Assisted Dying and Transport News

 I was very pleased to see the Assisted Dying Bill passed in the House of Commons. I have supported the Dignity in Dying organisation (formerly VES) and their campaigns for over 30 years  – see https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/ . When I want to leave this world I want to go quickly and without judges or doctors interfering in my decision, or the necessity to go to Switzerland.  

I don’t want to live to 100 as my mother did. 85 years is long enough for anyone to complete their life’s ambitions as quality of life declines rapidly thereafter. I am ready to go anytime now but the Assisted Dying Bill might frustrate that ambition. There is no need for anyone to die in pain. The Assisted Dying Bill may not be perfect as it stands but there is plenty of time to improve it.

Opposition to the Bill is irrational and based on lack of knowledge of how such legislation works, and well, in other countries.

New Transport Secretary

The other big political news was the resignation of Louise Haigh as Transport Secretary. This arose because she had failed to disclose a past conviction for fraud over the loss of a mobile phone. This seems to have arisen because of a simple mistake and subsequent bad legal advice where she plead guilty.

Her replacement as Transport Secretary is Heidi Alexander, who previously served as Deputy Mayor for Transport in London. During her tenure, from 2018 to 2021, she oversaw the introduction and expansion of the ULEZ scheme, which was unnecessary, and the rollout of 20mph speed limits in London. TfL became a financial basket case during her tenancy. She may have a malign influence on national transport policy. In 2019, she candidly confessed, “I may not have qualifications in transport.” A frank admission given her track record in the role but it is convention to appoint people with no knowledge or experience of the subject to senior government positions. It’s traditional in the UK that amateurs are thought to be better than professionals to take responsibility for major policy and associated budgets. That’s a very silly approach.

Before she left Louise Haigh announced a new National Transport Strategy  – see  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transport-secretary-unveils-her-vision-for-integrated-transport-across-england . It included a commitment to a ‘people first approach’ to getting people around the country. Recognising that different passengers have different needs, and the quality of transport varies across the country, it will set out how government can support local areas to make all forms of transport work together better. All this is political bullshit in essence which we have seen many times before to no great effect.

It is still unclear what diesel/petrol or hybrid vehicles will be allowed to be sold after 2030, although the media have reported that the Government is having a rethink and is consulting car manufacturers. But it is obvious that UK car and van manufacturing is already facing a cliff edge. Stellantis last week announced it was closing van manufacturing in Luton. Jaguar is suspending production of all cars because their product range is now all-electric and there is simply insufficient demand for such cars.

The requirement for all vehicle manufacturers to have a certain proportion of sales from all-electric vehicles is proving impossible to meet economically. One can see that many people will be keeping petrol vehicles for as long as 20 years so will frustrate this Government policy. Old cars could become quite valuable!

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson  )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/RogerWLawson where new blog posts are usually mentioned.

Storms, Floods and A&E Visits 

 All media is awash with stories about floods, travel disruption and how the climate may be changing. I certainly feel sorry for those people whose homes or businesses have been damaged but these events are not exceptional.

In my 70 odd years of life I and my family have seen it all before. We had trees blown over a few years ago in our garden, and in 1987 I could not get to work as trees blocked the road between Chislehurst and Orpington. My wife insisted on waking me up that night otherwise I would have slept through it. I certainly remember that storm.

My wife had her parental home flooded in the 1953 North Sea storm surge in Sheerness, since avoided by a higher sea wall. My grandmother regularly had her house flooded in Wilford near Nottingham by the River Trent bursting its banks – since prevented by flood prevention measures.

In Orpington where I had an office in the 1980s the car park regularly got flooded to a depth of over 6 feet and it happened so quickly that users were unable to move their cars in time. This was due to inadequate drains in the High Street.

I think the moral of these events is don’t buy a house next to a river or near the sea (even tsunamis are a threat to parts of the UK). And check the local drain system.  

Yesterday was certainly windy – I had some difficulty walking from the car park to the A&E unit at Farnborough hospital (PRUH) on Sunday morning. But the service there was excellent to deal with a bleeding fistula. All resolved in about one hour. There are many complaints from the public about the NHS but I have found emergencies are usually dealt with quickly and efficiently. There are some problems in other services though which I won’t go into here. And I am getting quite fed up with the number of text messages I get from the NHS. They repeatedly send me messages to which I cannot respond.  

Even though the winds were very strong this weekend, most of the trees had already lost their leaves which means few of them blew over around here.  

