Suchergebnisse

My government does not believe that its purpose is to be re-elected. It is instead to improve the life and liberties of the people of this realm. Accordingly, it has set forth an agenda to achieve that. I commend these proposals to Parliament.1. We intend to achieve energy independence by authorizing the use of hydraulic fracturing to release the treasure-trove of natural gas under our land. We will compensate those locally affected with cash sums and reduced fuel bills if ever tremors above the raised allowable limits occur. 2. We intend to improve the NHS by establishing a link between the medical procedures its personnel perform and the pay they receive. Doctors will be paid for each consultation with a patient, with greater remuneration for appointments in person than for telephone consultations. Hospital staff will be paid for each procedure they perform. Patients will be free to choose which doctors and which hospitals they wish to be treated by, and the state's funds will be directed accordingly. We will use the tax system to encourage widespread use of additional private insurance.3. My government will empower and encourage local councils to purchase non-verdant land on the green belt, including non-verdant agricultural land, and give such land planning permission for housing. Those affected by the new developments will be offered financial compensation in addition to the improvement of local infrastructure and services. Current restrictions on the size of houses and the square footage inside them will be removed.4. State schools in England and Wales will be given their independence and freedom to determine their own budgets and their curricula. They will be required to teach a basic national curriculum in reading and writing skills, mathematics and the sciences.5. We will ensure that no foreign court shall have authority over the highest court in the UK. The UK will no longer be subject to the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights in any area.6. Recognizing that domestic tariffs are paid by UK consumers, my government will establish the principle of free trade wherever possible, and will seek to negotiate reciprocal free-trade agreements that encourage our trading partners also to recognize the principle of free trade.7. My government will establish a Council on Competitiveness. Its purpose will be to report the likely effect on UK competitiveness of any regulations and requirements that may be proposed or requested.8. My government will similarly establish a Council on Freedom. Its purpose will be to report the effect on personal liberties of any regulation that is proposed. It will examine in particular the effect of any attempts to direct the lifestyle of UK citizens.9. We will take steps to ensure the free speech prevails on our university and college campuses, and will withdraw state funding from any such institutions that do not act to uphold free speech.10. We will appoint a body to investigate the spread of non-elected quangos and will dissolve those that claim legislative and regulatory powers that more properly belong to this Parliament.

Motorists, like smokers and drinkers, have long been cash cows for the UK Treasury. The claim that tax monies raised from them pays for the costs they impose has always been spurious. Treasury receipts from motor insurance and fuel duty are claimed to cover the costs of road-building and highway maintenance, but they have always far exceeded those costs and gone into the general Treasury fund that pays for government spending.It is sometimes claimed that smokers and drinkers impose costs on the NHS that justify the high taxes on their products, but this completely ignores the fact that earlier deaths from unhealthy lifestyles save the government far more in pension payments than the NHS costs they impose.The impending switch to electric vehicles, delayed though it is now to be, poses problems for the Treasury, as they search for ways to make up for the looming loss of fuel duty revenues. The idea of a 'tyre tax' has been floated, with claims that rubber particles from tyres constitute a bigger hazard than the fumes emitted when fossil fuel are used. The thinking behind this is that electric cars have tyres that can be taxed if fuel duty disappears when the switch away from fossil fuels takes place. It is entirely possible that a Treasury desire to plug revenue losses might have supported the 5-year extension for petrol and diesel cars.The Treasury mindset with its static model of the economy gives little attention to the basic truth that all taxes change behaviour. Increases in tobacco duty motivate people to seek black market, untaxed cigarettes, which are hard to regulate. Increases in income tax will lead more people to seek tax shelters. Limits to tax-free pension saving will lead some to take early retirement. For most taxes there are unsought consequences not envisaged by those who levy them.The Treasury, looking only at the in-box, seeks to shore up the public finances by raising revenue wherever it can. Government should be looking instead at the out-box, the money that flows out to maintain its spending. The government is looking to tax vaping, nominally to 'protect children.' The reality is that if the aim of abolishing smoking completely is achieved, the Treasury will be looking elsewhere to plug the loss of tobacco duty.If they looked at the out-box instead of constantly trying to keep the in-box topped up, they might look at how many people are employed as diversity officers, as awareness officers, or the personnel whose salaries pay for language changes that are 'inclusive.' It might look at all the non-productive personnel it employs.In the unlikely event that a government appeared that was prepared to do this, they would not need to milk their cash cows so aggressively.

