Now they're marching down the street with a chamberpot on their head
Sigh:
Rishi Sunak has vowed to defy the Conservative right-wing by pushing ahead with vaping and smoking bans
It’s not the right wing of anything being defied here, it’s good sense.
We’ve made clear our views on vaping recently - it works in reducing both smoking and teen smoking. Banning, even just restricting it, is therefore the act of fools. No, there is no justification.
There’s an explanation, for of course there is. Hayek pointed it out in Road to Serfdom. Give it long enough and if politics provides healthcare, directly provides it, then politics will be used to control us and our health. That’s not exactly disproven as a thesis now, is it?
As Chris Snowdon points out in detail, this isn’t even going to benefit the health of the nation nor the populace - it’s going to increase the size of the black market, that’s all.
The full announcement is here. Over and above the already mentioned problems, this particularly strikes us:
Five million disposable vapes are thrown away each week, up from 1.3 million from last year. Over a year this is equivalent to the lithium batteries of 5,000 electric vehicles.
That’s about 50 tonnes of lithium a year even if we are to agree that it could, feasibly, be a problem. So, to “save” the equivalent of two lorry loads a year, 50 tonnes in a 100,000 tonne a year market, of a metal so cheap that mines are closing because they’re losing money, we’re going to expand the black market, harm the health of Britons and severely curtail that basic civil liberty of being able to do what the hell you want with your own body?
This has passed beyond the stage of being fools, they’re marching down the middle of the street with a chamberpot upon their head singing “Woot! Woot!”
Where is that necessary care in the community to teach them that the pot needs to be emptied before being used as a hat?
Where will the UK’s electricity come from in 2050?
The sources of our future electricity are really quite simple but Whitehall, with the best of intentions, is doing their best to mess things up. Renewables, largely wind and solar, will provide the lion’s share at best value – or something close to that. But what about the rest?
In 2022, a record 41.5 per cent of electricity came from renewables. “Around 72 per cent of renewable fuels are used for electricity generation, a third of which is lost in the conversion process.” This illustrates the care that must be taken in distinguishing renewables’ capacity from contribution to demand. The former is the nameplate output from an energy source like wind, if the wind blew at an optimal level all year long and it could all be used for electricity generation with no wastage. Politicians, when discussing renewables, like to talk about capacity, which they can control by commissioning more windfarms, rather than share of demand which depends on weather and which they therefore cannot control.
Even estimating 2020 needs care: UK electricity demand fell 4.7% in 2020 to 281 TWh due to Covid and “UK total electricity generation in 2020 was 312 TWh” but the former figure is demand and the latter is generation. In 2019 “primary electricity” was 11.6 per cent of UK energy consumption so if total energy consumption in 2050 remains about the same but has become 100 per cent electricity, the electricity market will need to have grown by eight times. To maintain its 40 per cent share, renewables would need to match that growth.
An eightfold increase in the size of the 2050 electricity market may be too high. The Government estimates that the total electricity demand in 2050 could range from 370 TWh to 570 TWh, depending on the level of electrification and energy efficiency. This is clearly too low. McKinsey’s predicts that the electricity demand could reach 800 TWh. Nearer the mark.
National Grid ESO, in one of their future energy scenarios for 2050, think that the range of capacity required for electricity will be between 285 and 387 GW to deal with annual demand up to between 570 TWh and 726 TWh. They estimate that the wind and solar capacity will be between 149GW and 239GW which leaves between 135GW and 148GW to supplied by nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture.
That compares with government expectation that the 2050 electricity capacity will total 96GW with nuclear supplying 25 per cent of that. About 6.4GW of that will be provided by Hinkley Point C, approved 2016, and its twin Sizewell C, frequently announced but still not approved. 24GW is too small a target for nuclear and would leave over 100GW to be supplied by fossil fuels, deeply unpopular even with carbon capture. Industry sources, that cannot be quoted, reckon that 48GW would be a far more realistic target.
Hinkley was supposed to be built by 2020 at a cost of £12 billion; the latest estimates are completion in 2031 and a £44.3 billion bill. Apparently “there were 7,000 substantial design changes required by British regulations that needed to be made to the site, with 35% more steel and 25% more concrete needed than originally planned.” Of course we fully understand that, seven years after approval, the designers could have had little idea how much steel or concrete was required or what the regulations would be.
