Double Standards

Every year, governments quietly enact bans on harmful substances. From asbestos to toxic pesticides, these decisions are made to protect public health, and they rarely provoke cries of "nanny state" interference. Most people understand the necessity of removing carcinogens from our environment to save lives and reduce healthcare burdens.

 

But when the UK government recently proposed a generational ban on cigarette sales - a measured approach to balance decades of harm, health costs, and scientific evidence - the backlash from FOREST (the smokers' advocacy group) was swift and predictable. Out came the tired accusations of infringing on personal choice and overreaching government control.

This reaction exposes a glaring double standard. If asbestos is deadly, we accept its ban as a public health necessity. If cigarettes kill - and they do, on an enormous scale - it’s suddenly about liberty and choice. Yet smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, burdening the NHS with billions in avoidable costs and wreaking havoc on families. The government isn’t instituting a generational ban for kicks; it’s a pragmatic solution to a long-term public health crisis.

An outright ban on cigarettes would indeed create significant issues, not least the immediate loss of tax revenue that tobacco sales generate - a necessary consideration in the short term. A phased, generational ban ensures the harms of smoking are tackled over time without destabilising public finances. It’s a compromise that prioritises future generations while recognising the complexity of the current landscape.

As for FOREST, their arguments seem to miss the mark. Addicts are not free agents; they are trapped by a substance designed to hook them for life. When most smokers start as teenagers, often unaware of the true difficulty of quitting, where is the personal choice in that? And when the healthcare system and taxpayers shoulder the immense cost of tobacco-related illnesses, whose "freedom" are we really protecting?

Critics of the so-called nanny state should examine their principles more closely. If government intervention to ban harmful chemicals is acceptable, why not the most lethal consumer product in history? This isn’t a debate about freedom - it’s about health, fairness, and ensuring a healthier future for generations to come.

A Taxing Business

Rachel Reeves is being criticised, predictably, by businesses for increasing employer NI; however, a key question is whether taxing consumers or businesses is the better approach for raising revenue without triggering a recession. Let’s explore the dynamics.

 

Taxing consumers reduces their disposable income, leading to an immediate drop in spending. Since consumer demand drives a significant portion of the economy, this reduction can ripple through businesses, resulting in lower revenues, job cuts, and investment slowdowns. This cycle risks pushing the economy into recession. Low-income earners, who spend most of their income on necessities that keep the economy going, are particularly affected. Taxing them not only increases inequality but also reduces the money circulating in the economy, as they typically spend a larger proportion of their earnings than wealthier groups.

Taxing businesses can reduce profits, potentially affecting investments and hiring. However, if consumer demand remains stable, businesses are less likely to make drastic cuts. They might absorb some of the tax through lower profits or pass costs onto consumers, depending on market conditions. High-margin sectors, such as technology or pharmaceuticals, can better withstand higher taxes, whereas low-margin industries like retail or hospitality might struggle. Nonetheless, taxing businesses is less likely to cause an immediate drop in economic activity compared to taxing consumers.

High-margin sectors, such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and luxury goods, operate with significant pricing power and lower sensitivity to increased taxes. Conversely, low-margin industries, like retail, hospitality, and agriculture, are vulnerable to cost pressures and intense competition, leaving little room to absorb additional taxes. 

On balance, taxing businesses is less likely to harm economic growth, as long as consumer demand remains intact. Businesses have more flexibility to adjust to higher taxes without cutting jobs or investment. Taxing consumers, particularly low-income earners, can be counterproductive, reducing demand and triggering a downward spiral of economic contraction. 

However, governments can balance the burden by targeting high-margin sectors, offering incentives for business reinvestment, and protecting lower-income groups from excessive taxation.

Effective taxation requires a nuanced approach. While taxing businesses tends to have a less immediate impact on the economy, sector-specific considerations are crucial to avoid unintended consequences. By prioritising policies that protect consumer demand and target those most capable of bearing the tax burden, governments can raise revenue without undermining economic stability.

