, as was a second autumn budget with hefty tax increases, necessary in part to pay for higher welfare spending.

Since then, of course, Starmer’s position has weakened.  When a Prime Minister is on the brink, the expedient approach is to focus on party management, and Starmer is nothing if not expedient.  He is often dismissed as being remarkably unpolitical, which is true, but he has also demonstrated repeatedly a very political willingness to be ruthless and flexible.

These characteristics were to the fore in the departure of Morgan McSweeney as his chief of staff.  McSweeney was central to Labour’s election campaign and to the operation of the government.  In both roles, he pursued a political strategy – adopted tentatively by Starmer – which involved resisting a drift towards the left.  Even with McSweeney, the Government has drifted leftwards, without him the current will be irresistible for Starmer.

This all assumes that Starmer stays.  If he does not, a Labour leadership race will focus on a membership who thinks that the problem is that the Government is too right-wing.  There will be calls for bigger government, wealth taxes, a more generous welfare state, and nationalisations.  Whereas recent Conservative leadership elections involved members asking themselves who was best placed to beat Nigel Farage, Labour members will worry more about losing votes to Zack Polanski.  It would be a brave and unsuccessful Labour leadership candidate who will set forward a manifesto focused on making the country more economically dynamic, competitive, and business-friendly.

All of this can be contrasted with how Labour fought the last election and, as a consequence, the mandate they received.  It is true to say that Labour’s campaign was deliberately unmemorable and risk-free in the manner, to use Roy Jenkins’ phrase, of ‘a man carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor’.  It is also true to say that the media put Labour under little scrutiny, reflecting the public’s sentiment that it was time for a change but with a weary incuriosity as to what that change may involve.  Nonetheless, Labour went to great lengths to demonstrate that it was not going to be a government of the left.

There were promises not to increase the rates of income tax, VAT, and national insurance.

There was also a promise to keep the corporation tax rate at 25 per cent, part of an energetic effort to keep business opinion onside.  Fiscal responsibility was at the heart of Rachel Reeves’ pitch to the electorate.  There were some totemic tax increases on the wealthy (VAT on school fees, reforms on the tax treatment of non-doms and private equity bosses) but if higher spending on public services was going to be necessary, it would come from higher levels of growth.  How this was going to happen was kept vague (it turned out that this was not because they had a secret plan but that they did not know themselves) but the impression was left that the answer would be more about pragmatism and competence than the implementation of socialism.

Party management also demonstrated that Labour had moved on from its recent history.

Jeremy Corbyn had been thrown out of the party he had only recently led and was forced to run as an independent.  The early days of the campaign were full of stories of how Team Starmer had determinedly excluded Corbynistas from standing as candidates, giving the impression that the future PLP would be made up of centrist loyalists.  The splits and factions of the Tory years would be put behind us.  Starmer might not be charismatic but he had command of his Parliamentary colleagues.  At last, we would have a grown-up in charge that could worry about the concerns of the country, not his party.

It worked.

Even though Labour lost votes and a handful of seats to the Greens and the Gaza independents, it won votes from former Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, higher earners and older and middle-aged voters that had been wary of the party in 2019.  It also succeeded in making the General Election a referendum on the Tories, which helped encourage tactical voting that made the anti-Tory vote remarkably efficient.  Many centrists voted against the Conservatives rather than against Labour.  Tory-minded voters – disillusioned with their traditional party but who could not bring themselves to vote Labour or Liberal Democrat – were sufficiently reassured to stay at home.  Starmer had discovered that there were electoral advantages in stirring up apathy.

This reality is likely to be forgotten in the next few weeks.

The internal Labour debate is all about the disappointment within the electorate about Labour’s lack of boldness and radicalism and that if only that could be corrected the Government would be more popular.  There are certainly left-wing voters who feel betrayed by the realities of a Labour government, but these are generally the same left-wing voters who feel constantly betrayed by reality.  If Starmer goes, how will they feel in a couple of years about Rayner, Miliband or Burnham or whoever they get as his successor? Betrayed, I would wager.  Only one Labour Prime Minister has ever won a second workable majority, and he did not do so relying heavily on flaky left-wing voters.

What Labour should worry about more are those voters who had been reassured that Labour would govern sensibly enough, solve problems, tread lightly on their lives and unite the country.  Business opinion – open to Labour in 2024 and encouraged by the focus on economic growth – has moved decisively away from them.  There is no sign of the Labour Party, in its current frame of mind, is making much of an effort to win that support back.

For those of us that want a country that is well-placed to succeed in a highly uncertain world, there is nothing to celebrate here.  Hard-headed decisions are needed to control public spending, reform public services, and improve competitiveness.  The Labour left is incapable of delivering on any of those fronts.  If Labour fails dismally, the country might react by taking a punt on the populist right, even more woefully prepared for the rigours of government.

The better option for the country is that the Conservative Party fills the breach; that it offers an attractive alternative to those reluctant 2024 Labour voters and Tory abstainers that had been reassured that the left had been repelled and that Starmer could be trusted.  Business opinion – dismayed at Boris Johnson’s hostility over the costs of Brexit and Liz Truss’s fiscal irresponsibility – is open to being wooed by the Conservatives once again and should be the first priority.

For the rest of this Parliament, Labour is going to govern as a different party to the one that was elected in 2024.  Part of their 2024 coalition of support will be lost as a consequence.  It will be that part of its coalition which is more focused on economic growth, more supportive of the private sector, and more sceptical of socialism.  In other words, a move to the left will mean that more centrist voters will be up for grabs.  It is a huge opportunity that the Conservative Party cannot afford to miss.

