Should we be preparing for World War Three? Shock poll reveals 86% of Brits don't have enough supplies to last ONE DAY in a crisis as government urges citizens to stockpile tinned food, batteries and torches
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden has advised people to stockpile tinned food, batteries and torches in case of an emergency.
However, the poll by Savanta found only 14 per cent of Brits have enough supplies in their homes to get them through just one day of a crisis.
It also found 48 per cent of Brits do not have reserves of bottled water to use in the event of a power cut that cuts off gas and water supply.
Just 24 per cent of us have an FM radio, only 55 per cent own a torch and 66 per cent have enough non-perishable food to last three days.
Whilst giving The Mirror's political editor a tour of The National Situation Centre - the government's top-secret crisis control room - Mr McFadden said there needs to be a 'more candid' conversation about the potential risks Britain is facing.
'It's sensible to have a couple of torches, a battery or a wind-up radio, perhaps some spare batteries, a couple of bottles of water.
'We saw what happened to Spain and Portugal earlier this year, when power went out for about 24 hours.
'If something like that happens it does make sense to have that kind of thing at home.'
He said this advice was 'proportionate' and reassured people that they do not need to start constructing nuclear bunkers in their gardens.
The National Situation Centre, also known as SitCen, was set up in 2021 after the Covid pandemic highlighted how under-prepared the UK is for coping in an emergency situation.
It was modelled on the Situation Room inside the White House, where President Donald Trump was recently pictured conducting talks over Iran.
SitCen was built in a classified location near Cobra - where the Prime Minister holds emergency meetings.
Inside, analysts pour over data and make meticulous calculations to help ministers respond to a range of potential crises - from future pandemics to terror attacks.
This autumn, SitCen will be used as a hub for a drill which will prepare the country for another pandemic.
It will see a trial for emergency alerts sent to people's phones warning them of a risk to human life - the second time the technology has been tested.
Millions of Brits will receive the practice alert at around 3pm on September 7.
Mr McFadden said 'hopefully' we will never find ourselves in a situation where they would need to deploy a real emergency alert, but it is 'useful to have' just in case.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why Reeves has only herself to blame for Labour's next wave of tax rises
For Rachel Reeves, the bad news just keeps on coming. Days after the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr) warned that she was facing a £50bn hole in her Budget, the Bank of England has now said that her Government's policies are fuelling a worrying spike in inflation and dragging on growth. It means interest rates may take longer to come down than previously thought. This will deliver a fresh blow for a Chancellor responsible for servicing a near-£3tn national debt pile. Reeves has sought to claim that her problems stem from the fact that 'the world has changed'. But the Bank of England's latest analysis shows that much of the pain has been self-inflicted. A sharp rise in the National Minimum Wage and increases to employers' National Insurance contributions are sending food prices surging. Labour's workers' rights reforms are putting off investment and harming growth. Changes to inheritance tax are also dragging on the economy. And a new net zero packaging tax is not only deterring investment but driving shop prices higher too. With public finances deteriorating, significant fresh tax rises in the autumn now look almost certain. The Bank's analysis suggests Reeves and Labour must share the lion's share of the blame. The Chancellor's tax raid last year has not only undermined the jobs market and economic growth, it has also pushed up prices – particularly in supermarkets.
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Tuition fees are rising again and nobody is happy – it's time to actually fix our broken university sector
Tuition fees in England go up this year for the first time in eight years and the response from universities has ranged from tepid to dismayed. It's not hard to see why: Russell Group analysis found that the new amount of £9,535 a year – an increase of £285 – is a real-terms decrease of 26% since 2017. The value of the fees has been steadily eroding since 2012, and the original figure of a maximum of £9,000 a year was artificially low for many courses anyway. Universities started off cross-subsidising expensive courses whose costs weren't met by nine grand a student with the cheaper, classroom-based ones, mainly humanities, which were running a surplus. Within a decade, those courses – such as history, law, English – were running at or near cost. As the value of the fees deteriorated in real terms, staff pay and conditions were sacrificed to keep things afloat; by 2021, the University and College Union (UCU) found that staff pay had decreased by one-fifth since 2009. Throughout, the sometimes astronomical fees paid by foreign students underpinned what was otherwise an unaffordable model. This introduced a lot of risk into the system – from our own governments, when they have gone to war against student visas, and from world events: student numbers were hit when the Nigerian currency started struggling, an event over which UK universities had no control. Put simply, we have a really strange system in higher education, where nobody admits how much things actually cost, nobody admits who's paying for what, research is kept alive on the toil and goodwill of underpaid academics, foreign students who represent a huge export market and an incredible success story for the sector are treated as if they are somehow on the fiddle, and that's before you even start to consider the matter we generally look at first: what this means for graduate debt. The student loan scheme is now on its eighth iteration since it was devised by the coalition government. Originally, it was designed to be generous, to mollify the Conservatives' Liberal Democrat partners. Steadily, the maximum term from graduation has gone up (it's now 40 years in England before your debt is wiped, no longer 30) and the earnings threshold at which you start paying has gone down (it's now £25,000). Even those changes don't protect the government from the students who will never earn enough to repay – two years after the loans were formalised, parliament estimated that 40% would never fully repay. By 2018, that figure had gone up to 83% (though analysts stressed that they might repay some, but not all). You could argue that all this is the inevitable result of charging tuition fees at all, given that students in the US also labour under an astronomical amount of debt, which totalled $1.7tn