Guns or Benefits

 Warfare versus Welfare

        We are a disparate bunch, the British. Never mind that some people were born abroad. Even the 14th Lord Home, and the 14th Mr. Wilson had very different childhoods and expectations; though one succeeded the other as Prime Minister in 1964. 

    It is clear that many different priorities must co-exist in the country, even in the house of commons, even on one side of the house.  Thus, George Islay MacNeill Robertson, Baron Robertson of Port Ellen (who served as secretary general of NATO (1999 to 2003)), though a member of the Labour party, believes that our present government should spend more on re-arming the country and less on unemployment benefits. Other members of the same Labour party may feel that the two-child benefit-cap is cruel and inhumane; though our stance on 'benefits' as a whole is about average for OEDC [1].

    An idea came to me, thinking back nostalgically to my very early youth, to the days of National Saving Stamps (1916 - 1978) and War Loans (1914, & 1917). Perhaps we could be encouraged (or told) to pay 10% (or 20%) of our tax bill in the form of buying stamps, and offered the choice of either Welfare Stamps or Defence Stamps. Or even Arts Council stamps, or Public Library stamps. 

    And then, as I prepared to share this idea with you, I found that Sir Ed. Davy had already floated the idea of Defence Bonds on 25 Jan 2026 [2]. And the chancellor Rachel Reeves joined in on 19th April.[3] Excellent. I shall give the idea my little boost to help it on its way. 

References

[1]  Christopher Adam, İrem Güçeri, (2025) "The state of welfare and the future of the welfare state in Britain", Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 41, Issue 1, Spring 2025, Pages 2–11, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graf015

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5y7edg169o

[3] https://britbrief.co.uk/politics/westminster/reeves-eyes-war-bonds-to-fund-defence-avoid-benefit-cuts.html

Recycling Film

 On the Recycling of Transparent Film

    The thin, crackly film on the top of some food packages which might be clear (as on top of a punnet of grapes), or opaque (as on a pot of cream), is often carefully labelled "do not recycle". What material is it? And what is the problem about recycling it at home? 

    There are many types of 'plastic' involved in food packaging but this field is dominated by four main types of material: PE = poly-ethylene, which comes in several high and low densities; PET = poly-ethylene-terephthalate; PP = poly-propylene; PVDC = poly-(vinyl-dichloride). There is considerable confusion on the 'web' as to what is used where, for the exact chemical determination is beyond the reach of most of us. I have tried to unravel the conflicting views. Thus [1] thinks the crackly, rustle-ly, film that 'lids' a grape punnet is PP, while [2] thinks it is PET. Reference [2] thinks PET stands for poly-ester while [3] thinks PET stands for poly-ethylene-terephthalate. Sainsbury's thinks that the 'lidding' film cannot be recycled with the plastic punnet and the plastic milk bottles, but OPRL [3] thinks it can go in the blue bin with glass, tin, aluminium and other plastic. Webprofab [4], comparing  PP with PET, says PP is translucent while PET is as clear as glass. Cling film (Saran Wrap in the USA) was originally a polymer of -( CH2 - CCl2)- called vinylidene chloride, though vinyl di-chloride would seem more logical. (Wikipedia is confusing about Saran Wrap and cling film; it is not made of PVC.)

    The PlasticPractical website [1] compares two materials, and suggests: 

"To tell polypropylene (PP) from polyethylene (PE), start by noting their texture and firmness. PP is stiffer and less flexible, while PE is softer and more pliable. Conduct a burn test; PP produces a blue flame with a sweet smell, whereas PE gives a yellow flame with a waxy odor. PP will sink in water due to its density, while PE often floats. Look for recycling symbols: PP has a #5, while PE features #1 or #2." [1]

 

    According to [2] there are three material to consider.

"Polypropylene (PP): The "Display King." Known for its crystal-clear transparency and high gloss. It is stiff, has excellent moisture resistance, and is widely used for snack wrappers and clear over-wraps where visual appeal is paramount.

"Polyethylene (PE): The "Workhorse." Available in Low-Density (LDPE) and High-Density (HDPE) variants. It is soft, stretchable, and has superior impact resistance. It is the go-to material for shopping bags, shrink wraps, and heavy-duty industrial sacks.

