The Braindump Blog

I’m somewhat shocked to feel this way given the source, but I don’t hate all the policies from the Conservative’s autumn statement announced yesterday. At least not in the short term.

It’s amazing how much changes within a few weeks. Whilst some of the policies under the Truss administration weren’t nearly as tax-cutting as it seemed on the surface, they were extremely regressive. Just last month we were hearing that the top rate of income tax was going to be entirely abolished - free money for the rich! And now under the Sunak administration it’s actually going to be applied to more people; anyone with an income of over around £125k as opposed to the current £150k.

Benefits are going up inline with inflation, we’re seeing an increase in capital gains tax and a fiscal drag on inheritance tax. And a windfall tax on the incredible profits of energy producers. All very un-Conservative-stereotype.

Overall it’s still grim news in the economy - basically everyone is going to be worse off in the near feature. Living standards are set to fall by an unprecedented 7%. Plenty of this is due to the abject mismanagement of the economy by the Conservative party in recent times. Unemployment, inflation and energy bills are all set to rise. If you’re already struggling that’s obviously a much huger burden than if you’re doing well enough right now.

The statement’s policies are not nearly enough to make life particularly bearable for anyone already in or near crisis. But, I guess, credit where credit’s due - the tax changes announced yesterday are actually somewhat progressive.

Here’s a reproduction of the impact calculated by the Resolution Foundation provided by the Guardian.

Where the statement is rather more disingenuous is with regards to cuts in public funding. Cuts to public services tend to impact the poorest in society more than the rich. Cuts are certainly in the statement, and they’re big (and dangerous). But the bulk of them are scheduled not to hit until 2024-2025. Of course by then there’s a good chance we’ll have had a general election. A cynic might suggest it’s a cursed gift from a party that doesn’t really believe it’ll be in power at that point.

Watched season 12 - the final season - of The Big Bang Theory 📺.

It’s mostly more of the same, so if you found the (post-introduction of female scientists) stereotypes problematic then you still will. If you found the geek references, characters or general style annoying or stale then not all that much changed. But if you took pleasure from the fairly predictable series and its nerdy references then it’s worth finishing it off.

Much of the ending is comfortably heart-warming, although I do feel sympathy for Kathryn VanArendonk’s frustration with one of the storylines (warning: the link containers spoilers, albeit for a 3 year old episode).

Listening to the If Books Could Kill podcast 🎙️.

Peter Shamshiri (of 5-4 cohost fame) and Michael Hobbes (from Maintenance Phase) discuss and debunk ‘airport bestseller’ books that they believe have ruined our minds.

So far they’ve covered Freakonomics and Outliers, two books that in all honesty I remember being extremely into in my youth, in a pop-sci way. The former felt even somewhat formative in terms of my future interests.

This was at a point in time I was blissfully unaware of study design shenanigans, the replication crisis and the various other practices that can infect the scientific record. Here’s hoping not too much of my worldview is built on lies.

The British Museum, London, inside and out.

The wellbeing agenda, with its focus on milder problems, can lead to great statistics in a way that doesn’t work for severe mental illness

This is a sentiment I feel I’ve seen from quite a few articles recently.

Not just in terms of statistics, but a more general idea that we may finally be becoming more understanding and supportive of people with more common, typically less severe, mental health issues such as mild anxiety or depression - something that is undoubtedly good and necessary. But that there’s a way in which it’s been somewhat at the expense of folk with extremely serious and debilitating conditions.

I don’t yet have a sense of to what extent this is a real phenomenon or not. But it does seem like it’s an idea that’s in the ether at present.

Some context as Hunt prepares to unleash horrendous spending cuts and tax increases on us: Liz Truss' catastrophic failure of a 7 week premiership is estimated to have cost the UK £30 billion.

£20bn was blown…on unfunded cuts to national insurance and stamp duty, with a further £10bn added by higher interest rates and government borrowing costs as the markets reacted with dismay.

A recent paper quantifies the economic inequities exacerbated by the way that credit cards that offer rewards to their users work.

Of course the cost of these rewards has to come from somewhere.

This includes the various fees and interest charged by the credit card companies to its users. Unsurprisingly, people with low credit scores are more likely to end up paying these fees.

Now whilst credit rating doesn’t correlate 1:1 with e.g. income - so as the paper says the net effect isn’t a pure “take money from the poor to give to the rich” money grab - it does predictably correlate with various other dimensions of potential privilege. It’s obviously a lot easier to pay off your credit card balance and not incur interest charges if you have a big pile of existing money at your disposal.