Sizewell C was touted as costing a mere £20 billion because of the savings from being the Hinkley Point C twin. Professor Thomas of Greenwich University thinks £40 billion is more likely with a 10 – 12 year construction time, i.e. 2036 if a decision is made this year.
It is astonishing that the government is hell bent on continuing with these monsters. They are planning another six large reactors (albeit smaller at around 1 GW) after Hinkley and Sizewell. Assuming this plan for the larger reactors is implemented, then we would need about 120 SMRs @ £300 million each to be up and running by 2050. No sign of that in government plans.
Large reactors take at least 10 years to build and will be providing electricity to the Grid at a price which is estimated to be at least 50% more expensive than the forecast price for electricity from Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). SMRs should take about 6 months to build in a factory or shipyards and about 2 years to install for the first unit of a multi-SMR facility with installation times falling to 12-18 months per subsequent unit. The reason Sizewell C took so long to gain approval was that no one but HM Treasury was stupid enough to invest in it. Even the French who own the EDF company responsible for Hinkley and Sizewell are trying to back out of paying for them.
SMRs will typically cost in the range £2.1 million to £3 million per MW to build compared with the current estimate of £14.4 million per MW for Hinkley point C. Thorcon quotes £800 million per GW, i.e.£240 million for a 300 MW SMR. Rolls Royce leads the UK race for reasons good and bad and is offering SMRs here for rather more than Thorcon’s offer. Poland has already ordered 30 SMRs. Yet this government plans not to make any decision on the first SMR until 2029, presumably to avoid having to undertake the required value for money comparison between SMRs and Sizewell C. It claims to be a world leader but actually it will be last in the queue. “To recover the UK’s global leadership in civil nuclear” could be irony or could be evidence that some distant corner of HMT has a sense of humour after all.
Well, yes, we suppose so
To get to net zero, we may have to sell off the UK’s future
Something of a headline in The Observer there.
The observation is that getting to this Net Zero by 2050 target is going to be howlingly expensive. We might have to sell off all the assets owned by government to finance it.
What this tells us, of course, is that it’s the target which is wrong. As the Stern Review itself pointed out. The aim is to make us better off over time. Climate change will have costs, dealing with climate change will have costs. Dealing with climate change will have benefits, not having to spend on climate change has benefits. So, we need the finest balance of costs and benefits that we can reach.
That means, obviously, balancing costs and benefits. Not a target that must be reached at any cost. And the Stern Review is entirely clear on this - if those costs change, as is claimed here, then the amount of dealing with climate change that we do should also change. Which is exactly what people are not admitting, let alone doing.
Why, it’s almost as if people are using the Stern Review - and other such economic investigations - as excuses for what they desire to do anyway rather than as guides to good policy. That can’t possibly be true though, can it, for politics really never does work that way.
No, really. Never.
We're cynics, this might not be about the climate
We tend to think politics is best viewed through that cui bono lens. Yes, this is cynical, but by identifying who does benefit from a policy it might be, could be, possible to identify who is driving the policy. And, of course, who is simply a fig leaf for that policy.
Joe Biden has, at least for a while, defused a ticking carbon bomb. Climate activists and the fossil fuel industry are now left wondering how long it .will last.
The decision on Friday by the Biden administration to pause all pending export licenses for liquified national gas (LNG) to consider the climate impact of the projects has been hailed as a momentous shift in the status quo by those concerned by the unfolding climate crisis
It is obviously possible to see that cheerleading, yes. But that climate idea is a very disparate benefit - this being one of the problems in the policy area itself of course. Further, as we all know, it’s concentrated interests who really win in politics. Therefore:
Critics, however, point to evidence that boosting LNG exports drives up domestic gas prices for Americans…
Ah, yes. We recall this from the ban on crude oil exports. Then it was legal to export oil products but not oil. So, the ban on crude exports made crude cheaper for domestic refiners to buy while their output prices were still world ones. That is, the crude export ban boosted refiner margins at the expense of driller profits.