At a time when prisons are overcrowded and magistrates are being told to impose sentences other than prison terms, it might seem counterintuitive to propose demolishing a dozen of them, but there is merit in the idea.Many of London's prisons are antiquated, some dating back to the Victorian era. They are difficult to man, to clean and to service, and modern technology has made it easier for inmates to be supplied with smuggled drugs. The solution is to replace them with new purpose-built prisons. But how might this be afforded?Many of the sites occupied by some of the London ones could be sold or leased for huge sums of money to have office blocks built on their sites for business, commercial and residential use. This money could be used to fund the building of new prisons in economically-deprived areas such as the North of England, This would generate thousands of jobs in areas that need them. Firstly to construct them, and then to man, service and supply them. If handled judiciously, they could be financed by the sale of the London sites they will eventually replace.Of course, government contracts being what they are, the costs could escalate, but then so might the land value of the sites freed up by their replacement.This would be a big step to the 'levelling up' campaign we were promised. The talk is of sending civil servants, BBC personnel and Channel Four to the North, but we should send the prisoners with them.

It is helpful to know the incidence of different taxes. We should identify the wallet or purse that it comes from because very often this is not the one that people think it is, or the one that the legislators intended it to fall upon.For example, since corporations are not people, they don't pay Corporation Tax. Its incidence is on the workers, who do not receive pay increases when the money goes in tax, on the shareholders, whose shares lower in value because the tax reduces profits, and on the customers, who pay higher prices as the firm increases them to make up for the money taken by the taxman. Numerous studies have shown that the biggest losers are the employees, with estimates showing that 60 percent of Corporation Tax is paid by them.Most people think that they pay National Insurance and that there is an employer contribution. In reality the so-called employer contribution is a wage cost, and comes out of the wage pool that would otherwise be available for wage increases. Its incidence is on the employees.Some people argue for business rates to be frozen or lowered, thinking this will help businesses, but in fact landlords are the beneficiaries when this is done because it allows them to put up the rents. Rents and business rates are inversely proportional. Rising rates make for lower or frozen rents, and rate decreases enable landlords to increase rents. Knowing the incidence of the tax leads to a policy initiative that could direct help to businesses rather than landlords. Business rates could be frozen or reduced for 3 years, but only for businesses whose landlords agree to a rent freeze for 3 years. The rates would not be frozen or cut unless landlords signed up for this. The effect would be to direct the benefit to the businesses, and help them as they struggle with increased costs elsewhere.At a time when the UK needs to boost growth by having its businesses prosper, this is a policy that could help them to do that.

The new word is fluxophobic, meaning fearful of change. It describes those who want the world to stay as it is now, and who think every change is to be opposed and avoided. This is for people who think every habitat should be preserved as it is now, or perhaps even restored to what it was when they were younger, with any changes reversed.Every species must be preserved as it exists now, with no space left for new species to evolve and replace existing ones. High Streets must remain crowded with small shops specializing in different things. Places where bats nest must be kept as is, rather than encouraging the bats to nest elsewhere. New building is opposed because it involves change. The demolition of transformation of old buildings is similarly opposed for the same reason. Agriculture must be carried out in traditional ways, and innovations are to be deplored, especially those that involve "interfering with nature."Are fluxophobes conservative? They are conservative with a small "c," denoting the character trait that wants things to stay the same. But they are not in the Conservative political tradition that accepts change, but wants it to be spontaneous, rather than imposed from some preconceived plan of what some people think society ought to be like. Conservatism (with a capital "C") wants change to come from below, rather than being imposed from above.The real world is characterized by change. It changes from moment to moment as well as from year to year. We step and do not step into the same river, said Heraclitus, for new waters flow ever about us. The world is in flux, not in stasis, no matter how much those fearful of change deplore this. Most people welcome economic growth because it increases the prosperity that will enable us to do more of the things we want to do. Yet economic growth necessarily involves change. It comes about as new products and processes increase productivity. It necessarily involves displacement, as some established companies are elbowed aside by newcomers. It involves employment churn as some job are lost and new ones take their place.The fluxophobe is distressed by the changes that economic growth entails. Indeed, some of them oppose it, urging us to seek instead a more settled world in which people are content with their lot. Adam Smith did not agree with them. He spoke of "the uniform, constant, and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition," believing aspiration to be part of what it is to be human. It seems to be human nature to seek a better life, and change is essential to that.Fluxophobia is less common among young people than it is in the elderly. The young are generally more flexible and more adaptable to change, and they welcome the opportunities it brings with it. Many of the elderly are more set in their ways, and unsettled by the loss of tranquility that changes involve.The Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions unleashed the idea of improvement into the world, and set in motion a period of rapid change that still continues. They set humanity on an uphill course in which change brought betterment, both in living standards and in life's opportunities. Fluxophobia has its hold on some people, but ultimately it means stagnation rather than improvement.

