Why shouldn't vegans be catered for in an apocalypse?
Speaking at the Hay Festival, Lang said that if a cyber attack or military strike from Russia destroyed Britain's 'vulnerable' food chain, the contents of ration packs would need to bring comfort to a shaken public. We'd all be 'in psychological shock', he explained, so we'd need to have food that we're 'familiar and comfortable with'. In the face of 'explosions' and 'energy outages' he wouldn't want vegans to 'have to eat meat'. Well, if mushroom burgers are on the menu as the mushroom cloud goes up, then I'm feeling better about Armageddon already.
Lang's remarks are just the latest step in veganism's move to the mainstream.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
8 hours ago
- Spectator
Will the welfare bill really push 150,000 into poverty?
Labour MPs are obviously going to panic when told their votes might plunge just one person into poverty – let alone 250,000. That was the original estimate for the fallout from Liz Kendall's reforms to Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and Universal Credit. Yesterday, the DWP released a revised figure after Starmer caved to a rebellion by 126 MPs. The new number? Some 150,000 pushed into poverty. A marginally better headline, at a £2.5 billion cost to the taxpayer, but still enough to send the collective shits up Labour's already jittery backbench. Frustratingly, these numbers, put out by the government, are completely meaningless. The government's chosen metric, 'relative poverty', tells us far more about income inequality than it does about the number of people unable to meet their basic needs. Defined as a household income below 60 per cent of the median, it effectively labels more people poor whenever others get richer. So any reform short of a full-blown redistribution of wealth is doomed to fail this test. As the Times's Tom Calver recently pointed out, this measure would have us believe child poverty is now three times worse than it was in the 1960s, when three million lived in actual slums. Yes, the DWP's modelling does also estimate 100,000 more people in 'absolute poverty', but even that includes relative income measures. Neither stat even tries to assess access to food, shelter or energy, which is what poverty actually means to most people. But the real sin of the government's impact assessment? The report explicitly admits: 'This estimate does not include any potential positive impact.' Seriously. What's the point then? Why produce a model of one side (the negative) of a reform but not look at what the reform is actually aimed at doing? Without looking at the possibility that the impact of the reforms might actually be to encourage and help benefits claimants towards work and hence further away from poverty then you've produced a document that serves no helpful purpose other than to assist a rebel whipping operation. Now, the original assessment of the reforms did include estimates of how many people would come off benefitsm but again states: This estimate does not include the impact of the £1 billion annual funding, by 2029/2030, for measures to support those with disabilities and long-term health conditions into employment, which we expect to mitigate the poverty impact among people it supports into work. So the government has carried out this reform without any real estimate of how many people it will get back into work, the supposed goal of the reform. It's clearly proved very difficult for Labour's front bench to win the argument without it. Government is completely infested with this one-sided approach to modelling. We saw it in lockdown when Sage didn't consider the behaviour response of the population in response to the virus. We saw it with the non dom exodus where the civil servants in His Majesty's Treaurary didn't bother to consider that a large amount of wealthy taxpayers may look to flee the country in response to being squeezed, as is now happening. We see it in the government's approach to cigarettes, with one government model working on the base assumption that all policies achieve the desired result. I'm sure there'll be some law, regulation or convention that demands the publication of these impact assessments, but it must be within the wit of our civil service to fill them with numbers which are at least balanced if not useful. Instead, we've ended up with MPs understandably freaked out into forcing concessions that create perverse incentives for claimants to stay on benefits which they might no longer need. Why be honest about your improving health or attend a reassessment if you risk having to face a harsher set of criteria if you fall ill again. Forgetting incentives, what possible moral justification can there be for saying: 'These rules won't apply to those of you on PIP already, but if you're diagnosed next year then tough luck! You're on your own.' Incentives matter. There is no relationship between the rate of ill health in this country and the explosion in sickness benefits we're seeing. Wise heads – such as those at the Institute for Fiscal Studies – have looked hard yet found no link with NHS waiting lists either. So the increase in sickness claimants must be explained, at least in part by the incentive structures within the system. Maybe this is all a technocratic sideshow. Maybe MPs aren't really reading these assessments. But it's hard to shake the feeling we're trapped in a system built to make reform impossible, and governed by MPs too squeamish to try.