"Polyester (PET): The "Barrier Shield." PET offers high tensile strength and thermal stability. It provides excellent barriers against oxygen and scents, making it ideal for food packaging that requires a long shelf life or high-temperature resistance (like lidding films).

   

(Wikipedia clarifies. Poly-(ethylene-terephthalate) (PET), where the polymerising unit is -(C₁₀H₈O₄)- , is a poly-ester, but only one of many. It is the same material a terylene™  and dacron™ . )

    Some of the issue are [A] melting temperature, [B] permeability to (a) oxygen, (b) water, or (c) food odours, [C], transparency, [D] flexibility. I think it is the first three issuse that affect the choice for lidding films, as they often show off the product and are glued in place using Hot Melt Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives (HMPSA). Some packaging tells us not to recycle the lidding film; some tells not to recycle it as home, but take it with PE "bags to a large supermarket". I think both are now out of date, as I found a seminar put on by Bostik [5] that offers to: 

• Illustrate how resealable films containing Hot Melt Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives (HMPSA) are fully recycling compatible with existing polyolefin recycling streams and comply with recyclability guidelines of thermoformed PET trays.
• Show that resealable films based on two distinct HMPSA technologies are rated similarly with regards to recycling in existing/future streams.

Conclusion  

    I have not learned what, in the view of some authorities, prevents lidding film from being recycled domestically. The materials used are very varied and are often multilayered. There is a confusing plethora of advice on this issue, coming not from the government but from the food and packaging industry, trying to be good ecologists. But I have concluded that with present-day (2026) technology, there is no longer a need to separate the lidding film from the tub or tray.   

References

[1] https://plasticpractical.com/plastic-identification-how-to-tell-polypropylene-from-polyethylene/

[2] https://www.newtopmachine.com/blog/industry-insights/pp-pe-pet-film-packaging-guide/

[3] https://oprl.org.uk/simpler-recycling/

[4] https://www.weprofab.com/pp-vs-pet/

[5] https://packagingeurope.com/rethink-resealable-lidding-film-recyclability/9621.article

Prime Minister 2

    I want to continue my theme of 29th April [1] titled 'Prime Minister'; so I have titled this post 'Prime Minister 2'. Twelve days ago Sir Keir Starmer was being badgered by the media over his handling of the Epstein/Mandelson affair; now it is the aftermath of the revolutionary, but inconclusive, election that is exciting the media (radio, TV, press). 

    On of my issues is a side swipe at the media; and in my case that means the BBC radio. It seems to me that, in an attempt to whip up interest, they over step the mark and instead of reporting on the news they become part of the news.

    Another issue was the loss of the idea of corporate responsibility. Why, I wonder, would it help the country if Wes Streeting replaced Keir Starmer? They should both be deep in the same quagmire; both putting their shoulders to the wheel to get the vehicle moving. 

    No one doubts that there is a great deal of frustration in the country about the way things are going. My own list of grumbles might include: our failure to curb Russia, USA, Israel, unemployment of school- and college-leavers, a rising benefits-budget, continued illegal immigration (albeit at a slower rate), collapsing health (and dental) services, cost of housing, cost of living, potholes. Sure! There is much that appears to be going wrong.

    But the idea that either Reform or the dispirited Conservative party could do better seems to me ludicrous. Admittedly, there is not much that the average citizen can do other than to cast a vote. As some of our comedians have said: the votes cast for Reform and the Greens are really anti-votes, against Conservative and Labour.

    There is a faint trace of rationality in the idea of lowering taxes in the hope of 'kick-starting the economy'. Equally rational, however, is to raise taxes to invest in infrastructure. We dither. We try both. We clearly need more than that level of leadership.

    I wish there were a coffee-house somewhere in London where one could go to see and eavesdrop on real grown-up experts talking about politics. Or go to Frankfurt, Paris, Milan; or Stockholm, Oslo and Copenhagen. I mean –– how are our continental colleagues coping with their own economies?

    Perhaps that 'coffee-house' is Twitter, or Bluesky.