Reeves is taking a calculated gamble with logic on her side, but it's still a gamble.

A Van of Lights

This came and parked at work the other day.

I would love to see it driving round the streets lit up at night, but I'm sure it's illegal if being driven while lit up.

GT6 Modified Chasis

Picked up the Mk VI Spitfire / GT6 Mk3 chassis with the Mazda MX5 rear axle yesterday from a place just outside Oxford. I borrowed the works recovery truck, which has a few quirks, not least of which is a knackered turbo that blows out an impenetrable smokescreen for about 10 minutes when started from cold.

The diff was in the cab. I'll be leaving it on our top car park for now, covered with a tarp until it's time to use it.

I won't be using the wheels - my Minilites are much better and, if I can afford it, I'd like to switch to chromed wires.

The new rotisserie is scheduled to arrive on Tuesday, but I won't be able to put it together for a month or two as, while we had the recovery truck, we also collected a large pine cupboard from a friend in Minety who is moving to Brixham and gave it away. We had to put it in the garage where it will be stripped and painted to match our other living room furniture. It will be a facsimile of "Mouse Back" or "Elephant's Breath".......

No.1 Son suggested "Jumbsy Tail" as a colour name. Jumbsy - known as Jimmy to his actual owners - has a bit of a habit of sneaking into our house, usually accompanied by two other neighbourhood feline freeloaders. For reasons best known to them, our home seems to be the local cat magnet. Jumbsy, bless him, is a senior citizen in cat years, with a heart as big as his... well, let’s just say "botty issues." Unfortunately, his fluffy tail gets caught up in the emissions from his botty and it often doubles as an unwelcome paintbrush, leaving unique streaks of "art" on our furniture. And thus, the hue of "Jumbsy Tail" was born—a colour that’s as unforgettable and smelly as it is undesirable!

Fake Outrage

A further post on my 7th November one about IHT on farms.

Jeremy Clarkson has recently turned his ire to Inheritance Tax (IHT) rules, claiming they’re unfair to farmers. But scratch the surface, and the complaint starts to feel more like an attempt to justify a tax dodge rather than a genuine agricultural grievance. 

Clarkson argues that IHT is a burden on farms like his, even though by his own admission, his children have no intention of running the operation. Why? Because they have no interest in earning the meagre combined income of £114 that the farm reportedly generates. That raises the question: if it’s not a viable, working farm that supports future generations, should it even qualify for agricultural tax relief? 

If Clarkson’s farm were truly a working farm - managed for agricultural production rather than as a TV backdrop or pet project - he could have already addressed the IHT issue. Options like gifting the farm to his heirs (tax-free after seven years) or placing it in a Trust for long-term family benefit are perfectly viable under the current system. These mechanisms are widely used by genuine farming families to preserve their agricultural heritage. 

The reality seems to be that Clarkson wants the farm classified as agricultural land for tax purposes, even though it appears to operate more like a hobby farm or commercial entertainment venture. If it’s not producing enough income to interest his children, is it really a business deserving of tax relief, or is it simply a luxury estate wrapped in a farming façade? People like him also push up the price of agricultural land to unaffordable levels, bringing many farmers into IHT.

Inheritance Tax exists to prevent wealth hoarding and to encourage the proper use of resources. Genuine farmers, whose land supports food production and rural communities, can access generous exemptions. Clarkson’s case seems more about keeping an expensive asset in the family without facing the usual tax consequences—a luxury most actual farmers could never afford. This isn’t about saving Britain’s farming heritage; it’s about saving Clarkson’s wallet. 

When the solution is so simple - gift the farm or put it in a Trust - is it just me, or does the saturation coverage on social media posts, expressing vehement outrage, have more than a whiff of Tufton Street about them? The outrage isn't justified, by any stretch of the imagination. Tufton street and its client media has a way of persuading tax payers to defend tax avoiders, to their own detriment.