Whether Keir Starmer survives as Prime Minister or not, a shift in direction is inevitable.  It has been evident ever since the retreat on welfare cuts that the Parliamentary Labour Party was to the left of its frontbench and – given a fight between the two – the PLP was capable of prevailing.  Abolition of the two child benefit gap was to follow, as was a second autumn budget with hefty tax increases, necessary in part to pay for higher welfare spending.

Since then, of course, Starmer’s position has weakened.  When a Prime Minister is on the brink, the expedient approach is to focus on party management, and Starmer is nothing if not expedient.  He is often dismissed as being remarkably unpolitical, which is true, but he has also demonstrated repeatedly a very political willingness to be ruthless and flexible.

These characteristics were to the fore in the departure of Morgan McSweeney as his chief of staff.  McSweeney was central to Labour’s election campaign and to the operation of the government.  In both roles, he pursued a political strategy – adopted tentatively by Starmer – which involved resisting a drift towards the left.  Even with McSweeney, the Government has drifted leftwards, without him the current will be irresistible for Starmer.

This all assumes that Starmer stays.

If he does not, a Labour leadership race will focus on a membership who thinks that the problem is that the Government is too right-wing.  There will be calls for bigger government, wealth taxes, a more generous welfare state, and nationalisations.  Whereas recent Conservative leadership elections involved members asking themselves who was best placed to beat Nigel Farage, Labour members will worry more about losing votes to Zack Polanski.  It would be a brave and unsuccessful Labour leadership candidate who will set forward a manifesto focused on making the country more economically dynamic, competitive, and business-friendly.

All of this can be contrasted with how Labour fought the last election and, as a consequence, the mandate they received.  It is true to say that Labour’s campaign was deliberately unmemorable and risk-free in the manner, to use Roy Jenkins’ phrase, of ‘a man carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor’.  It is also true to say that the media put Labour under little scrutiny, reflecting the public’s sentiment that it was time for a change but with a weary incuriosity as to what that change may involve.  Nonetheless, Labour went to great lengths to demonstrate that it was not going to be a government of the left.

There were promises not to increase the rates of income tax, VAT, and national insurance.  There was also a promise to keep the corporation tax rate at 25%, part of an energetic effort to keep business opinion onside.  Fiscal responsibility was at the heart of Rachel Reeves’ pitch to the electorate.  There were some totemic tax increases on the wealthy (VAT on school fees, reforms on the tax treatment of non-doms and private equity bosses) but if higher spending on public services was going to be necessary, it would come from higher levels of growth.  How this was going to happen was kept vague (it turned out that this was not because they had a secret plan but that they did not know themselves) but the impression was left that the answer would be more about pragmatism and competence than the implementation of socialism.

Party management also demonstrated that Labour had moved on from its recent history.  Jeremy Corbyn had been thrown out of the party he had only recently led and was forced to run as an independent.  The early days of the campaign were full of stories of how Team Starmer had determinedly excluded Corbynistas from standing as candidates, giving the impression that the future PLP would be made up of centrist loyalists.  The splits and factions of the Tory years would be put behind us.  Starmer might not be charismatic but he had command of his Parliamentary colleagues.  At last, we would have a grown-up in charge that could worry about the concerns of the country, not his party.

It worked.  Even though Labour lost votes and a handful of seats to the Greens and the Gaza independents, it won votes from former Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, higher earners and older and middle-aged voters that had been wary of the party in 2019.  It also succeeded in making the General Election a referendum on the Tories, which helped encourage tactical voting that made the anti-Tory vote remarkably efficient.  Many centrists voted against the Conservatives rather than against Labour.  Tory-minded voters – disillusioned with their traditional party but who could not bring themselves to vote Labour or Liberal Democrat – were sufficiently reassured to stay at home.  Starmer had discovered that there were electoral advantages in stirring up apathy.

This reality is likely to be forgotten in the next few weeks.  The internal Labour debate is all about the disappointment within the electorate about Labour’s lack of boldness and radicalism and that if only that could be corrected the Government would be more popular.  There are certainly left-wing voters who feel betrayed by the realities of a Labour government, but these are generally the same left-wing voters who feel constantly betrayed by reality.  If Starmer goes, how will they feel in a couple of years about Rayner, Miliband or Burnham or whoever they get as his successor? Betrayed, I would wager.  Only one Labour Prime Minister has ever won a second workable majority, and he did not do so relying heavily on flaky left-wing voters.

What Labour should worry about more are those voters who had been reassured that Labour would govern sensibly enough, solve problems, tread lightly on their lives and unite the country.  Business opinion – open to Labour in 2024 and encouraged by the focus on economic growth – has moved decisively away from them.  There is no sign of the Labour Party, in its current frame of mind, is making much of an effort to win that support back.

For those of us that want a country that is well-placed to succeed in a highly uncertain world, there is nothing to celebrate here.  Hard-headed decisions are needed to control public spending, reform public services, and improve competitiveness.  The Labour left is incapable of delivering on any of those fronts.  If Labour fails dismally, the country might react by taking a punt on the populist right, even more woefully prepared for the rigours of government.

The better option for the country is that the Conservative Party fills the breach; that it offers an attractive alternative to those reluctant 2024 Labour voters and Tory abstainers that had been reassured that the left had been repelled and that Starmer could be trusted.  Business opinion – dismayed at Boris Johnson’s hostility over the costs of Brexit and Liz Truss’s fiscal irresponsibility – is open to being wooed by the Conservatives once again and should be the first priority.

For the rest of this Parliament, Labour is going to govern as a different party to the one that was elected in 2024.  Part of their 2024 coalition of support will be lost as a consequence.  It will be that part of its coalition which is more focused on economic growth, more supportive of the private sector, and more sceptical of socialism.  In other words, a move to the left will mean that more centrist voters will be up for grabs.

It is a huge opportunity that the Conservative Party cannot afford to miss.