Should we stop fretting about living longer for its own sake; incentivise the having and rearing of children by two active parents; stop young children having i-phones or i-anything; and stop expecting our world to be transformed by taxpayers’ money? And start calling out the people who do not want to contribute to society’s wellbeing and success; start making accountable people who are failing to do their jobs properly or who refuse to work hard; and start rewarding good behaviours much more than we do?
It is perhaps impossible to transform the UK without the British people in general making better choices and behavioural changes possibly of immense significance. The underlying causes of many situations which need major improvement will surely have to be addressed, and perhaps some of these causes raise subjects difficult to talk about – because somebody or a large body of people might take offence – and the normal preference is to stifle a topic or divert from it, beating around the proverbial bushes and ignoring the elephants in the room.
BUDGETS AND TAXES
It is obvious the new Government intends to increase taxes on those who are better off, which includes huge numbers of working people; after all most people who have any wealth have largely achieved that through work, inventiveness, skill and dedication, save for a small privileged few who may have won the lottery or have inherited money – but even inherited money is largely the result of someone’s work, inventiveness, skill and dedication, and hopefully mostly honest activity. But for political expedience painting the picture of everything being broken, especially relating to the nation’s finances portrayed as broken entirely through Tory recklessness or even worse dishonesty , and ignoring global disasters of the last 5 years, is a sadly divisive and angry start for Government. Increasing taxes, which tends to discourage the most influential and dynamic people, especially before providing any sort of fix of the problems of work shyness and holding accountable those managers of public services who have failed badly, is a lazy and unjust punishment.
Tory failures are undeniable, but it is also undeniable that the reasonably rosy trends this year of good UK growth compared to comparable countries, inflation being lowered to target 2%, high employment rates and other good economic signs are the result of a consistency of economic delivery by the ex-PM and Chancellor, Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt. And so, the inheritance is not all bad news and £20 billion black holes are the stuff of manipulating spin. It is pointless debating whether Labour or Tories are misleading the public over the financial inheritance from the last government. Rachel Reeves accuses Jeremy Hunt of deliberate concealment, and he cries “rubbish”. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is a bit damning of both. Nick Timothy in the Telegraph accuses Rachel Reeves of the “biggest lie in politics” in pretending she knew nothing about the real state of finances. In truth, it is probably a mix.
The Government must sort its spending and taxing to provide growth. But their efforts will come to little unless they explain that voters need to examine their own behaviours to improve the life of the country and improve life for themselves, as exemplified in the following paragraphs. See also Families, Graft and Fatness -Calling a Shovel a Spade in these pages written in 2022.
AGEING HEALTHILY NOT AS A BURDEN
There has been much comment recently about published research involving a drug administered to mice which materially increased their lifespan and also their fitness in older age. The weekend essay in the Times of 27 July by Rhys Blakely gives a decent sketch of the numerous projects around the world searching for the holy grail of slowing the ageing process, involving billions of dollars. Several tech and other billionaires such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have anti-ageing ambitions. Perhaps some even have a belief in their right to greater immortality.
There is also much bemoaning in recent years at how, developed countries having in recent decades stretched the average person’s lifespan to over 80, lifespan growth has slowed or ceased. And drug companies and medics seem to be going to great lengths to extend the lives of the very old by the odd year. The older the population gets the unhealthier it gets. There seems little point in living in a decrepit state dependent on others for basic living just for the sake of clocking years. Healthy older years are worthwhile, but not years where moaning and groaning is the main pastime. The UK is the most unfit major European nation. By 2034 over 20% of its population will be over 65. Most will be unhealthy unless behaviours change, and seeking to find answers in drugs is another example of poor moral fibre and poor resilience.
The Sunday Times’ Science Editor on 28 July anticipated a major paper published in early August by the Lancet Commission. It demonstrates that almost half dementia cases are caused by lifestyle behaviour choices – including alcohol consumption, obesity, smoking, lack of exercise, poor education, hearing loss, brain injury, social isolation, depression and air pollution. If we exercise the brain, eat and drink better, exercise the body and build relationships, we can achieve healthier old age.
But everyone knows ultra processed food is ruining lives, has set up whole generations for misery and is setting up our children for early debilitation. See the article for example by the Daily Telegraph Health Editor on 17 July who refers to how UPFs represent two thirds of daily calorific intake for British children. Their parents and other adults are simply setting them up to be addicted and so set for early disease and disability unless there is change.
Wholesale behavioural change by the populace in diet and health regimes generally is needed or else the NHS and social care systems are doomed to fail, and the British workforce will become more and more paralysed physically and mentally as it ages. Weight loss drugs could be a lazy and expensive money-spinning option, as they do the opposite to encouraging lasting good behavioural decisions. Government needs to bring this discussion front and centre of all growth plans, as it is the biggest elephant in the room.
ENCOURAGE TWO PARENT CHILD REARING
The UK prisons are full and so authorities will have to let criminals, some serious, out early. There has to be a stop to sending to jail people who may do better serving in the community, but that is not dealing with underlying causes. And then there is child poverty, which all sane people, of whatever political persuasion, wish to reduce in a major way and ideally eradicate, and so the UK debates the two child benefit cap, with many wanting to drop it. These two problems, criminality and poverty, are of course linked. And a core linking factor is that children born into a family with both parents actively parenting are both considerably less likely to end up in prison and to be in a poverty trap; and are more likely to thrive at school and socially, and in work.