Yes, natural gas is an input, a major price input, into a number of industrial processes. Fertilisers, a large swathe of plastics and so on. A ban on - new as here - LNG exports will boost the margins of those industrial natural gas users while not limiting their own production exports nor affect the prices they gain for them. The people who lose profits will be those drilling for natural gas. The frackers out there tend to be smaller companies than the industrial users - disperse and concentrated political interests.
Having identified the winners we then make the leap to the assumption that they are driving the policy. While that is indeed cynical our view of politics is that it is not excessively so. For being too cynical is indeed to be sad, but the correct question about politics is always “Am I being cynical enough?”
These people are insane, truly so
This can be described as a Brexit problem (or even, for those who wish to be arch, a “Brexit Benefit”). The correct description is insanity:
A post-Brexit trade deal with Canada has collapsed after negotiations lasting more than two years were halted by a row over meat and cheese exports.
Diplomats paused talks on Thursday with each side accusing the other of obstructing progress.
The major sticking points in the deal are understood to be exports of British cheese and imports of beef from Canada to the UK.
The naive might think that this means the Canadians are refusing to send their cheap (and Yummy!) beef to Britain, while we Brits are cruelly denying the Canucks our wondrous (and Yummy!) cheeses. To think that is to entirely misunderstand how politics views trade - which is through that lens of insanity.
Canada has been pushing for more UK access for its beef and pork producers and also wants the UK to relax a ban on beef treated with hormones.
Mr Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister, meanwhile, had promised his dairy farmers no more foreign cheese imports under its strict dairy supply management system, after making concessions to the United States in a North American free trade agreement.
See? Insane. The Canadian government is denying Canadians our super cheeses, our own government is denying us that lovely beef and pork (Canadian bacon is indeed the only North American version of that comestible worth eating). They are, as we say, insane:
The popular view that free trade is all very well so long as all nations are free-traders, but that when other nations erect tariffs we must erect tariffs too, is countered by the argument that it would be just as sensible to drop rocks into our harbours because other nations have rocky coasts.
Professor Robinson is echoing M. Bastiat there and is therefore correct. She is also correct in that politics inverts this - which is, again, why politics is an insane way of dealing with trade.
To recap. Mr. Britishploddingbureaucrattradenegotiator sits in front of Johnny Foreigner and insists that “If the Brothers McKenzie cannot have a stiltonburger then I will punish my people, Britons, by refusing them cheap beef and round bacon. Take that, dastard.” We also have to pay, at gunpoint, Mr. Bpbtn a very fine salary* for making us poorer in this manner.
This system is insane. The only logical attitude to have is unilateral free trade. So, let’s do that then.
*Plus the finest pension plan in the country and likely the kids’ school fees. Diplomatic Service gets full freight at Eton paid for all kids. We’ll also probably have to mint a CMG or the like for them at some stage. Which is rather rubbing it in we feel.
Since vapes work the fools want to ban them
There are those days when the entire idea of government is called into question - given how hard it seems to gain good government:
Half of young people using disposable vapes were not smokers, research has shown, as ministers consider a ban.
The UK study of almost 70,000 people shows a steep rise in the number of adults using the products.
Overall, the study found that from January 2021 to August 2023, the prevalence of disposable e-cigarette use grew from 0.1 per cent to 4.9 per cent of the adult population.
The figures show that among those aged 18 to 24, the proportion using disposable vapes is significantly higher. In total, 14.4 per cent of this age group used the devices, including 7.1 per cent who used them despite not having a history of smoking tobacco.
That all sounds to us like excellent news. We know that tobacco smoking is injurious to health, vaping is a vastly less damaging substitute, more vaping and less smoking seems like a damn good idea.
This is not, however, how government seems to see it:
The Government is considering banning disposable vapes, as part of efforts to prevent youth vaping.
Given the difference in health effects the correct reaction to the evidence so far would be to subsidise vaping, not ban it.
The charity said ministers faced a “complex balancing act” to keep vapes out of the hands of children and those who have never smoked, while ensuring help was available for those trying to quit smoking.
Why try to stop people who don’t smoke from vaping? This is the very thing desired, that people don’t smoke, yes? So, if people vape instead of smoke then they’re not smoking - job done.