Nigel Lawson left us with the memory of a Chancellor, one of the greatest of all time, who not only cut taxes, but simplified them in every budget. There are lessons to be learned today from his record. One of the most disturbing features of the 2022 mini-budget was the announcement that the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) would be abolished and replaced with a general mandate to HM Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs to focus on simplifying the tax code. A "general mandate" is meaningless unless there is a policy or series of policies with a team dedicated to implementing them. There is no such commitment within the Treasury and HMRC.Simplifying the UK tax system is a complex and challenging task that would require significant political will and resources. Nonetheless, there are some initiatives on how the tax system might be simplified in key areas.One option to simplify the income tax system would be to merge income tax and national insurance into a single tax, levied at the same rate and with the same threshold. This would remove some of the confusion around the different thresholds and rates for the two taxes and make the system easier to understand. The NI would simply be incorporated into current income tax, and if the misnamed "employer contribution" were to be retained, it could be done so as a payroll tax, which is what it is.Another approach would be to simplify the income tax system by reducing the number of tax rates and thresholds. This could involve introducing a flat rate of tax, or reducing the number of income tax bands to perhaps just two, just as Nigel Lawson did. This would make it easier for people to understand how much tax they need to pay and reduce the administrative burden on HMRC.The Treasury and HMRC will oppose this simplification because it would make more evident the level of tax that people are actually paying. The current complexity and confusion serve to hide that true level, and minimize the resentment that would be aroused if it were known. Nonetheless, it is a simplification that is long overdue.Simplifying business taxes could involve reducing the number of taxes that businesses need to pay, as well as streamlining the tax rules and regulations that apply to businesses. This could involve simplifying the rules around capital allowances and other deductions that businesses can claim to reduce their tax bill. Ideally, full expensing would be permanent to encourage long-term investment. And we could thereby reduce the number of tax reliefs and exemptions that are available to businesses, which can be complicated and difficult to navigate.If inheritance tax is not abolished, it could certainly be simplified. One option would be to greatly raise the threshold at which the tax is payable, meaning that fewer people would need to pay inheritance tax. It is the UK's most unpopular tax because it is levied on savings that have been taxed as they were earned. A higher threshold would reduce the need for complex exemptions and allowances.The rules on pensions are unnecessarily complex because they are based on a flawed system. Pensions can be taxed (T) or exempt (E) when payments into them are made, when they grow in funds, or when they are withdrawn in retirement. Currently the system is EET, allowing tax relief on in-payments, but taxing funds when they are withdrawn. This sets up a hugely complicated set of rules as to how much qualifies for tax relief. The system should be changed to TEE, so that payments into pension funds attract no tax relief, but no tax is levied thereafter on growth within the fund or subsequent withdrawals. This would not only simplify; it would be a massive boost for future investment.Nigel Lawson was not only the great tax cutter, he was also the great tax simplifier. The time for revisiting his legacy is long overdue. Taxes should be simple and transparent, and there are huge savings to be achieved by making them so.