Credit card companies also make money by charging shops every time a customer uses their credit card. To the extent that the need to fund rewards results in the credit card companies increasing the merchant fees to retailers, who correspondingly increase their products' prices to compensate, that’s also another way that poorer folk may be penalised - a small % increase in cost may not be noticed by the wealthy, but for people in poverty it might be that every penny counts.

Retailers don’t usually charge different prices for customers based on which card they use to purchase something, and so those people who don’t choose to use or do not have access to rewards credit cards may end up paying for other people to get rewards.

We estimate an aggregate annual redistribution of $15 billion from less to more educated, poorer to richer, and high to low minority areas, widening existing spatial disparities.

Listening to Midnights, by Taylor Swift 🎶.

In possibly the coldest take available on the internet today, Taylor Swift’s new album is really good. It’s broken a few records in terms of sales and popularity.

When I first listened to it I felt like all the bassy synths gave it a kind of ominous feel that I didn’t need in 2022, but a couple of listens later and I fully appreciate it. The general conceit is that each song reflects a sleepless night of her life, and sure enough some of the included angst may be familiar to those of us who are not multi-millionaire musical megastars too.

Apparently the album is filled with secret messages for the internet to discover. I came to Swift far too late and probably lackadaisically to get any of them but they’re there for those more informed.

Here’s one of the highlights, with a fun spooky (albeit originally controversial) video.

For anyone thinking to join the relative masses in signing up to Mastodon in protest to Elon Musk’s shenanigans now he owns Twitter, Danielle Navarro’s post looks to be a great intro guide. Particularly for anyone who’s in the “data community”, but most of it is applicable to the platform as a whole.

Whilst I’ve not yet explored it myself, Mastodon is actually one way you can subscribe to this blog - follow @adam@braindump.amedcalf.com if that’s something you’d like to do!

Things like this are exactly what cause me angst about joining the Labour party.

To be fair the headline “Keir Starmer: Too many people from overseas recruited to NHS” is a little selective, perhaps misleadingly so. Within the same interview Starmer also said he’d encourage immigration for different types of jobs. He also acknowledged that we have a desperate need for more NHS staff. But his proposed solution was that the UK needs to do way more in terms of increasing training opportunities and making jobs in the NHS bearable enough that any sane person isn’t so deterred by the conditions that they wouldn’t want the training in the first place.

I’m fully on board with that as a plank of the approach. It’s absolutely necessary. But it’s not an either/or situation. We have a NHS staffing crisis right now. Earlier this year it was calculated that around 110,000 NHS vacancies were unfilled. A British politician with the wellbeing of their constituents in mind should use whatever reasonable means we have to solve it.

Starmer is not known to be a naïve or stupid politician so when he said “I think we’re recruiting too many people from overseas into, for example, the health service” I’m sure he’d have understood how that might sound.

What’s particularly gruelling about this example is that reducing the immigration of medical workers isn’t even a popular policy. In the latest poll I can find, most people are actively in favour of immigration in terms of increasing the supply of doctors and nurses in the UK.

From page 15 of the British Future report on attitudes to immigration this year:

55% of respondents to this survey commissioned from IPSOS, designed to be representative of the British pouplation, would prefer recruitment of migrants as nurses to increase, with only 13% against. The figures for doctors are very similar.

Even most Conservative party supporters are in favour! Compared to Labour supporters they’re more likely to say the numbers should be reduced, but only by a few percentage points.

Of course this might not be apparent in the public discourse. Inevitably there is a certain percentage of the population who would rather see the immigration numbers go down than sustain the NHS. They’re loudly represented on social media, likely encouraged by the recent Conservative tendency to seemingly try and recreate a US-style culture war to our shores.

This is not to say that what job you do necessarily should be the basis of your ability to immigrate to the UK - I believe it shouldn’t be. But the point is that there is likely little need to “strategically” appear to be against immigration to fill NHS positions if that’s what’s going on, because most of the population actually wants to see more.

There certainly is a moral case to be made against encouraging immigration to fulfil Britain’s unmet medical needs, but it’s a very different one. As Kollar and Buyx write in their review of this phenomena:

Health-worker migration, commonly called “medical brain drain”, refers to the mass migration of trained and skilled health professionals (doctors, nurses, midwives) from low-income to high-income countries. This is currently leaving a significant number of poor countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, with critical staff shortages in the healthcare sector. A broad consensus exists that, where medical brain drain exacerbates such shortages, it is unethical…

Simplistically, one foreign nurse moving here is potentially one less nurse serving the country they were originally in. If done en masse, probably some recompense, ideally of a structural nature, should be given. However, this debate doesn’t seem to be the one that interests the politicians, media or general public at present.