Hanta Virus

 Hanta Virus

    Hanta Virus came to me as a new disease, a new problem, a new phenomenon when I heard (on Sunday 3rd May 2026) of the outbreak on the Dutch cruise ship MV Hondius. It appear that the first death on board occurred on 11th April in mid Atlantic 11 days after leaving Argentina. The body was evacuated to St. Helena on 24th April and repatriated to Holland with the wife of the dead man; by today (5th May) the wife had also died. 

    But Hanta Virus is not all that new. Several people knew already that the Hollywood actor Gene Hackman and his wife probably both died of the virus in February 2025 [2]. And the US Department of Health has been tracking known cases of the pulmonary form of the disease (Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, HPS) since 1993 when there was a cluster of cases in the 'Four-Corners' area of the United States (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah). In the 30 years between 1993, when monitoring in the States began, and 2023, there were 890 cases of hantavirus disease reported. The fatality rate was the alarming 35% [3]. 

    But the Hanta Virus family of viruses seems to be a great deal older than that. They have been known to science since 1978 [4], and seem to have co-evolved with their rodent hosts over a period of many millions of years [5]. While showing considerable specificity for their host rodent, be it the deer mouse in the the mid-west United States, which carries a virus that focuses on the lungs, or the bank vole and the common rat both of which carry viruses that attack the kidney (causing Hemorrhagic Fever with Renal Syndrome, HFRS), we see from the outbreak on the cruise ship MV Hondius that the virus can occasionally jump host, to another rodent, or to humans [5].

    Structurally, viruses of the Hanta Virus family are small spheres with a single membrane coat covered in glycoprotein spikes through which the virion attaches to a target protein in host cell membranes, usually integrins, but not always. (Integrins are integral membrane proteins, present on the surface of all animal cells, always present as hetero-dimers, each typically having a small C-terminal domain inside the cell and a larger, glycosylated, outer N-terminal domain. They typically function both as physical attachment points and signal-transduction molecules.)

    The viral genome comprises three small pieces of single stranded RNA in negative orientation [6]. (In COVID the single-stranded RNA is in positive orientation.)

(Added 7th May 2026)

    The three pieces of ssRNA that constitute the genome are called large, medium and small or L, M, S.

Large, containing 6.8 – 12 kilobases (kb), codes for the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. A recent paper in Nature [7] describes its structure in considerable detail and proposes a possible mode of action. 

Medium, containing between 3.6 and 3.7 kb, codes for the two glycoproteins, Gc and Gn, which, as hetero-dimers, form the coat, the spikes and the docking mechanism.

Small, 1.7 - 2.1 kb, when copied, produces a positive stranded messenger RNA that codes for the Nucleocapsid protein whose role is to coat the single negative strands of these three genomic segments [6].

    The symptomless 'incubation' period seems to be longish and variable; 1-2 week but exceptionally up to 8 weeks. This may be a feature of negative-single-stranded RNA viruses, and the complex process of activating the polymerase described by Durieux Trouilleton et al. [7]. 

I shall add to this article as I acquire more information. 

References:

[1] Guardian: Ashifa Kassam and agencies, Tue 5 May 2026 02.52 BST

[2] Ewan Somerville, BBC News, Published, 15 April 2025

[3] https://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/about/index.html

[4] Edward C Holmes, Yong-Zhen Zhang, "The evolution and emergence of hantaviruses" https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2014.12.007

[5] CDC – https://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/about/index.html

[6] Hanta Virus – An Overview. March 23, 2022 by Sagar Aryal, PhD. https://microbenotes.com/hanta-virus/

[7] Durieux Trouilleton, Q., Barata-García, S., Arragain, B. et al. "Structures of active Hantaan virus polymerase uncover the mechanisms of Hantaviridae genome replication". Nat Commun 14, 2954 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38555-w

(Comments are welcome to Cawstein@gmail.com)

Prime Minister

UK Prime Minister: An impossible job

I write this on 29th April 2026, at the end of two weeks of stressful chatter in our news media. The UK parliament was asked if it wanted to accuse the Prime Minister of 'lying to parliament'; a fatal accusation if they decided to make it? In the end they did not. I felt that we heard too much of this unfortunate kerfuffle; surely (I believed) there was more important news! 