Spectator
3 days ago
- Spectator
Lord Falconer's selective constitutional memory
Good old Charlie Falconer. For more than 15 years now, the noble Lord has been trying, desperately, to ram assisted dying through parliament. Kim Leadbeater's Bill represents his eighth attempt at legalising suicide following previous efforts in 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2019, 2022 and 2024. Now, with a narrow majority of just 23 MPs backing Leadbeater's legislation, Falconer clearly senses the victory that has eluded him for so long… The New Labour grandee penned a piece in the Times last week headlined 'Assisted dying will end the anguish. We won't let wreckers derail it.' It concluded that MPs had 'decided the law must change. The Lords will scrutinise and improve but it will respect and give effect to that decision.' In short, what MPs say, goes. Appearing subsequently on Tuesday's edition of the Today programme, he was asked whether the role of the Lords was to 'ultimately uphold something that the directly elected members of the Commons have decided to go ahead with.' 'Correct', replied Falconer. But has the good Lord himself stuck to this self-denying ordinance? A quick look at his voting record would certainly suggest not. For back in October 2011, he was one of 220 Peers, mostly Labour, who tried to vote down the Coalition's Health and Social Care Bill – despite it having passed the Commons with a majority of 65 MPs at Third Reading. He subsequently tried to delay Tory changes to tax credits in October 2015, despite it passing the Commons with a majority of 22. And, more recently, he voted against the 2023 Illegal Migration Bill – despite a Commons majority of 59. The point here is *not* that the Lords cannot vote down legislation passed by MPs. It is that those supporting assisted dying ought to recognise the rights and responsibilities of the Upper House – and be honest about their own voting records in parliament. Otherwise there will be inevitable talk of rules for thee but not for me…
Spectator
4 days ago
- Spectator
Why does Lord Hemer think two-tier justice claims are disgusting?
Lord Hermer, the Attorney General who personally authorised the prosecution of Lucy Connolly for a tweet, has broken his silence on the claims that we have a two-tier justice system, and he's angry. Hemer is also very wrong, as an investigation into Palestine Action demonstrates. Hermer, like much of the British regime, prefers convenient pretence over honesty The Attorney General was interviewed for Starmer's Stormy Year, a new Radio 4 programme assessing how the government's first year has gone. When the discussion turned to last August's riots, Hermer became audibly angry, describing the two-tier claim as 'frankly disgusting'. He seemed rather confused about where the impression of double standards has come from, insisting that: 'What some people were seeking to do, bringing up 'two-tier', was to make a comparison with the way that people were being treated for trying to kill police officers – and I want to reiterate that, 'kill police officers' – with the response to protests on the streets of London… That's where the two-tier comes from.' Perhaps there are people who believe those who rioted or threatened the lives of police officers should have been spared jail. I've never met them. I have met and spoken with many who have deep, serious concerns about how unjust our justice system is becoming. When I have written about this matter I have focused on inconsistencies in charging decisions, particularly for speech crimes, evidently excessive sentencing, or attempts to codify advantage for those who aren't white, male and Christian. One of the most egregious examples is Hamit Coskun's prosecution and conviction for burning a Quran – a man who burned a Bible in similar circumstances is unlikely to have even been arrested. This is what two-tier justice looks like. A system where the law is nowhere close to equal and fair, and in which the state uses its power capriciously to target those who the ruling class do not approve of, while decriminalising the acts of those who have its support. I can't believe that Hermer is unaware of this. Unfortunately for the Attorney General, today the Times has published a tremendous piece of investigative journalism in which they infiltrated Palestine Action, and attended one of their online meetings. The organiser assured members of the soon-to-be proscribed organisation that the establishment is on their side, saying that 'we're seeing people not get charged with the things that they should get charged with', that serious charges were often diluted or dropped altogether, that Palestine activists tended to 'get off lightly' at sentencing, and provided a list of recent cases in which the activists had been spared serious punishment. If that isn't two-tier justice, what is? Hermer insisted that 'we have one justice system, that is an independent justice system…and I think we all need to get behind it not seek to undermine it.' He must know this isn't true. Speaking about people who 'undermine' the justice system can only be an effort to shut down an uncomfortable truth. The Attorney General clearly believes that those of us who've noticed the double-standards in our system are wrong to mention it. He, like much of the British regime, prefers convenient pretence over honesty, and bristles at challenge or accountability from politicians or the public. This behaviour is not new. It's why the rape gangs were kept quiet. It's why the Sentencing Council was so furious at being challenged by the Lord Chancellor. It's also evident in this week's claim that the small boats crisis is being directed by Russia, as opposed to a very obvious consequence of providing migrants free accommodation in London's zone one, along with easy access to paid work for companies like Deliveroo. Everywhere the rot spreads, and everywhere the state would prefer lies to hard truths.