Witnessing the Lincoln Chorale, accompanied by the Lindum Baroque Orchestra, honouring the king with their voices.

Featuring such classics as Zadok the Priest. I had no idea that was the title of this evergreen number.

Recently learned that I’m just one degree of separation from one of those accidental Bitcoin millionaires.

A acquaintance of a friend mined BTC to a wallet stored on a SD card years ago. After recently re-finding the card, he’s now got a new house with a few million $ left over.

Finished reading: One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez 📚.

This one is a real classic, perhaps the archetype of magical realism . That’s a style most associated with Latin American authors where things are going along just like we might ourselves expect to happen in real life. But occasionally something unquestionably fantastical happens. People fly, ghosts appear, spells are cast - whatever you can imagine. But to the characters in the book it’s perfectly normal, not even worth remarking on. Their world just works that way.

This book tells the story of many generations of a family in a beautiful, sometimes poetic, manner. In some parts it felt like hearing someone’s dream experience, other times more like a myth or legend from times long past.

Parts were somewhat disorientating to me, not least because many of the characters have similar names to each other; a fact remarked on within the book. It should be noted that there are some ‘uncomfortable’ scenes, and took me a good amount of focus to get through it. But it was an entirely worthwhile effort to make.

Watched The Power of the Doctor Doctor Who special 📺.

So I liked it, but I love Daleks and Cybermen enough as sci-fi enemies that you could even put them in Matt Hancock’s episode of “I’m a Celebrity” and I’d say it was good. Add in the master, UNIT and the actual companions and various previous incarnations of the eponymous hero themselves from decades-old episodes and it can’t disappoint.

It might be fairly said that the story itself was rather chaotic and incoherent at times, so I don’t blame anyone who thought it was too messy to follow. But if you have any nostalgia for Dr W then you’ll probably like it.

Also a great ending. I often regret seeing all the early “the next Doctor will be played by X” stories as it naturally spoils the when and who of the relevant episode’s grand finale. But this one still managed to surprise me.

Matt Hancock, the former Conservative Health Secretary who previously had to resign that position due to having a Covid-rule-breaking affair with a member of his staff, has now had the whip fully withdrawn from him.

It turns out that rather than going to the effort of doing his day job representing his constituents he’s signed up to take part on the “I’m a Celebrity…Get me out of here!” reality show due to start in November.

Update:

Andy Drummond, deputy chairman of the West Suffolk Conservative Association, said he was looking forward to seeing Mr Hancock “eating a kangaroo’s penis”.

Aren’t we all? Thanks for that, BBC.

Happy Halloween!

My current favourite recently-learned spooky fact is that the infamous film The Exorcist - the one that originally induced audiences to faint, vomit and maybe even have heart attacks - is in fact based on a true story. It’s the story of Ronald Edwin Hunkeler, although his name wasn’t widely known until last year, after he had died the year before.

From the age of 14 it was reported that he had been possessed by something menacing. People around him heard strange noise, and things flew around the house. Red scratches appeared on his body, spelling out various words. He had violent outbursts and spoke Latin phrases in a strange voice. Walls shook and furniture slid. All of which you may have seen in the film’s recreation, albeit featuring a younger girl.

It’s not clear that the infamous head-spinning scene actually happened in Ronald’s case though. Which is shown below, but perhaps don’t click on it if you don’t like scary things or bad language.

In later life, Ronald became a NASA engineer. His work was used in the 1960s Apollo space missions and, more recently, for space shuttle materials. He apparently went out of his way to ensure people didn’t know of his exorcist related history, unfortunately going through his life always afraid of people figuring it out.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it’s now a matter of debate how true the true story was. The fact that The Exorcist is based on Ronald and what people around him reported is true. But whether the original events concerned were of paranormal origin or were in fact deliberate trickery done by the kid has been questioned at some length. But even if it was an act, it sounds like it was an unusually convincing and long-lasting one from a likely troubled child.

A descendent of Captain William Humphries has finally returned “Red Deer” - a book by Richard Jefferies that he borrowed in 1938 to a library in Coventry.

It’s in good condition apparently, which is kind of amazing when most likely it was kept in a house that was bombed in the Blitz.