And the thing is, alongside the rise in vaping over the years there’s been a collapse in the number of young and teen smokers. “Smoking rates among 16-24 year olds have only fallen by a half since 2000, from 32.9% in 2000 to 15.7% in 2020.” and “Regular smoking among males and females aged 15 in England has fallen steadily since 2011, from 11.0% for both sexes to 4.9% and 5.3% in 2018 respectively” and “The proportion of children who have ever smoked continues to decline. In 2018, 16% of 11-15 year olds (23% in 2012) had smoked at least once; the lowest proportion since the survey began in 1982, when 53% had tried smoking.” Different measures in different years provide different numbers of course.
We can even test this against the experience of other places:
The proportion of teenagers smoking has increased for the first time in 25 years in a situation health experts have labelled “alarming”.
Data analysed by Cancer Council Victoria’s Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer (CBRC) has revealed a threefold increase in the proportion of 14 to 17-year-olds smoking tobacco in the past four years, from 2.1% in 2018 to 6.7% in 2022.
So, why might that be?
It is illegal to purchase any e-liquids or vaping products containing nicotine for personal use from any Australian retailer as it is classified as a schedule 7 – dangerous poision under the National Poisons Standard. The use of Nicotine is regulated by the Federal Government under the Theraputic Goods Act 1989. However, if the e-cigarette is for therapeutic purposes such as smoking cessation or alleviation of nicotine withdrawal, the e-cigarette must be registered by the TGA in order to be lawfully sold. This is only available by a doctor as a schedule 4 prescription only medicine under the National Poisons Standard.
Putting vapes - containing nicotine at least - on prescription only increases the teen smoking rate. Or, at least, is strongly correlated with it rising.
Britain has nicotine vapes widely available and a low and falling teen smoking rate. Australia has nicotine vapes on prescription only and a high and rising teen smoking rate. Therefore the British government is to control teen access to nicotine vapes in order to reduce the teen smoking rate.
Currently the UK government takes 37% of all economic effort by everyone in the country. Clearly too much of that is spent upon fools. The correct solution to government losing its mind is to have less government, obviously.
Yes, this is the correct answer
Electric cars will never account for more than a third of the market and consumers should not be forced to buy them, the boss of Toyota has said.
Akio Toyoda, chairman of the world’s biggest carmaker by sales, said that electric vehicles (EVs) should not be developed to the exclusion of other technologies such as the hybrid and hydrogen-powered cars that his company has focused on.
Speaking to employees in a question and answer session, Mr Toyoda called for a “multi-pathway approach”, adding: “The enemy is CO2.”
Well, that very first assertion might not be correct. We certainly don’t know and we’d not try to impose our ignorance upon everyone else either. Which is exactly what our actual governors have forgotten. No one does know what is going to be the correctly different technology other than the internal combustion engine. It could even be that the ICE remains but powered by manufactured petrol from renewables derived hydrogen. Again, we don’t say it will be but it’s a viable technological path.
Among us here we know alarmingly large amounts about the lithium for batteries market, have actually worked in the supply chain of the fuel cells for those hydrogen cars, are up to date on renewables and Fischer Tropsch and so on - and we still don’t know.
Except we do know the right way for the decision to be made. Which is to have the one, technology independent intervention to deal with the externality. Then leave the market be to sort through all the potentially viable alternatives and see which one wins. Instead of the current system of people with a great deal less knowledge than we’ve got picking the loser.
We can tell it’s the losing technology by the insistence upon its imposition - no law is necessary to force people to use a winner.
We’re even fortunate enough to not have to impose a new insistence or penalty. As repeated investigations from the likes of the IMF and so on point out the current UK level of petrol/diesel taxation is at or above the Stern Review carbon tax level. We’ve already done everything necessary as an intervention, now we just have to wait and see.
Or rather, we’ve already done far too much for as well as the correct carbon tax we’ve that legal insistence on most of the solutions not being allowed. Which is the error of course.
Markets do work and one of the times when they really, really, work is when we face technological uncertainty. Create the incentive to replace, sure, but then leave be to see what wins that replacement battle. The real and underlying logic to that being that we don’t, in fact, know what us the people want from the replacement. Therefore how can any planner possibly provide what is unknown? We need the period of market experimentation to find out…..
When is a privatised company not a privatised company?