The longer one lives, the more exceptional climate events one experiences. These are random events not the result of significant climate changes. Rail and road operators should anticipate such events and build the infrastructure with sufficient resilience.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson  )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/RogerWLawson where new blog posts are usually mentioned.

Subsidising Overseas Farmers

Today’s Daily Express front page carries a new Tax Payers Alliance (TPA) investigation who found that the UK is sending farmers abroad over £516m in foreign aid, whilst the inheritance tax changes announced at the Budget are set to raise £520m for the Treasury. See https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/taxpayers_alliance_reveals_more_than_half_a_billion_in_foreign_aid_for_farmers

The UK simply cannot afford this kind of largesse while the UK population is taxed so highly that the economy is damaged and people are impoverished.

The Tax Payers Alliance is certainly an organisation worth supporting. See https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson  )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/RogerWLawson where new blog posts are usually mentioned.

House of Lords Debate on IHT Changes and CBAM Tax

I watched the debate in the House of Lords last night on the concerns of farmers over the new imposition of Inheritance Tax on their land holdings. They were previously exempt from IHT but it is alleged that some “farmers” were using it as a tax avoidance scheme. That may be so but many farmers are really upset about the change that will stop farmers passing on their farms to offspring, or make it too expensive to do so and hence lead to the break-up of farms that have been owned for generations.

There were several good speeches opposing the change which you can hear on the BBC Parliament Channel. The House of Lords is a useful addition to democracy as the Members often have long experience of the issues debated.

Note that there are easy ways to stop the inheritance loophole on farms being used by wealthy investors but the Labour Government is as usual sticking to political dogma that the rich should be soaked regardless of the practicalities or unintended consequences.

Another kick in the teeth for farmers that snuck through in the Chancellors Budget was a new tax called the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) which is a tax aimed at reducing carbon emissions – particularly on goods such as cement, fertilizer, iron and steel. Fertilizer is often created from oil and gas but is essential to ensure plants grow. Taxing it will result in more expensive food and reduce the existing small profits made by farmers – see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8v55eqd73o#:~:text=A%20new%20environmental%20tax%20on,been%20produced%20in%20the%20UK.

This is more environmental dogma with dangerous consequences.  

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson  )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/RogerWLawson where new blog posts are usually mentioned.

IHT Changes, Farmers’ Fury, Shell Legal Win and Freedom of Speech.

The proposed change announced in the budget to impose IHT on unspent pension funds has received a lot of media coverage. I covered it in my previous blog post, and I encourage all people affected to respond to the public consultation – see https://roliscon.blog/2024/11/12/iht-on-pensions-its-iniquitous/ .

One particular group who are incensed by the proposed change is farmers who will no longer be able to pass on a farm to their offspring free of IHT, unless it is a very small (and hence probably financially unviable). As many people have pointed out, farming is a multi-generational business as it takes many years to improve the quality of land or to rear improved livestock. I am not personally a farmer and this proposal seems to be a typically socialist prejudice against the landed gentry – or what they imagine farmers to be which is far from the truth in most cases. They may own valuable land but the profits of farming businesses are usually a poor return on capital.

To suggest people buy farms to avoid Inheritance Tax may be true in a few cases but the risks in doing so are high so I suggest there are other motivations.

The good news for Shell shareholders is that the company has won an appeal in the Hague against an order to slash its greenhouse gas emissions. This was a case brought by Friends of the Earth and others which may have severely damaged Shell and set a very bad precedent for other oil companies. Trying to stop the use of oil and gas is simply irrational. We will need those products for many years into the future as there is no viable alternative for some applications.

The world is becoming less and less rational. Recent legal cases in the UK where people are being accused of “Non Crime Hate Incidents” and hence get a criminal record – see the Alison Pearson case for example – are truly irrational. Free speech is being lost to a world where the prejudice of the thought police is becoming paramount.

I agree with Elon Musk. The UK is losing free speech and you could end up with legal prejudice because you dare to express an opinion on Twitter (“X”) or Facebook on any matter under the sun. We need a new “Bill of Rights” to stop all of this nonsense.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson  )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/RogerWLawson where new blog posts are usually mentioned.

IHT on Pensions – It’s Iniquitous 

As you may be aware, the Chancellor in her last budget speech announced that unused pension funds would be brought into the scope of Inheritance Tax (IHT) from April 2027. There is a public consultation on this proposal, specifically to cover the administrative arrangements to enable collection of the IHT due on the death of a pensioner, but you can no doubt expand your explanations as to why this is a most iniquitous proposal.