Being 84 years overdue it had accumulated quite a fine. Fortunately at 1 old penny a day it only worked out to £18.27 in today’s money. Embarrassingly, I’ve paid library fines bigger than that. Today the library charges 25p per day, so if someone pulls the same stunt again that’ll cost them £7673.

It was returned by the Captain’s grandson Paddy Riordan, who told the BBC that he wasn’t sure why it had taken so long to get returned, but “It really wasn’t that exciting a book”.

Believe it or not it’s by no means the most overdue return of a library book. That honour is held by the catchily named “Scriptores rerum Germanicarum septentrionalium, vicinorumque populorum diversi”. That translates to “Various historians of the Northern Germans and of neighbouring peoples”.

A copy of that book was returned to Sidney Sussex College 288 years after it had been borrowed in the year 1668.

This one had been borrowed by Colonel Robert Walpole, who was an MP in 1689, and the father of the confusingly similar named Sir Robert Walpole, who Wikipedia records as being the first Prime Minister of the UK.

In that case no fine was exacted.

Elsewhere I’ve recently written about Dries Depoorter’s creepy art project “The Follower” that takes non-consensual photos of you taking photos of yourself.

And for data analysts who find that their favourite R library was archived from CRAN, an easy way to install it anyway.

Everyone’s favourite group of Covid-19 lockdown defying goats are back at it again.

Originally sighted running rampage over the human-deserted lockdown streets of Llandudno, it’s apparently got out of control enough that a special taskforce has had to be convened.

They’re descended from some Kashmir mountain goats that Queen Victoria, forgetting that a goat is for life, not just for Christmas, gave to Llandudno a century ago (or perhaps actually regifted from the Shah of Persia, to be accurate). She may have been a big fan of cashemere, but somehow hadn’t foreseen that Covid restrictions 100 years later would mean that their descendants wouldn’t have access to contraception.

Consequently: welcome to the baby boom generation of the goat world. OK boomer.

Who amongst us hasn’t been caught running wild in streets, sleeping in bus shelters, fighting in the car park and snacking on people’s hedges? Nonetheless, the goats have seemingly been encouraged to return to their home, Great Orme.

It all seems very good natured, with positive sentiments about them abounding, from anyone who hasn’t had their houses eaten at least. I’d imagine their relocation has probably not been entirely devoid of controversy though.

Last year there were rumours that they’d end up on the set of “I’m a Celebrity…Get me out of here!” also known as Gwrych Castle, which naturally is already full of beasts of a more spectral persuasion. Some of the residents of Llandudno were not super pleased at this idea, with one ominously suggesting that “If they take more than a few goats then people are going to be very upset.”.

(Also: a special thank you to my friend for highlighting this story - in memoriam of a site I used to have many years ago, sadly no longer in existence, which went through a phase of sharing these kind of critical goat news updates.)

Another probable first: our new Prime Minister is substantially richer than the King.

The Sunak household is estimated to have a net worth of £730 million, most of which comes from his wife Akshata Murty’s stake in her father’s Indian company, Infosys. That’s about double the estimate for King Charles’s wealth.

The Information Commissioner has warned companies to avoid using AI-based emotion detection technology to make meaningful decisions on the basis that there’s no evidence yet that it’s anything much beyond an ‘expensive random number generator’.

Derek Thompson writes about Britain’s economic decline over the past few years. In the midst of decreasing living standards, we’re now one of the poorest and least productive countries in Western Europe by some measures, especially outside of London.

In the past 30 years, the British economy chose finance over industry, Britain’s government chose austerity over investment, and British voters chose a closed and poorer economy over an open and richer one. The predictable results are falling wages and stunningly low productivity growth

There’s a recent tradition that each new Conservative Prime Minister gets to help design their own special lectern to deliver speeches from. They cost £2000-£4000 to make; a lucrative business in recent times I guess.

It seems like they’re usually supposed to convey a certain something the PM wants to project. David Cameron’s was supposed to look statesmanlike. Theresa May’s was designed to look feminine. Boris Johnson’s was a bit bulkier in order to cope with him thumping it during his more rousing speeches.

I’m not sure of the intent behind Liz Truss' twisty one, but it’s often described as looking like a game of Jenga. Based on Wikipedia’s description of that game as involving “creating a progressively more unstable structure” this seems apt.

The version of it that was used for speeches in the Conservative HQ is predictably covered in Union Jack designs.

Poor Rishi Sunak was appointed in such a hurry that there wasn’t time for him to design his own one. He’s ended up with a straight edition of Liz Truss’s one that had been created “just in case”. In case of exactly what I’m not sure, but, hey, it turned out to be useful after all.

