Ross Clark

Donald Trump has punished European pharmaceutical companies by imposing 100 percent tariffs on their branded products unless they are prepared to set up a manufacturing plants in the US. That is one way of putting it, but why is the issue of tariffs so often seen from the point of view of the producers and so rarely seen from the position of the consumers? Besides punishing drugs companies, the President has also whacked the American public – or at least that section of the population which relies on patented medicines made outside the US. The cost of treatment for many of these patients will soar as a result. Does Trump think that people will somehow fail to realize this?

Is Tony Blair pulling the strings of Keir Starmer’s government from beyond the political grave? Only two days ago the Tony Blair Institute released a report calling for digital ID cards. Now Starmer is expected to announce that the UK public will indeed have digital IDs forced upon them. The juxtaposition of these two things cannot have been an accident unless you believe firstly that Blair had no prior knowledge of what Starmer was going to announce, and secondly that Starmer decided to go ahead regardless of Blair’s intervention, knowing full well what it would look like. Has Starmer really thought through the practical consequences of digital ID cards?

'The British public is running out of patience with a state that does not work, where interactions with public services are beset by inconveniences and delays even as outcomes slip and costs rise.' The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change is not wrong there, but what is its solution? Not to sack the state’s clock-watchers who only want to work four days a week and only from home, or the beach. Not to break up underperforming state monopolies and introduce some more business-minded discipline into public services. No, as is so often the case with the former prime minister’s think tank, the solution lies in Digital ID. Give us a digital ID app on our phones and we will be able to report things like potholes and get them swiftly repaired.

How refreshing to hear transport secretary Heidi Alexander approve plans for a second working runway at Gatwick Airport, taking on the ‘eco warriors’ she has previously attacked for blocking airport expansion. Just the one thing, though. Does she really think she has heard the last from them? If she thinks she is going to drive this plan through so that planes will be taking off on the second runway by the time of the next election, as she seems to think, then she is going to be disappointed. Indeed, Sadiq Khan has already threatened legal action against the expansion. This is going to end up in the courts, and sadly the eco warriors are going to win. Why? Because no airport expansion is compatible with the legally binding target to achieve net zero by 2050.

Policymakers must, of course, stick to the evidence and base their decisions around proper, peer-reviewed research. Until, that is, the evidence starts to tell you what you don’t want to hear. The Mayor of London’s office appears to have been caught red-handed in refusing to publish a study it had itself commissioned into the behaviour of residents following the imposition of low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs). The study, by the University of Westminster, found that the presence of an LTN resulted in more people cycling, but it did not decrease car use and had no discernible effect on walking. It reached this conclusion by quizzing more than 4,500 London residents, some of whom lived in LTNs and some who did not. Shouldn’t we be allowed to know this?

The government promised to build 1.5 million new homes over the course of this parliament. How close are they to reaching the annualised rate? We don’t yet have government statistics to cover the whole of Labour’s first year in office, yet in the year to March construction began on just 138,650 new homes across the UK. In other words, housebuilding is running at substantially less than half the rate needed for the government to meet its promise. In fact, construction is slowing compared with where it was under the Conservatives. A report by the House Builders’ Federation (HBF) on construction in London explains some of the reasons why. In London, the supply of new homes is running even further behind the government’s schedule than in other parts of the country.

It is not often that the NHS gets accused of being too good at negotiating down costs. But that seems to be gist of the case levelled against it regarding the cost of drugs. AstraZeneca has paused the expansion of a research facility in Cambridge and US pharmaceutical firm Merck has cancelled a plan to invest £1 billion in a research centre in London. In both cases the blame has been cast on the tight-fistedness of the NHS in not paying enough for drugs. If you don’t pay, goes the argument, then you won’t get investment in new drugs.     We have to accept that we are never going to get new drugs on the cheap That is fair enough – up to a point.

When even green energy tycoons are telling him to embrace the North Sea oil and gas industries, Ed Miliband really is beginning to look somewhat isolated. Dale Vince, founder of Ecotricity and a Labour donor (as well as a former donor to Just Stop Oil, no less), has made an extraordinary intervention today, suggesting that the North Sea be offered the same subsidies as are granted to the operators of wind and solar farms. ‘It’s time for Labour to put its arms around the North Sea,’ he says. ‘Our North Sea is in decline, let’s protect it during the transition and optimise our use of resources that are left.’ Remarkably, that puts him more in line with the Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, than it does with the government.

Angela Rayner must resign as Housing Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, obviously. How could she sit on the front bench through a tax-raising budget without everyone’s eyes gravitating towards her, as the minister who thinks tax rises are for everyone else, not her? But the fate of Rayner obscures the bigger scandal here, which is stamp duty itself. No one should be facing a £70,000 bill for buying a two-bedroom flat – nor, for that matter, a £30,000 one, which is the what the bill would be for someone who is genuinely buying a main home for £800,000. The latter sum is not far short of the annual average salary.