I have already submitted a personal response to HMRC which is here: https://www.roliscon.com/_files/ugd/8ec181_315301fc03f24c828a7eceea00349a23.pdf . You are welcome to copy it. There is a link to the consultation in there. Please do respond to it.

As was said in an article in Investors Chronicle, “IHT on pensions will be a bureaucratic nightmare for grieving families”. It will inevitably slow down payments to inheritors or beneficiaries and will make for a considerably more complex tax system. Steve Webb, former Pensions Minister, said that bereaved families already face “huge challenges in winding up the financial affairs of a loved one”. This proposal will make their task even harder.

Not only will this proposal create needless work for lawyers and accountants, it will also mean more work for HMRC staff. All of this unproductive work could be avoided if the objective is simply to raise more tax revenue.

It is an ill-thought through proposal which has been rushed forward in the Labour Government’s hurry to raise more tax from the wealthy. It needs a rethink.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson  )

Asbestos – the Killer Material?

 One of my previous blog posts was a review of the book “Scared to Death” by Christopher Booker and Richard North. I did not mention that there is a good chapter in there on the subject of the paranoia that developed over asbestos.

Asbestos is now perceived as so dangerous that it is avoided in future building projects and is vigorously removed from houses, schools, hospitals and other buildings. Even products such as Artex which contained asbestos fibres in the 1960s and was used extensively in decorative ceiling plaster is treated as dangerous. For example our house, built in 1963, is full of Artex ceilings.

Now I do have a personal interest in this matter as my father died in 1977 from Mesothelioma, a type of lung cancer, known to be caused by breathing asbestos dust. He probably contracted it from involvement with pipe and boiler lagging during the second world war.

But the book mentioned makes it clear that not all asbestos is dangerous. The danger from Artex is quite minimal so all of you who live in houses of a certain age do not need to panic. But a big industry has developed of charging people large sums to remove asbestos. Most such removal is unnecessary but it’s a typical scare story where popular media inflate the dangers and contractors welcome the income they can enjoy from removing asbestos.

One of the biggest losers from the asbestos scare was the Lloyds of London insurance market and the “Names” who supported it. They had unlimited liability at the time when claims over asbestos arose which effectively destroyed the market and impoverished many of the Names – people who often had no awareness of the risks they were taking. Altogether a disgraceful financial episode.

Read the book mentioned before you waste money on needless building work.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson  )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/RogerWLawson where new blog posts are usually mentioned.

Trump’s Policies  

 For those who can get past their personal dislike of Donald Trump, let’s have a quick look at his likely policies that might affect us in the UK.

He clearly does not believe in the global warming hypothesis. He has supported an increase in fossil fuel production – vowing to “drill, drill, drill” on day one. Biden’s subsidies for renewable energy sources such as wind power will go. So that means all three major world economies (the USA, Russia and China) will not be limiting CO2 production. Ed Milliband in the UK is pissing in the wind by supporting Net Zero policies which is imposing enormous costs on British industries and on our population while making us uncompetitive in world trade.

Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on US imports – perhaps 10% from most countries which would include the UK, but even more on Chinese goods.

He wants to stop the war in the Ukraine by brokering a peace settlement. He might just be able to get that done by limiting military and financial support to the Ukraine. In my view they have been fighting an unwinnable war for some time.   

He is likely to encourage Europe to pay more for their own defence rather than rely on the USA. That’s surely about time. That might help some UK businesses in the defence sector where we have a big presence.

Of course all this might be subject to a lot of horse-trading once Trump’s actually in power and has taken some advice from his cabinet. But if UK politicians are expecting much from the claimed “special relationship” then I think they should reconsider. Trump has no natural affinity to Labour Party socialists.

Taking all things into account, I suggest the election of Trump is not a negative for the UK. He should help to maintain a buoyant US economy and stock market which is good for the UK.

Time will tell whether Trump makes a good President but his last stint in the job did not go too badly.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson  )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/RogerWLawson where new blog posts are usually mentioned.

What’s Not to Like? Trump Elected and Markets Rise

 With Donald Trump elected as US President, it’s clearly time for us 78 year olds to make a come-back. In terms of candidates both had their weaknesses but the beauty of the US constitution is that there are several checks on the power of the President. The House of Representatives and the Senate have some control and there is also the US Supreme Court who can veto legislation. That is unlike in the UK where the Prime Minister can act like a dictator. The US system is better than the UK’s for that reason but it also helps to have a written constitution.

In England laws can be made by lawyers and a recent example is the decision by the Court of Appeal that it was unlawful for car dealers to receive commission on car finance deals. Why should car buyers need to know about commissions paid? If they are happy with the finance deal why should it be allowed to be challenged retrospectively? Caveat Emptor is the relevant phrase that should apply (the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made).