Selective Death RateThe same thought that had occurred to Charles Darwin ten years earlier occurred to Alfred Russel Wallace recovering from a bout of malaria on an Indonesian island. Each had been considering Malthus' theory that population growth would always exceed growth in food supply, dooming many to death. Both had the same question, "Which ones will die?" and both came up with the same answer, "The ones least able to live."They presented together the notion that evolution proceeds by a selective death rate. Those least equipped to survive and to breed would die off at a higher rate than those better equipped, leading to the development of new species that incorporated the innovation that improved their chances.A similar selective death rate operates, when it is allowed to, in a market economy. Innovations occur in products, services and organization, and the most successful ones survive at the expense of those less well equipped to compete with them. In market economies, flux, rather than stasis, is the norm. Few of the companies in the top hundred remain there for decades as technological change combines with changing tastes to erode their market share.Existing firms often use political clout to make life difficult for newcomers, using regulation to raise costs and barriers against new entrants. This is not the free market at work, but the use of legislative influence to thwart its operation. The coach operators lobbied Parliament to insist that the new motor cars must be preceded by a man on foot with a red flag. Progress, growth and consumer satisfaction are maximized when a selective death rate is allowed to cull the businesses that can no longer survive on merit.Innovations which increase productivity and growth lead to job losses. It is the way of the world. Those job losses are resisted by political representatives more anxious to secure the support of present voters than to make life better for future ones. But countries prosper more if they allow that selective death rate to operate instead of trying to resist its effect by subsidies and trade barriers to protect extant businesses at the expense of future ones.Sir Karl Popper made the famous observation that the aim of politics is not to select the wisest and best rulers, but to ensure "that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage." In other words, the advantage of democracy is not that it allows the people to rule, but that it can apply a selective death rate to political ideas and their exponents. It enables failed rulers to be changed peacefully and to allow alternative ones to be given a chance. Because politicians in a democracy know they can be called to account at the next election, their behaviour is tempered. No such restraints are there to curb the behaviour of despots.The methodology is a selective death date, as it is in evolution and free market economics. It is less efficient in the political realm because popular will is not as brutal as it is in nature or a free economy. The same failed ideas can resurface no matter how many times they have sunk in the past. This is because some ideas appeal in theory even if the real world discredits them repeatedly. In scientific method, new theories are put forward and tested by experiment and observation. Those that are less successful at predicting what we shall observe are discarded in favour of those that do this more successfully.A selective death rate operates by trial and error. In evolution it is blind, but in market economics, politics and scientific method it is purposive. But in all these areas it is by counting out the less adequate in favour of the more adequate that development and change take place. To interfere with this process is to mitigate its benefits.

It is important, when considering immigration into the UK, to distinguish between migrants who come here to improve their lot in life and asylum seekers, who come to escape civil war or persecution in their home countries.Some who cross the channel and enter illegally are not asylum seekers, with a high proportion being economic migrants. They already have asylum in France. 45,755 crossed the channel in dinghies in 2022 and were not immediately returned. The system allows lawyers to tell people to claim they were trafficked in order to claim to be asylum seekers instead of the economic migrants they actually are.The UK has lost control of its borders, while qualified and skilled would-be legal immigrants face daunting costs, paperwork and delays. The two issues both have to be addressed if the problem is to be resolved.        For skilled personnel and those with jobs waiting in the UK, the solution is to auction visas that would allow them to come and settle and work. The visas would be paid for, not by the applicants, but by the firms wishing to employ them, and the auction process would ensure that those admitted would be the ones who would add the highest value to the British economy. This could be streamlined, with offices in the countries from which applicants sought to come to the UK. The UK could decide the overall numbers, and then have British and international firms bidding for the numbers they wanted to employ here.Several countries, including the US and some EU members, make business (or 'golden') visas available, sometimes with a fast track to citizenship, for those who invest a minimum sum or who purchase a requisite amount of property in the country. This ensures that the recipients will be net economic contributors to the countries they apply to. The UK should establish a similar scheme for foreign nationals prepared to invest here.For those who are crossing the channel in small boats, the policy should be to make it clear that those who enter the country illegally will not be allowed to stay. It must be resolved by Parliament that no international or European court will interfere with this determination. Instead of being housed in hotels or barges or other temporary accommodation, they should be immediately deported with no process that will prevent this. Australia and Denmark have used versions of this policy.Much more could and should be done to prevent them from coming in the first place. Just as people who buy used cars with cash are subject to surveillance in case terrorist use is planned, the UK, in cooperation with its European allies, should establish that purchasers of dinghies should be subject to surveillance to determine if they have any legitimate uses for them. It might be useful to have tracking devices incorporated into dinghies so that their movements can be tracked.Once it becomes more difficult for illegal crossings to be made, and there is certainty that none who do so will be allowed to stay, the UK will have reasserted control over its borders and will be able to process those applying to come here legitimately to take up jobs, or who are genuine asylum seekers, usually wishing to join relatives in the UK, and can be admitted as part of the UK's humanitarian contribution to a worldwide problem.