However, if the solution is indeed so simple, why muck around with APR in the first place, unless it's targeting farms that aren't really farms, which is surely a good thing?

The Em Dash

 Ever heard of the 'em dash'? I certainly hadn't until recently.

I was intrigued at how some writing contains an elongated hyphen with no spaces either side of it and wondered what the technical term for it is and how it's created, as there is no key for it on a standard keyboard.

Here's an example; "She was happy—ecstatic, even."

Now I have always used a hyphen with a space either side of it for emphasis, but the elongated dash which no spaces is what should be used, and it's called the em dash; however, you can't type it on a keyboard (I copied and pasted the above example). Some word processors, such as Word, will autocorrect two hyphens as an em dash if autocorrect is set to on.

Then there's a creature called an en dash.....

Restore Trust

The rise of Restore Trust, a political organisation opposing the National Trust’s efforts to recount the full history of its properties, highlights a troubling resistance to confronting Britain’s colonial and exploitative past. 

Under the guise of protecting “traditional values,” Restore Trust seeks to sanitise history, framing the National Trust’s inclusion of slavery and colonialism in property narratives as “woke ideology” or “virtue signalling.”

 

Restore Trust claims that discussing colonial links and slavery detracts from heritage enjoyment. In reality, its agenda aims to erase uncomfortable truths, replacing them with a narrow, uncritical celebration of grandeur and empire. This selective memory ignores growing public interest in understanding history’s complexities and risks alienating diverse audiences.

Despite portraying itself as a grassroots movement, Restore Trust has been linked to significant funding from undisclosed donors, raising questions about its transparency and true motivations. Reports have connected the group to right-wing think tanks based in Tufton Street (a bit like the Taxpayer's Alliance, which is not an alliance and represents only those wealthy individuals wishing to avoid tax completely), known for their influence on Conservative policies. This association suggests that Restore Trust's campaigns may be part of a broader political agenda aimed at resisting progressive narratives in cultural institutions.

A German equivalent of Restore Trust would face widespread condemnation for attempting to downplay Nazi atrocities. Post-WWII Germany is internationally recognised for its honest reckoning with its past, integrating Holocaust education and memorialisation into public life as a moral imperative. Far from diminishing national identity, this transparency fosters accountability and ensures past mistakes are not repeated.

Restore Trust’s campaign does not preserve history—it distorts it, suggesting that some chapters of Britain’s story are less worthy of remembrance. This approach undermines efforts to build a shared understanding of the past and its impact on present inequalities.

History is not diminished by honesty. The National Trust’s approach, which integrates colonial and slavery narratives into the stories of its properties, enriches our understanding of heritage. Restore Trust’s attempts to whitewash the past, by contrast, reflect a nostalgia for a version of history that never truly existed. Confronting the darker chapters of our past, as Germany has shown, strengthens national integrity and ensures that future generations learn, reflect, and grow.

The Day of the Gangs of London

Gangs of London Series 1 = Absolutely brilliant!

Series 2 = What a load of crap. I switched to Gardner's World after episode 2 - it had more of a plot.

It seems they ran out of ideas and thought wall-to-wall machinegun scenes would stimulate the audience.  Seems like a difficult 2nd album moment.

The Day of the Jackal - a good story, if somewhat predictable and relying and on hackneyed and improbable tropes, but if you're expecting a reworking of the original you're in for a disappointment - so why call it Day of the Jackal? The name sets up an expectation that's never met and hence colours your judgement. Hay never saw the original and so isn't as disappointed as me - it should simply have  been given a different name, like The Bourne Resurrection or The Sound of Machineguns. 

Identity Politics

The term Identity Politics has entered political discourse as a pejorative, especially within the right of the political spectrum.

The pejorative use of identity politics often frames it as divisive and exclusionary, accusing it of prioritising group differences over shared values, fostering a "victim mentality," and sidelining merit in favour of representation. Critics argue that it fractures society into competing factions, stifles debate through ideological rigidity, and marginalises those outside specific identity groups. It is also seen as a tool of political correctness or "woke culture," weaponised to challenge traditional values or silence dissenting voices. Detractors view it as overly focused on grievances, undermining collective problem-solving and broader societal cohesion.