The election of Trump has had a definite positive effect on stock markets. Even my share portfolio is up about 1% this morning. Big tech stocks have particularly risen, presumably because folks perceive that might mean less regulatory interference or perhaps that the prospect of Leon Musk taking a role in managing the US economy is viewed positively (he wants to shrink the bureaucracy in the same way he cut staff at Twitter (“X)).

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson  )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/RogerWLawson where new blog posts are usually mentioned.

Book Review – Scared to Death   

One of the books I have been reading lately is “Scared to Death” by Christopher Booker and Richard North. First published some years ago but more recently updated it covers the public scares from BSE to Global Warming including speeding on our roads and why scares are costing us the earth.

To quote from the Introduction: “In the past twenty years, Western society in general and Britain in particular has been in the grip of a remarkable and very dangerous psychological phenomenon. Again and again since the 1980s we have seen the rise of some great fear, centred on a mysterious new threat to human health and wellbeing. As a result, we are told, large numbers of people will suffer or die. Salmonella in eggs; listeria in cheese; BSE in beef; dioxins in poultry; the ‘Millennium Bug’;DDT; nitrate in water; vitamin B6; ‘Satanic’ child abuse; lead in petrol and computers; passive smoking; asbestos; SARS; Asian bird flu – the list is seemingly endless.

Indeed, we are currently in the grip of the greatest such fear of all: that of a warming of the world’s climate which, we are officially told, could well put an end to much of civilized life as we know it. The price we have paid for such panics has been immense; most notably the colossal financial costs arising from the means society has chosen to defend itself from these threats. Yet, again and again, we have seen how it eventually emerged that the fear was largely or wholly misplaced. The threat of disaster came to be seen as having been no more than what we call a ‘scare’”.

The book certainly covers the ground well and shows how these scares arise and are promoted by the ignorant. Popular media and even the supposedly responsible press love a “bad news” story that helps their circulation (or their on-line media “hits” that helps their advertising income).

But the financial cost to the public can be enormous with no cost/benefit justification for the chosen solutions to the perceived problems. Indeed in the case of road safety the chosen measures (speed cameras) have not only been financially damaging but have diverted funds from effective road safety measures and meant that the UK no longer has a lead in reducing accidents and deaths (KSIs).

Some of the scares, such as that for AIDS, did turn into a serious problem only the worst outcomes being averted by advances in medical science and simple contrary public health measures. But other scares just disappeared because they turned out to be unreal – such as the Millenium Computer bug. However many millions of dollars and pounds were spent on curing imaginary problems.

One issue I was personally involved with was the “speed kills” issue which has resulted in the proliferation of speed cameras and speed humps. It is covered in Chapter 10 of the book.

As the book says, during the early years of the last century the death rate from road accidents in the UK consistently fell. By 1993 it was below 4,000. Britain’s roads were the safest in Europe. In France and Germany, the annual death toll was over 9,000. In Portugal the death rate was well over three times as high. Then the rate of decline suddenly slowed. Over the next decade the total fall was smaller than in any of the years between 1990 and 1993. On five occasions the yearly figure actually rose. So what had changed? Road safety policy as promoted by the Government changed.

The book says: “Undoubtedly one important factor in the steady fall in the fatal accident rate in earlier decades, despite a doubling in the number of vehicles on Britain’s roads – from 12 million in 1966 to 25 million in 1994 – had been the technical advances that made vehicles themselves much safer. But this could not have explained the slowing in the fall of accidents in the 1990s, when new regulations had made vehicles safer still”.

In reality the automated speed enforcement and reduction in speed limits created a financial incentive for the police to invest in speed cameras, speed awareness courses and enforcement when they had very little impact on road casualties. Over 2 million people are now issued with speeding fines every year in the UK at enormous cost to themselves and a whole industry has been created to support this mistaken policy due to the scare that “speed kills” when excessive speed is one of the less common factors in the cause of road accidents.

Expenditure on road policing and other effective measures to reduce accidents such as local road engineering were reduced in favour of more enforcement by cameras in the hope that would cut accidents when it did not.

See this web page for some of the articles I have written on this subject: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/road-safety

As regards the book “Scared to Death” although the authors have documented well how such scares arise and are promoted by the misinformed they unfortunately have not tackled the issue of how to stop us wasting money on false solutions. But the book should be essential reading for all politicians.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://twitter.com/RogerWLawson  )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/RogerWLawson where new blog posts are usually mentioned.