There is a weight of research evidencing both these statements. Fatherless households are a big problem. Some 70% of young offenders come from one parent households, almost always mother only. Apparently, a U.S. study in 2021 showed that children with absent fathers were three times more likely to be incarcerated than dual parent household children. In the UK about 50% of black children have no father at home, and the problem exists of course too for a substantial number of white children. Asian families are more bound together. See also Sherbhert article above which refers to a Rod Liddle Times article in 2022 about the benefit of two parent families. He did another on 28 July 2024: his message being that the best outcome for children is to be brought up by two parents who decide to start a family, to stay together to rear them, and only have as many as they can afford. Notably, there is a massive increase in the last decade of children identified as having special educational needs, and the proportion from single parent families is nearly twice that from two parent families. Also, SEN children are more likely to come from socioeconomically deprived households, which a single parent household is far more likely to be.
Why is it that society seems to encourage people to knock out babies to be paid for by others, in an age when contraception has never been easier? Why do so many men think its ok to be absent fathers, not control and advise their children and not pay their way? Is it the case that it is considerably easier to get State paid-for accommodation if a person has children?
There is no question of demonising single parents. So many do a good job, but it is considerably easier to do so when a child has two active parents to turn to and when they support each other. At the same time demographics necessitate that the UK and other developed countries encourage the having of more children to balance out an ageing population. Just as quality of life is so vital for ageing people, is it not better if children enjoy better childhoods? But understandably and unsurprisingly the fact seems to be that, if a much greater number of children were brought up in an active two parent family, crime would be seriously reduced, fewer lives would be ruined, there would be a bigger pool of hard-working people and poverty would go down. The overall outcomes for children would be markedly better. Is there not in this subject a major discussion point to feed into decisions about how the country spends its money? Should the two-parent family be more fully incentivised by the tax and benefits system? But this issue is primarily about people’s behaviour towards the having and rearing of children, and does this Government have the stomach to address it? The last one didn’t.
i-PHONES AND OTHER SIMILAR DEVICES
There is a considerable amount of discussion around the damage done by i-phones to children and their development, so that such damage limits their abilities as adults, creating serious mental health difficulties. Getting people, especially children, more and more addicted to the usage of the i-phone is the prime objective of providers of relevant technology consumer platforms and social media content, leading to more and more profits. And their plans are succeeding. The book “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidn is a good read on the risks and evils of these devices, social media and their content, especially as far as the mental health of children is concerned. He says, “social media trains people…. to think about yourself first; be materialistic, judgemental, boastful and petty; seek glory as quantified by likes and followers”, which traits are contrary to most value systems, religious or otherwise.His “four fundamental harms” from i-phones are “social deprivation, sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation and addiction.”
Eton, the independent school, is banning pupils from i-phones at school. Other independent schools will inevitably follow if they haven’t already. Official government guidance is to forbid the use of i-phones in school with latitude as to how schools do this. Yet if children can have i-phones and other devices outside school, that is most of the time, their ability to do lasting damage will persist. The addiction of parents to their devices, which get priority so often over live conversation and shared activity, whether with children or other adults, and the usage of devices to keep children amused, or allowing them more than very limited time for usage per day, is embedding the drugs of data and dependence in the child’s life. And on the other hand, however, whole lives of people and their information are in the phone. And more and more necessary daily activity depends on the internet through an i-device. Adults can choose but not if they have become addicted and brainwashed as children.
To emphasise one harm: was not a simple learning from Covid and lockdowns and school cancellation that people are fundamentally social. Lives require active personal relationships with others. The i-devices and social media aim to take as much of our attention and time as possible, and to minimise our time spent attentively with other people. This harm being done is devastating for children and so adults. Press reports assert that over 25% of 18- to 24-year-olds think they have mental health issues: absurd perhaps? But is not that cohort the first generation to be nurtured by smartphones from early childhood.
Weak mental health seems to be spreading like covid and will continue to damage not just lives and health systems more and more, but whole economies. Should there not be urgent discussion and probably action around children’s use of i-phones, social media and the like, as well as internet dependencies, to improve national mental health? Regulating tech companies will play a major part, and governments must show real muscle to restrain the content controllers such as Facebook, X etc. But changing general attitudes and behaviours around the use of devices, social media etc. is key. Jonathan Haidt mentions four simple changes in behaviour: no smartphones before high school; no social media before 16; phone free schools; and far more unsupervised and childhood independence not on smartphones. The great thing is these cost no money and need no legislation but do need a lot of concerted education and effort on the part of people.
SPENDING MONEY CHANGES LITTLE
Governments major on spending money as if it is the cure for things, the instrument of change. It is not. Money provides choices. People make the choices. And people’s lives are changed by people’s choices not money. Government can help by providing a framework and incentives for people to make better choices and behave better to improve their well being and the well being of others, and a special focus on the young is required. There must be plain and honest speaking, which leads to reasonable discussion and resolution. No beating about bushes and no elephants in the room.