Childcare in the UK is very expensive, with only the Czech Republic and Cyprus coming ahead of the UK in costs. Part of the reason is that the ratio of adults required per child is very high. Currently in nurseries and pre-schools, there has to be one adult to three children for under two-year-olds, one adult to four children for two to three-years-olds and one adult to eight children for three to seven-year-olds.The most recent Family and Childcare Trust's annual report found many parents are spending more on childcare than their mortgage, with average fees for part-time childcare for children under two reaching £7,134 per year. Full-time childcare costs for a family with a two-year-old and a five-year-old child are estimated at £11,700 a year.This is a strong disincentive for young mothers to return to the workforce and contribute to economic expansion. In some countries childcare is heavily subsidized, meaning that a large part of the cost is borne by the taxpayer, rather than by the parents. The tax implications make this an unlikely prospect for the UK, but there are promising alternatives.Three players that could increase the availability of childcare in the UK and reduce its cost are the government, business and the informal sector of relatives, friends and neighbours.Government could look at the adult to child ratios in other countries, and bring our own rules into line with those which seem to work successfully elsewhere. It could work in partnership with business to increase the provision of workplace nurseries by providing tax incentives that encourage firms to do so.There is scope for flexible working arrangements to help parents juggle work and childcare responsibilities.Schools could play a role in providing shared facilities, joint training programs, and coordination of services.A huge contribution could be made by supporting and expanding informal child- care. Grandparents and relatives could be encouraged to provide childcare through access to resources and some financial assistance. Neighbours could be encouraged to provide childcare as they looked after their own children. Neighbourhood childcare groups could share the burden of childcare between groups of parents who took turns to share the responsibilities.And the government could take steps that made it easier for entrepreneurs to set up chains of childcare businesses on a for-profit basis by making the regulatory and tax environment attractive to would-be investors, such as tax credits for crèches in their office buildings.A combination of such measures could revolutionize childcare in the UK, and bring it within reach of most of those who needed it and at affordable costs.

Many people take drugs because they like the feeling they experience by doing so. This is a more extreme version of why some people smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol. Most do so because they like it and most don't become addicts.Because most drugs are illegal, they are traded on the black market, setting their users and suppliers at odds with the law. Because they are illicit and underground, there is little to no quality control, leading to deaths from adulterated or over-strength supplies.Their illegality makes them expensive as suppliers risk prosecution and punishment, as well as considerable price gouging. The profits to be had from their sale leads to violent turf wars, as gangs fight for control of the trade. It echoes what happened in the United States during the prohibition era. People in the UK, especially young people, are killed in the street by members of rival gangs fighting for control of a very lucrative business.Several US states and Canada have joined the growing list of countries that have legalized the recreational use of cannabis. If the UK were to do the same, it would lead to better quality control and enable age checks to be made as the illegal market would dry up if the legal market were allowed to prosper through light regulations and licensing. It would free up much of the logjam on courts and prisons, and end the conflict between recreational users and the police. The Treasury, rather than the criminals, would gain revenue.The legalization of cannabis would take one widely used recreational drug off the black market. The same could be done with cocaine (8.7% of the population) and MDMA (Ecstasy), (1.9% of the population) both in quite widespread use. Their legalization would free up large numbers of police to deal with more serious crimes in which other people are victims.Heroin was once available on prescription to registered addicts to consume at home, and it was seen as a problem that it could circulate to others. This could be resolved by setting up clinics manned by medical personnel, in which hard drugs such as heroin could be obtained for consumption on the premises, after medical inspection and advice. This would treat addiction as a medical, rather than a criminal, problem, and address it by medical personnel instead of with law enforcement officers. It would bring quality control and safety to the fore, and remove the current illicit drugs trade that underlies so much crime.It could be argued that legalization would lead to increased use, just as the ending of prohibition led to increased alcohol consumption. US voters went for repeal because the alternative was Al Capone and his ilk. The UK is in an Al Capone situation with illegal drugs, and could similarly end it by repealing the prohibition of them.