Ofcom, the UK government agency that regulates the Royal Mail, has conceded that the national carrier can reduce its letter deliveries from six to possibly as few as three per week. The company was split from the Post Office and privatised a decade ago. I still have my shares in it. But in what is known as the Universal Service Obligation, it is legally obliged to deliver to anywhere in the UK for a fixed price — which, in the case of letters, is an eye-watering £1.25 for first class and 75p for second).
Of course, fewer people send letters these days, preferring email for important and personal communications. So letter volumes have fallen, and the Royal Mail is hurting as a result. Ofcom says the company could save £100m-£200m by cutting deliveries to five per week, and £400-£650 by cutting them to just three per week.
The British government has insisted that a six-day service should remain and that Saturday deliveries, in particular are (for some unspecified reason) “sacrosanct”. And the Communication Workers Union (CWU), which represents Royal Mail staff, says the three-day delivery idea is unacceptable, would destroy Royal Mail and cost thousands of jobs.
How can you privatise a company that is effectively a national monopoly of letter delivery (and, at the time, a near-monopoly in parcels delivery) only for it to get itself into debt and have to cut back its service? With a national monopoly and a national infrastructure system, you would expect it to be rolling in cash.
The answer is that it hasn’t really been privatised at all. Royal Mail was privatised, but it still isn’t allowed to operate as a private company. Politicians insist it must charge the same to carry a postcard from Land’s End to John O’Groats as it does to carry one from No.8 Acacia Avenue to No.13 Acacia Avenue. A government agency decides how much it can charge and what days and times of day it must deliver on. And the same powerful union that made the Royal Mail notoriously unreliable is still doing the same.
The point of privatisation is not who owns a company. It is about setting a state-owned organization free to explore innovative ways of providing its service better, quicker, faster, and of developing new services that give consumers even greater value. When you privatise something as a monopoly, though, it has very little reason to bother itself with that.
For a little while, Royal Mail relied on its lucrative parcel delivery service, Parcelforce, another near-monopoly, to keep the whole tub afloat. And yes, it is still the UK’s biggest parcel carrier. But Parcelforce has had the stuffing knocked out of it by other, more nimble and innovative carriers like Hermes, DPD, Yodel, DHL and Amazon. And many customers prefer those others as being quicker and more reliable (some even nickname the Royal Mail’s effort as ‘Parcel-farce’).
There are lessons to this for the future of other state industries too. Many years ago, when we had a pro-market government, I asked the head of a US-owned international hospital provider — whose clinics and hospitals were very impressive indeed — why they didn’t offer to take over and run an NHS hospital to show how it could transform the treatment and care of NHS patients. His answer was blunt: he would prefer to build a new hospital that might actually work efficiently, and hire management and staff that were steeped in the culture of customer service, rather than the gloomy culture of the NHS. And indeed, when one private company did take over an NHS hospital, though the improvements were tangible, the legacy culture eventually overwhelmed it.
Since then, looking at many other state organizations has convinced me that privatising an unreformed, monopoly service is a mistake. You really have to create the conditions by which you can grow something new — something innovative, competitive and customer-focused. That was the idea of the internal market in health and education: the government still pays, so everyone can access the service, but it is provided by various independent companies or non-profits, so that customers also have the benefits of choice and competition. Of course, it wasn’t long before the civil service stifled that sort of innovation by swamping the new providers with regulation. And that’s a problem we have seen often, from buses to schools. But it’s a problem we can solve.
A possibly harsh but necessary question
The Joseph Rowntree bods have another report about poverty. In which they say:
Larger families - 43% of children in families with 3 or more children were in poverty in 2021/22. A number of benefit policies, including the two-child limit and the benefit cap, have a disproportionate impact on larger families. Families whose childcare responsibilities limit their ability to work – 44% of children in lone-parent families were in poverty in 2021/22, as were 32% of children in families where the youngest child was aged under 5. Families not in work – more than half of working-age adults (56%) in workless households were in poverty in 2021/22, compared with 15% in working households. However, because a high share of the population is in work, around two-thirds of working-age adults in poverty actually lived in a household where someone was in work. Part-time workers and the self-employed - amongst people in work, the poverty rate for part-time workers was double that for full-time workers (20% compared with 10%) and self-employed workers were more than twice as likely to be in poverty as employees (23% compared with 10%).