It has been borne in on me, over the last few months, that the job of being Prime Minister in the UK has become well-nigh impossible. It is a case of job-inflation, which started (perhaps) with Margaret Thatcher, and was pushed forward by Tony Blair. Our prime minister was traditionally regarded as Primus inter pares (first among equals), not as the solitary decision-maker, which he has become. I think we do not want a President, a chief executive. Our prime minister should be merely the convenor and chairperson of the Cabinet. 

I do not think the BBC helped. Indeed, I think the BBC exacerbated the problem. Their interviewers puggled away, and worried the ministers; they stoked the blaze. (I expect some newspapers were as bad, but my only exposure to 'the media' has been the BBC, our quasi-independent-dependent broadcasting company!) I think the 'U-turn'-jeering could even be said to have caused errors, such as Sir Keir Starmer's peremptory sacking of Sir Oliver Robbins ('Ollie' Robbins to the media).

I do not think Keir Starmer should have sacked Oliver Robbins, though I understand his momentary anger. I understand that there were two errors involved: I doubt Keir Starmer was aware that Sir Oliver was, himself, not privy to the text of the vetting; but the latter could have explained, if not the content of the vetting, at least the process. 

In any case, I do not think Keir Starmer can have sacked Oliver Robbins, for I do not think he could sack him. I believe that Keir Starmer did not employ the civil servant; so it was not in his power to un-employ him. (See my point above, about job-inflation.) Many other people have made mistakes on the route to here. 

I think Sir Oliver Robbins should be re-instated. 

Grammar: accusative case

  Grammar: Trouble with the Accusative Case.

  I am enjoying learning more about Miss Mary Bennet, the unfortunate third daughter of Mr. Bennet esquire of Longbourn in the county of Hertfordshire; unfortunate in inheriting neither her mother's beauty, nor her father's intelligence. We learn of her adventures in London after the death of her father, in a 'spin-off' novel by Janice Hadlow,  called "The Other Bennet Sister"; and a BBC drama series of the same name written by Sarah Quintrell.

Her misfortunes are compounded by a lamentable grasp of English grammar, in particular she fails, as does her older sister Jane, in the use of the Accusative Case. She ends the second 'Chapter' by remarking: "Father had found a way out, leaving Mother and I (sic) with nothing, except each other."  And yes, as I said, Jane is blighted with the same solecism. At the opening of the third chapter, Jane says "Mary, you must come and stay with Mr. Bingley and I (sic). ". The problem may go deeper, even involving Sarah Quintrell, Lindsay Salt and staff at the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation).

Poor Mary! At the first occurrence I winced. At the second, I leapt out of my chair, determined to do what I could to save all present and subsequent generations of young people from stumbling their way through this mine-field. 

Britain has clearly decided not to bother teaching grammar, so it does not help much if I refer to concepts like Nominative and Accusative Cases. (These concepts are so much clearer in Latin. The nominative case is used for subject nouns, the accusative case for object nouns. "The ball (nominative) hit the centre stump (accusative). In modern English there are only tiny trace of these distinctions. "I (nom.) speak"; "He spoke to me (acc.)."  But, that sort of instruction is lost on the modern youngsters. ) 

I have a much simpler way of teaching the correct usage; temporarily leave out your companion (Mrs. Bennet or Mr. Bingley in my examples). So, for Mary:
"Father had found a way out, leaving Mother and I (wrong ) with nothing, except each other.", becomes:
"Father had found a way out, leaving ... me with nothing, except ....".  So, after restoring the companion:
"Father had found a way out, leaving Mother and me (right) with nothing, except each other.",
(No one would dream of saying "....leaving I with nothing...." . It is the companion that interferes and misleads.) 

Similarly, for Jane:
"Mary, you must come and stay with Mr. Bingley and I (wrong). " becomes:
"Mary, you must come and stay with ........me  ". and eventually: 
"Mary, you must come and stay with Mr. Bingley and me (right). "
(No one would ever be tempted to say "Mary, you must come and stay with I" . It is the companion that misleads.) 