The United Nations has a target for developed countries to spend 0.7% of their Gross National Income (GNI) on Official Development Assistance (ODA). The UK had previously set this target, then reduced it to 0.5%, but now targets returning to 0.7% in 2024-2025.Some commentators criticize the UK, and indeed the USA, for contributing too little to the development of poorer countries, but the amount the two countries give is much higher than the figures show. The statistics only show what governments contribute (£15.2bn), but data from the World Bank shows that £23.6bn is paid in remittances from the UK, with £10.6bn in charitable donations. People who came here as immigrants send money to their families back home, and thereby make a significant impact on their domestic economy. The same is true in the United States.Furthermore, this direct person to person aid does more economic good than government to government aid. As Professor Peter Bauer pointed out, government aid signals to ambitious people in poor countries that they must turn to the government to improve their lot. People who might otherwise go into business or start businesses themselves, turn instead to seek contracts from government or positions within government. There are also fewer opportunities for corruption and waste in person to person transfers of wealth, although some smaller fraud has occurred. The money goes straight into the local economy and helps to fund things such as education, as well as raising living standards.There is something else that works. It is the low tax, light regulation model that boosted Hong Kong from abject poverty into first world affluence. It did the same in Singapore, in Taiwan, and in South Korea. It was behind the West German "Economic Miracle" of Ludwig Erhard, and of Japan's rapid post-war recovery.The UK should boost development in poorer countries by the two things that we have ascertained work in practice. It should encourage person to person aid transfers from UK people to their relatives in poorer countries. This could be done by giving such contributions the same kind of tax relief that goes to those who make donations to registered charities through Gift Aid. An allowance would be set at such a level as to avoid this generous tax relief being used for tax avoidance or overly advantaging those whose families live abroad.The UK could also collaborate with poorer countries to have an area, preferably including a port, assigned on a lease of perhaps 30 or 50 years to a consortium, solely at the invitation of the host. It would be a freeport and much more. The governing consortium would set the levels of taxation, and run the area's policing and judicial administration. They would determine its property laws and its regulatory structure. The aim would be to recreate what Hong Kong and the others did. With the right conditions, property rights and rule of law, international investment would pour in, creating both businesses and jobs locally. Local people would rush to work or live there because of the opportunities.There is little doubt that untrammelled enterprise would achieve far more than development aid has managed to attain after decades of effort. Combined with incentives to augment person to person transfers, this could set poorer countries on that upward path to affluence and increased prosperity.

The announcement that private facilities are to be used to provide some healthcare services without charge to NHS patients is an important step on the road to improving the NHS. More such steps should be takenAll UK citizens should be given an NHS Guarantee card, like a credit card, that guarantees them free treatment. Their Health Guarantee card must give whoever treats them full access to their health records, previous treatments, together with any previous or current conditions. It must cover the cost of their treatment, funded by the state.In the event of any delay in access to treatment in the public health sector, the card should be valid for private sector treatment, with a cap on costs similar to those widely used in automotive and housing insurance. Such caps should be subject to periodic review by the Department for Health and Social Care.































































































With the funding of healthcare covered by social insurance, the delivery of healthcare should be provided by a mix of public and private facilities paid by the state or private insurers on the basis of the treatments they deliver. GPs should be paid according to the number of times they see and treat patients, with in-person consultations paying more than video or telephone meetings. Doctors would be paid for providing healthcare for patients, rather than for having them on their books, which is the current system.Similarly, hospitals and consultants should receive their funding according to the treatments they provide. The government should make contracts with them to provide healthcare on an agreed basis.GPs, consultants and hospitals should be given their independence through a wider rollout of NHS Foundation Trusts, rather than being managed by a centralized bureaucracy. They should compete to provide treatments, to attract patients, and might be encouraged to specialize in doing what they do best.There should be tax deductions for those who use supplementary private insurance to save the state money and resources. This happens in Australia, where most people take out private cover in addition to the state's Medicare programme that guarantees them treatment. Since the private insurers cannot take into account the current health status of the applicant, the risk is pooled.UK doctors are leaving in significant numbers to go to Australia, some as soon as they have finished their qualifications. Yes the changes outlined herein could potentially make the UK's NHS as efficient, as attractive, and as popular as healthcare in Australia is.

