In this week's New Statesman: Dads: the answer to the riots?

Exclusive: Mehdi Hasan meets Tariq Jahan | Laurie Penny interviews Johnnie Marbles |Olivier Roy on S

A

In this week's New Statesman, we invite ten left-wing thinkers to break the family values taboo and asks if dads are the answer to the riots. Inside, Spirit Level authors Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson argue that poverty is the real issue, not fathers, Blue Labour thinker Marc Stears says that blaming everything on inequality is a cop-out, Owen Jones warns that the unrest is being used to push a reactionary agenda, Labour MP Diane Abbott says that single mothers need support, not lectures, and Will Straw explains why encouraging marriage by tax breaks is pointless.

Elsewhere, Mehdi Hasan meets Tariq Jahan, whose quiet dignity over his son's death made him a national hero. Jahan speaks movingly about losing a child, the radical Islamist past he abandoned to become a father, and why society isn't "broken".

Also this week, Laurie Penny talks to Johnnie Marbles, whose pie attack on Rupert Murdoch landed him in prison, John Pilger condemns the system of greed and self-interest behind the riots, Olivier Roy explains why Syria's crisis is a turning point for the region, and Helen Lewis-Hasteley talks to Ranulph Fiennes about conquering Everest.

All this, plus Alice Miles on class segregation in the United States, Noah Richler on the fresh faces transforming Canadian politics, and David Marquand on Europe's struggle for popular sovereignty.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.