I’m not a member of any political party at the time of writing. This is the UK norm, with only around 850k people being affiliated to any party in that way, out of an electorate of around 47 million.

For years I’ve felt uneasy about so directly supporting a party when all of them usually have some policy or other I firmly disagree with, especially without feeling like I’ve had enough resources at hand to work towards enacting change from within.

In more recent times I’ve also not felt I’ve understood what any of the parties not in currently in power even really stand for. I’ve ended up voting for various left-leaning parties over the years depending on the situation at the time.

However, in the present time of a truly dangerous and chaotic government, my previous rationales have started to feel potentially like weak excuses to me personally. I decided to try and figure out what the only other party that realistically at this point could win a national election, Labour, stands for to see if I could feel comfortable more directly supporting them. If recent polling carried forth into actual votes they’d in fact have a landslide victory

I don’t love the Labour website. The first thing you see is a form requesting your contact details on top of a somewhat nausea-inducing background video sequence. Then, inevitably, a cookies popup that as far as I can see you can’t actually decline, along with a donation popup.

But get through all of that and there’s a link to “Labour’s vision for Britain”.

It looks like right now their number one priority is a plan for economic growth. This is understandable given the recent devastation of the economy by the present government and the impact this has had, and will have in future, on British citizens, even if I’m not convinced that economic growth is the necessarily the measure a good society should optimise for. Historically though it has at least correlated with a lot of good things, but perhaps only up to a point.

As to what they plan to do to fix the situation, much of the plan seems to be based on British job creation and industrial strategy.

At a glance I am good with the idea of altering business rates to promote investment, fairer competition and creating a council to inject a sense of long-term strategic thinking. I’m nowhere near expert enough to know whether these are plausible approaches to the problems at hand, but at least there’s an intuitive reasonableness we can later determine if there’s any evidence to back it up.

Obviously it’s easy to say “we want more fair and good green jobs”- so as always the devil will be in the detail, but it’s a reasonable vision to have.

In former days it’d be one of those annoying generic slogans that it’s hard to really imagine any mainstream party being against. But it actually doesn’t seem to be anywhere near the top of the list of Conservative priorities - quite the opposite. At times the Conservatives seem desperate to inject culture-war topics into the UK political sphere which isn’t going to help on anything environmental.

What other concrete policies are Labour pursuing these days? To get a sense of their current priorities I checked out their campaigns page. Here’s roughly what I gathered from a trawl of the various sections.

Employment

• Boost people’s income - better pay will improve the economy as well as tackle the cost of living crisis.
• Ban zero hours contracts and “bogus” self-employment.
• End the “qualifying periods” some jobs have that mean people have to wait up to 2 years to realise certain rights, including unfair dismissal, sick pay and parental leave.
• Update trade union legislation for the modern era, removing certain restrictions.

Energy

• Stop the energy price cap rising, by taxing high oil and gas profits.
• Ensure people who have prepayment meters don’t pay more for energy than everyone else.
• Insulate all homes that need it.
• Invest in sustainable British energy (wind, tidal, solar) and back nuclear energy.
• Create a publicly owned energy company that delivers energy independence and security with 100% clean power by 2030.

Economy

• Build industries in every region of the UK.
• Invest in electric car batteries, green steel, renewable ready ports.
• Create a national wealth fund.

Security

• Recruit 13,000 extra police / PCSO officers to rebuild neighbourhood policing
• Improve training, vetting and misconduct procedures.
• Introduce rules on strip-searching children.
• Address the epidemic of violence against women/girls, including introducing domestic abuse experts.
• Crack down on the criminal gangs who trade in people.

Health

Expand the NHS workforce by:

• doubling the number of medical school places and district nurses qualifying per year.
• creating an additional 10,000 nursing/midwifery placements per year.
• training 5000 new health visitors.

Education

Primary school education: “Build a Britain where children come first” - this one was extremely vague.

Home ownership

• Target 70% home ownership.
• Build high quality affordable homes
• Reform the private rented sector

Some of the things I liked in what I saw:

An emphasis on not just creating jobs, but ensuring they are secure, decent and paid well enough to provide a decent life. The fact that even under the current highly stigmatising welfare regime a whole lot of people claiming benefits, or even needing to make use of food banks, need to do so despite the fact they they have paid jobs is absurd.