 The government's decision to award about 100 new licences for offshore oil and gas drilling is a welcome move towards addressing the UK's energy shortfall, and the announcement of a major carbon capture initiative is a significant step on the road to developing technological solutions to address environmental concerns.The UK's energy problem is that it needs abundant and affordable energy, while simultaneously meeting environmental concerns. The government wishes to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, while building up renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, and building up non-polluting nuclear power.  There is a problem, in that while renewables are reducing in cost, they are still much more expensive than their fossil fuel alternatives, especially due to Britain's lack of storage capacity.Although people publicly express support for policies designed to reduce the energy environmental impact, their revealed preferences differ from their expressed preferences. It seems that they still want affordable transport, and the ability to heat their homes in winter and cool them in summer. This suggests that promotion of, and reliance on, behavioural change will not be sufficient to address the problem, and that more attention should be paid to increasing supply, rather than to reducing demand.The energy supply can be a diversified mix of different sources. This diversification can include a combination of renewable energy, nuclear power, and cleaner fossil fuel technologies such as natural gas with carbon capture and storage. By diversifying its energy sources, the country can enhance energy security while reducing environmental impacts.It makes environmental sense to phase out the most polluting sources first. Coal pollutes more than oil, which pollutes more than gas. This suggests that gas could be the bridge to maintain the supply until lower cost renewables can be developed and rolled out alongside nuclear power.Increasing the nuclear proportion of the energy mix is important, since it is clean, reliable, and not dependent on foreign suppliers. The UK nuclear proportion is 15%, compared to France's 75%. Since nuclear power plants, even SMRs, take time and great expense to plan, build and go on-line, gas is the obvious bridge until the UK reaches that point.There is a treasure trove of natural gas beneath us, and the technology in the shape of hydraulic fracturing to access it. The government caved in before environmental lobbyists and set the tremor limit far too low to make it viable. Any tremor over 0.5ML [local magnitude] on the Richter scale requires fracking to stop and testing and monitoring to commence. Some commentators have pointed out that this corresponds to a lorry passing by in the street, or a cat jumping off a wardrobe in the next room.Dr Brian Baptie, of the British Geological Survey (BGS), and Dr Ben Edwards, of Liverpool University, have argued that the limit could be raised safely to 1.5ML, which, they said, was unlikely to be felt. Politically, this could be implemented if compensation were given to households in the area any time it might be exceeded. It could be a cash sum, or a reduction in fuel bills.Development of extraction technology should run in parallel to carbon sequestration technology, with awards available for those developing practical techniques for achieving this. In addition, research should be instigated to explore the suggestion that some geologists have made that it might be possible to access parts of the gas field offshore, or from the Isle of Mann, which would probably welcome the extra jobs and opportunities it would bring.Energy storage has a role to play in handling the intermittent nature of some renewable sources, and a programme to encourage firms to develop the appropriate technologies is yet another item in a co-ordinated, multi-source strategy for ensuring a continued supply of affordable and reliable energy into the future. The use of an interconnector, such as that proposed by Aquind, to link Britain and France, offers the UK 5% of its demand in clean nuclear energy, and the possibility of selling to the European electrical market. It could help achieve our energy needs - if it is permitted to be built. 

Britain has made the same mistake twice, first in education, and then in health. In both cases the laudable aim was to give everyone access to a valuable service. In 1870 it was the Elementary Education Act, commonly known as Forster's Education Act, which set the framework for schooling of all children between the ages of 5 and 12 in England and Wales.In 1948 it was the National Health Service Act. Free healthcare at the point of use comes from the core principles at the founding of the National Health Service. The 1942 Beveridge cross-party report established the principles of the NHS which was implemented by the Labour government in 1948.In both cases the problem was perceived as one in which a lack of means deprived the poorer part of the population from access to what were deemed to be essential services: education and health. In both cases the decision was taken that these services were to be produced and run by the state.The result has been that state provision has dominated both health and education. The NHS, admirable in many respects, has grown too big to manage. State education has been producer dominated, with parents allocated school places, some of which are clearly delivering a less than adequate preparation for life's needs or for further education or training.Choice and completion, the two factors that lead the private sector to improve its output in terms of both quality and efficiency, have been largely absent from state provision. In education, this lack has been redressed to some extent by the spread of academies and free schools that give schools more independence from local authorities and enable them to experiment, but the remaining state schools offer parents little choice.A more viable model to achieve free healthcare and schooling would be to combine private or independent provision with state finance. In this model, people would choose between schools or different healthcare providers, and in doing so, direct state funding to the providers they have chosen. The schools would receive their funding, weighted by age group, according to the number of students that parents chose to enroll there. Doctors and hospitals would receive their funding based on the number of procedures they carried out, with patients choosing between them, as happens in Australia, where large numbers of UK-trained doctors are choosing to live and work.In this way, the choice and competition so little found in state provision, would be incorporated while maintaining the important principle that the services would continue to be free at the point of use.In retrospect, this should have been done when state education and state health were first introduced. It was not, and because of that, there have been major problems with both services. A change to make it that the money should follow the parent or patient could vastly improve both services. It could correct the mistakes that made both of them under-perform.