However, identity has always been central to politics. From the earliest days of governance, politics has been shaped by the identities of those in power and those seeking representation. Historical examples abound: 

• Monarchies and aristocracies were often defined by lineage and heritage, identities tied to birthright. 
• Religious identity shaped politics for centuries, influencing wars, alliances, and policies. 
• Class identity has driven movements such as socialism and the labour movement, centred on economic and social hierarchies. 

The difference with what we now call identity politics lies in its explicit focus on historically marginalised or underrepresented groups seeking to redefine political priorities. Traditionally, politics catered to dominant identities - often wealthy, white, male, and heteronormative in many Western societies - without naming these identities as political forces. Modern identity politics highlights the ways that other identities (e.g., race, gender, or sexuality) have been systematically excluded or disadvantaged, demanding specific attention and remedies.

Anti-wokeism seeks to maintain and legitimise existing systems of power by framing challenges to the dominant identity as excessive, unnecessary, or harmful. By positioning itself as a defence of "common sense" or "traditional values," it effectively reasserts the privilege and centrality of the dominant group, often under the guise of opposing division or promoting equality. It is the mainstay of the populist right.

However, there's also something called Hyper-identity politics. Hyper-identity politics refers to an intensified form of identity politics where the focus on specific social, cultural, or personal identities becomes so dominant that it can overshadow broader discussions, commonalities, or pragmatic goals. This term often carries a critical connotation, suggesting an overemphasis on identity categories to the point where dialogue, compromise, or shared understanding becomes difficult.

Imperial Paradox

The irony of those who nostalgically hark back to the days of empire while opposing multiculturalism lies in the inseparable link between imperial history and the diverse societies it has created. Winston Churchill famously said he didn't want to preside over the end of the British Empire, but his actions toward India showed that he looked down on the people who lived there.

Empires, by their very nature, involved the conquest, colonisation, and governance of diverse peoples across vast swathes of the globe. These imperial connections facilitated the movement of goods, ideas, and, crucially, people. The migration that occurred during and after the imperial era was often a direct result of the opportunities and upheavals created by empire itself. Yet, many who romanticise the power and prestige of empire seem to overlook this historical reality and reject the multicultural legacy it left behind.

This tension is particularly evident in countries like the UK, where imperial nostalgia often coexists with hostility toward immigration. The idea of the British Empire as a pinnacle of civilisation and global influence is celebrated by some, yet they resist the consequences of that history - namely, the multicultural communities that were forged through colonial relationships. Immigrants from former colonies, such as India, Pakistan, and the Caribbean, were encouraged or enabled to move to the UK to rebuild the nation after World War II and to contribute to its economy. However, their presence is now frequently criticised by those who glorify the very empire that established these transnational connections.

The contradiction is even more striking when one considers the pride that empire advocates take in the spread of British culture, values, and institutions across the world. They celebrate the global influence of the English language, the parliamentary system, and British customs while rejecting the reciprocal influence of other cultures on Britain itself. This selective memory overlooks the mutual exchange that empire inevitably involved and denies the contributions of multiculturalism to modern society, from cuisine and art to scientific and economic achievements.

Ultimately, this paradox highlights a refusal to reckon honestly with the full legacy of empire. Celebrating empire without acknowledging its responsibilities and consequences is a simplistic and selective reading of history. Multiculturalism is not an accidental by-product of empire; it is one of its most enduring legacies. 

To embrace the past while rejecting its present consequences reveals a deep inconsistency and a reluctance to accept the interconnectedness of historical and contemporary realities. It is a hypocrisy wrapped in denial: yearning for a world-spanning empire while balking at the inevitable mingling of people and cultures it created. To demand the fruits of empire without the responsibilities is not just irony - it is historical amnesia laced with self-serving arrogance.