Banning zero hours contact and fake self-employment feels like a good sentiment in general to reduce the abuse of folk in for example the gig economy. It is plausible to me that zero hours contracts could be used in a way beneficial to all in some limited cases so I don’t know if a full ban is the correct answer. However they’re right to identify that, surprise surprise, that’s not what actually happens at present so it might be a good policy in net terms.

The green stuff: targeting of jobs and industry towards green industries, insulating homes, investing in green energy et al. The environment is the disaster-in-progress that may finally ruin the quality of or even end some of our lives if nothing else gets us first. Actually it already is doing so. Mitigating climate change should be a priority for every party, particularly as we already know a lot of what needs to be done - it’s a case of actually doing it.

Expanding the NHS workforce, assuming this comes with investment. After the Covid pandemic and chronic mismanagement on the part of the Conservatives, the NHS is in a quite precarious state with huge waiting lists to catch up on - including 6 million people waiting to start hospital treatment. Whether this expansion can happen fast enough to be the only major change needed I don’t know - I would assume not - but it’s clearly a necessary step for the future.

A focus on domestic abuse and other violence against women, areas of crime that are unfortunately common and also very rarely prosecuted in many cases.

Creating of a publicly owned energy company - to facilitate the shift towards green energy, but also to create jobs, reduce dependence on countries such as Russia, build resilience and in the end lower fuel bills. I’m happy Labour aren’t scared to introduce policies that might be seen as being at least in the direction of nationalising parts of some critical industries, even if they have gone out of their way to make it clear that we’re not talking about nationalising existing companies.

Taxing the vast profits of fossil fuel energy providers. This might prove somewhat impossible many cases when a lot of them are not British-situated companies. For those that are within the appropriate jurisdiction then it seems right to me to windfall-tax the profits of the energy producers which have been incredible at a time when the cost of energy to consumers has created a real crisis.

Reforming the private rental sector - rents have never been higher. A few years ago the Conservative MPs, many of whom are themselves landlords in addition to their day job(s), voted against requiring landlords to make their homes be ‘fit for human habitation’. Reforming could mean many things, but I expect most of them would be better than today’s situation.

Some of the things I felt wary about:

A lot of the security section. “Crack down on human traffickers” is the sort of detail-free statement that always worries me on this topic.

It could mean creating compassionate policies to ensure people who want or need to get to the UK can do so in a safe and humane way to the benefit of us all. Or it could mean going full Farage and inventing wave machines to literally push boats full of some of the most vulnerable people in the world back into the sea.

To be fair the latter idea was dreamt up (and thankfully discarded) under a Conservative administration - but I imagine Farage would also be into it. At least Labour’s plans do specifically include cancelling the ridiculous and awful plan to ship asylum seekers off to Rwanda, which is a very good thing.

But, outside of that specific point, my fear is that is this ‘cracking down’ will be more in the latter direction. Starmer has specifically said that there’s very little substantive difference between his party’s thinking on immigration and that of the Conservative Party. In a time where the official policy is to create a ‘hostile environment’ in a way that may not even actually be legal, this is the kind of thing that I find abhorrent enough to be extremely off-putting. I couldn’t defend it.

I was disappointed there was almost nothing about education. My understanding is that the education workforce is depleted, of low morale and struggling with workload in an environment of damaging low budgets in a similar way to the NHS workforce. A poll suggested half of the teachers in England plan to quit within the next 5 years. Most experience various degrees of poor mental health due to their work. There’s also the impact of the disruption to normal schooling practices on all concerned - students, teachers and parents - that the pandemic triggered.

I’d actually have liked to see a specific mention of mental health in general. It’s estimated that an astonishing 10 million people in England would benefit from new or extra mental health support.

I also wished I’d seen something about international aid or other policies that support the wellbeing of people in other countries. Britain does not exist in isolation. Despite the frantic and damaging chaos resulting from recent UK political decisions, there remain countries that are in far worse states with their populations suffering solvable trauma. In some cases Britain may even have played an unfortunate part in creating the harms that they suffer. In all cases we should show them compassion.

Another day, another British Prime Minister.

Now the UK is to be led by Rishi Sunak who was selected as Conservative Party leader without contest after his primary competitors dropped out.

Demographically, he’s the first person of Hindu faith elected to the office, so perhaps it’s somehow fitting that his selection on occurred on the main day of the Diwali Festival of Lights.

Of Punjabi Indian descent, he’s also the first British Prime Minister of colour (at least by many definitions, although back in 1868 PM Benjamin Disraeli was of Jewish heritage).

He’s also the youngest prime minister in over 200 years, being 42 years old.