These things are highlighted because JRF think they are bad things. In fact, they think they are very bad things.
Note the definition of poverty being used, which is that 60% of median household income. Yes, adjusted for household size but perhaps not enough. The modal household in the UK is two earner and we’d not be surprised to be told - in fact would expect - that the modal number of workers in families with large numbers of children is one. This would also give us an insight into why one parent families have lower incomes.
We’re also really not surprised that those not working at all, or those working only part time, have lower incomes than those working full time.
We also have that rather hopeful insistence that has been repeated over the years - work should pay.
At which point, the possibly harsh question. How much should work pay?
We all know where the 60% idea comes from. It’s a 30,000 foot view from the egalitarians. A society which is more unequal than that pains them therefore they’ve adopted it as the standard by which they measure poverty. But it’s possible to approach the point from the other direction. So, if work should pay then how much should it pay?
How much more should two earner families get? Those working than those not? Those working full time than those part? We have a certain expectation that when asked - well, at least net taxpayers will say this - the answer will be greater than the differences in household income allowed by that 60% of median standard.
It’s even possible to suggest that the answer, when the question is put that way, will be that the Great British Public think there’s not enough relative poverty.
No, we do not say that’s so. But we do think it would be terribly fun to go out and ask. This 60% idea. Do you think it right that a household in which no one works at all should, by right, get 60% of what one where two adults work full time get? On average?
For that is what this measurement of poverty is insisting upon. Well, once we include the implicit insistence that government needs to solve this poverty so that no one is on less than 60% of median household income. So, is that what the people actually believe?
We’re really most uncertain that it is.
It isn't true that the rich won't move over tax rates
We’ll make a little prediction here. This research will be used to insist that the rich do not move over taxes. This is not what the research says, not at all. The research looks at why those who do not move over taxes do not move over taxes. That’s a different point.
The UK’s super-rich “would never leave the country for tax reasons” because they fear they would be “bored to death” in “culturally barren” tax havens, according to new research by experts at the London School of Economics.
No, that’s not what the research itself does say. Rather, they ask a number of such rich folk why or whether they would move. Current tax rates or thereabouts wouldn’t make most of the respondents do so. Corbynite, or 1970s style, would make many more of them do so.
So it’s not whether tax would make them move, it’s how much tax would make them move.
Which leaves us right back where we were before. Yes, if you’re rich then London’s an absolutely fabulous place to live. If you like that culture thing at least. Therefore there are things that anchor to London - as well as the obvious fact that many of those rich, as the report itself says, make their high incomes by being top of London’s pile - which is something we already knew.
Or, as again the report says, tax rates as against everything else in life are one of the factors that go into the residence equation. Change the tax rates and the result spat out at the end of the process will change. And who has ever said different?
It’s also possible to make a slightly different point. Which is that Sir Jim Ratcliffe did move, as the paper admits. Something we’d posit lost more revenue than is gained by these 35 who have, so far, stayed. So, while the number of people moving might be seen as tax rates are not too high tax revenues might well indicate they are too high.
By far the most interesting part of the paper to us was this - for the above is what we all knew before and the only change here is that people will claim the paper says what it doesn’t - about education:
Private schools also played an important role in the decision making of many interviewees.
While Inner London was of less importance here, as private schools do not have catchment
areas, the number and perceived quality of private schools in London and the South East
more generally were often cited in discussions about why people had decided to bring up
families in this part of the UK. Brad, for example, talked about wanting to ‘buy’ his children
‘a very good if not the best education’ and therefore targeted two particular very elite London
private schools. Similarly, Wendy talked about how ease of access to certain private schools
was the overarching reason why she decided to stay in one part of North London for such a
long time.
True, currently the decision is only about VAT and property taxation, but there’s a very strong strand of leftish thinking in Britain that private education should be banned altogether. This paper pointing out that that could have significant effects upon tax revenues - for that private education is one of those anchors which tie these rich to this country so they can be taxed. Abolish that and we’d be lightening the anchor and thus lowering the tax rate that can be charged before they do move.
Which is an interesting result, don’t you think?