at the start of this year. But the conditions we have created are murkier – unwilling to accept or discuss the impact student fees would have on equality of opportunity, we chose instead to insist that all universities offered degrees of the same financial value, and all courses cost the same, and delivered the same career benefits. This has thrown up some ridiculous consequences, in which the research that gives a university its standing has become increasingly unaffordable for all but the most prestigious institutions. Unable, meanwhile, to face the political consequences of a fees hike, successive governments have clung instead to the absurd proposition that education is somehow immune to inflation. But 'student fees aren't the problem', Martin Lewis said this week on his podcast – an astonishing remark, given the problems they are mired in, yet also true, from the perspective of the household. Whichever way you slice it, paying back fees is tomorrow's problem for the student; living costs, by contrast, are today's problem for the family. There's a separate loan available, but it's means-tested based on family income and under-25s start to lose eligibility at a household income of only £25,000. To imagine such a household having the savings available to make up any gap is just fanciful; which fits the overall picture of a system running on avoidance and delusion. A graduate tax is sometimes floated as a more progressive alternative, based as it would be on what used to be understood as a foundational principle of public policy: that wealthier people can afford to contribute more. This, along with the idea of education as a public good, which we all benefit from even if we didn't personally undertake it, has vanished from debate; yet nothing systematic or in any way realistic has replaced it. The idea of abandoning the fees experiment altogether, meanwhile, is the stuff dreams are made of because it would be unthinkably expensive. Yet the status quo we have arrived at could hardly be called cheap, unless your idea of thrift is to break a system that's been centuries in the making. Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist
Sky News
11 minutes ago
- Sky News
Chancellor doesn't rule out raising gambling taxes after report said it could lift 500,000 children out of poverty
The chancellor has declined to rule out raising taxes on gambling after a thinktank said the move could raise £3.2bn for the public coffers and cover the cost of lifting 500,000 children out of poverty. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), hiking taxes on online casinos and slot machines could raise enough revenue to fund scrapping the two-child benefit cap, with the organisation arguing that there is "no other measure which provides comparable headline child poverty reduction per pound spent". The proposals have been backed by former prime minister Gordon Brown, but the Betting and Gaming Council says they are "economically reckless" and could drive punters towards the black market. The chancellor has not ruled out taking forward the proposals, telling broadcasters that a review into gambling taxes is under way, and policies will be set out at the budget in the autumn. The IPPR says in its report that the chancellor should consider increasing taxes on online casinos from 21% to 50% and raising those on slots and gaming machines from 20% to 50%, as well as raising general betting duty on non-racing bets from 15% to 25% which it said would bring other sports in line with the rates paid by horse racing. These measures could bring in £3.2bn for the Treasury, which would cover the cost of lifting the two-child benefit cap. The cap was introduced by the Conservative government in April 2017, and it restricts universal credit and child tax credits to the first two children in a family, where the third or subsequent children are born after this date. According to the thinktank's analysis of data from the Department for Work and Pensions, 115,000 families are affected, with an average financial impact of £60 per week. Overall, the policy is keeping over 450,000 in poverty currently, which is set to rise to 550,000 by the end of the decade, it adds. The IPPR says raising these taxes is unlikely to reduce overall revenue for the Exchequer because firms are likely to "seek to protect their bottom lines by worsening odds", which means a "strong possibility of higher government revenue" than their forecasts expect. 'An investment in our children's future' Henry Parkes, principal economist and head of quantitative research at IPPR, said in a statement: "The gambling industry is highly profitable, yet is exempt from paying VAT and often pays no corporation tax, with many online firms based offshore. It is also inescapable that gambling causes serious harm, especially in its most high-stakes forms. "Set against a context of stark and rising levels of child poverty, it only feels fair to ask this industry to contribute a little more." Progressive campaign group 38 Degrees has started a petition calling on the government to implement the proposals, and former prime minister Gordon Brown said in a statement: "Gambling will not build a brighter future for our children. But taxing it properly might just get them properly nourished. Decent clothes. A warm bed. And the full stomachs that let them fill their brains in school. "Taxing the betting industry to support our children won't be a gamble. It will be an investment in their future. One where everyone wins." 4:38 Proposals 'would do more harm than good' The government has long been facing calls from its own backbenches to scrap the two-child benefit cap, and has not ruled it out doing so as part of a broader package of measures to tackle child poverty, due to be published in the autumn. Speaking to broadcasters this afternoon, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she speaks to the former premier "regularly", and like him is, "deeply concerned around the levels of child poverty in Britain". She continued: "We're a Labour government. Of course we care about child poverty. That's why one of the first things we did as a government was to set up a child poverty taskforce that will be reporting in the autumn and respond to it then. "And on gambling taxes, we've already launched a review into gambling taxes. We're taking evidence on that at the moment and, again, we'll set out our policies in the normal way, in our budget later this year." But the Betting and Gaming Council says raising taxes on its members is not a sound way of funding measures to reduce poverty, with a spokesperson saying the proposals are "economically reckless, factually misleading, and risk driving huge numbers to the growing, unsafe, unregulated gambling black market, which doesn't protect consumers and contributes zero tax". They added: "Further tax rises, fresh off the back of government reforms which cost the sector over a billion in lost revenue, would do more harm than good - for punters, jobs, growth and public finances."