In 1851, the United Kingdom astounded the world with the Great Exhibition—an iconic showcase of innovation, industry, and cultural exchange. Dr Anton Howes of The Entrepreneurs Network has made a case showing how, in the 21st century, a modern-day Great Exhibition has the potential to reaffirm Britain's commitment to new technology and solidify its position as a global leader. By hosting such an event, the UK can harness its strengths, inspire innovation, attract investment, and foster international collaboration.A modern Great Exhibition would serve as a catalyst for innovation, igniting the imaginations of entrepreneurs, scientists, and inventors from across the globe. By providing a platform for showcasing cutting-edge technologies and ideas, the UK can inspire a new wave of innovation and creativity. This exhibition could highlight the country's expertise in areas such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, renewable energy, and advanced manufacturing, encouraging breakthroughs and fostering collaboration between academia, industry, and startups.Hosting a Great Exhibition would enable the UK to position itself as a global leader in new technology. By featuring groundbreaking inventions, research, and development, the UK can demonstrate its commitment to pushing the boundaries of progress. This exhibition could emphasize the UK's prowess in emerging fields, allowing the world to witness firsthand the nation's capacity to embrace technological advancements and drive positive change. As The Entrepreneurs Network puts it:"Visitors would see drone deliveries in action, take rides in driverless cars, actually use the latest in virtual reality technology, play with prototype augmented reality devices, and see organ tissue and metals and electronics being 3D-printed in front of them. They would see industrial manufacturing robots in action, have a taste of lab-grown meat at the food stalls, meet cloned animals brought back from extinction, and themselves perform feats of extraordinary strength wearing the exoskeletons that are already in use in factories and warehouses. Visitors would naturally get to meet the inventors and scientists and engineers who developed it all, too. They would browse the latest in fashion, art, and architecture, seeing them alongside historical examples. And the whole thing would be powered using only the cutting edge of clean energy technology, much like how the great new Corliss Engine drove the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, or how Westinghouse's alternating current powered the 1893 Chicago World's Fair. Visitors might also be able to view air CO2 removal machines in action."A modern Great Exhibition would be a magnet for international investors seeking opportunities in the UK's vibrant technology sector. By showcasing the country's commitment to innovation, the exhibition would demonstrate the potential for lucrative partnerships and investments. It would attract the attention of venture capitalists, industry leaders, and entrepreneurs, fostering economic growth and creating job opportunities. Additionally, by highlighting the UK's thriving research institutions and vibrant startup ecosystem, the exhibition could draw global talent, promoting knowledge transfer and enriching the nation's pool of skilled professionals.A Great Exhibition would provide a unique platform for international collaboration, fostering partnerships between the UK and nations around the world. By inviting countries to showcase their technological advancements, the exhibition would encourage knowledge exchange, cross-cultural learning, and collaboration on global challenges. This shared experience could create lasting networks and partnerships, promoting diplomacy and cooperation across borders.Hosting a Great Exhibition would generate a sense of national pride and confidence in the UK's capabilities. It would remind the world of the nation's rich history of technological progress and innovation, while also signaling a bold vision for the future. By celebrating its achievements, the UK can inspire a renewed sense of purpose and confidence in its ability to shape a prosperous and sustainable future.There is no doubt that a modern Great Exhibition holds immense potential for the United Kingdom. By showcasing its commitment to new technology, the UK can stimulate innovation, attract investment and talent, foster international collaboration, and boost national pride. This exhibition would serve as a testament to the nation's determination to embrace progress, shaping a future where innovation and technological advancement drive economic growth and societal well-being. The time has come for the UK to once again captivate the world's attention by hosting a Great Exhibition that reaffirms its status as a global leader at the forefront of the technological frontier.