It is clear that the above error of 'Me-avoidance' comes from a fear of committing  the opposite, and even more common error of 'Me-insistence'; "Me and my friends did it". This error is of a completely different sort. Mary Bennet's error of 'Me-avoidance' is committed by people who are trying to be correct, and think they are succeeding; the 'Me-insisters' know they are wrong, but 'insist'  for that reason. It is a teenage thing and is spontaneously abandoned  when the perpetrators leave school. However, it is, once again, the companions that cloud the issue, while assonance encourages the error. 

Tax and Spend 2

 Tax and Spend version 2

  

   Back in July 2016, I wrote a piece on this blog titled "Tax and Spend" [1]. I remarked at the surprising fact that neither the 'Deficit Spending' school of macroeconomists (Keynes, Klugman, Chick & Pettifor, etc.), nor the 'Austerity' school (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) seemed to be able to convince the other school. Each could see the power of their own argument but not that of the other school. The issue was left in the hands of the politicians,  who were ill equipped to understood either argument.    I could understand parts of each school, but hoped there was a simpler way of revealing the logic. I tried to build a simplified model of the national economy; crude but robust. It illuminated very clearly the so-called 'multiplier' whereby money injected into the system goes round and round, doing more good, to more people, than you might at first expect. I ended, not as a 'Deficit Spender' but a 'Tax and Spender'. 

     I have gone over the argument again, improving and correcting. Let me show you. 

     Imagine a country that neither imports nor exports, neither goods nor services. Suppose that, in a certain fiscal year, the aggregated income (AI) of its citizens is 1 trillion pounds sterling (AI=1,000B£). Imagine that every citizen pays income tax (IT) at a flat rate (ITR) of 20p in the pound on all income (ITR=0.2), saves (S) 18% of net income (S=0.18), and spends the remainder. 

     (To estimate the fraction saved I shall consider incomes of greater that £200,000 p.a. to be saved and not spent. Clearly these super-rich will spend a little; but, equally clearly, some of the merely-rich will save a little. HMRC figures for 2022/3 suggest that total national income was 1347 B£, while that earned by the super-rich (so saved in this model) was 244 B£. So 18.11% of the total. For convenience I count as saved 18% of net income.)

     (I note that approximately 1/3 of UK government revenue comes from VAT and that governments use VAT as a fine-grained  way of directing our spending patterns. (Thus, food is exempt, but ice-cream and crisps are VATed). I shall initially assume that 1/4 of the purchases are VAT-free, and that VAT is charged on 3/4 of the  purchases at a rate of 20% (VATR=0.2).)

     Both the VAT-free and the VATable 'spend' is spent in this notional country, so it forms the gross takings of some of the citizens. If spent on bread, part will buy flour and fuel for the baker, but part will constitute income for the baker. Suppose (initially) that, for every business (or for businesses in aggregate), half the gross taking is spent on raw material (RMr=0.5) and half constitute wages (W). (I.e. Wages/net income = Wr = 1-RMr).   

     Looking now at the income of the government we can see that it is the sum of the income-tax takings (ITT) , and the VAT takings (VATT). What will the government do with the Total Tax (TT)? It will spend a fraction on wages (FW), a fraction on benefits (FB), a fraction on infrastructure (FI) and will waste a fraction (FW). Let us, rather arbitrarily, set these as follows: FW=0.5; FB =0.33; FI=0.1; FW=0.07. Note, however, that benefits constitute the income of a fraction of the population. Also that infrastructure includes roads, schools, libraries, the army, etc., while a fraction of tax inevitably produces no benefit, and is essentially wasted. (I am told that 'Benefits' comprise  roughly 10% of GDP, while wages comprise c. 75% of the cost of  the NHS.)

     All these quantities (see Table 1) enter the model as constants but are initial values only, and the simulation can be re-run with different values. 

The Results Table (Table 2) is like a 'Bagatelle Board'. We put 1 T£ in at the top left. Some is spent by the citizenry and some is routed to the Treasury. At the end of 'round one' a sizeable fraction (c. 60%) of both tax money and private spending emerges as more income, so that part goes round again. And that again produces more income, repeatedly until the sums get too small to bother with. The final GDP is the sum of those repeats.    

     What we want to know is the final result, in terms of final GDP (fGDP), final saving (fS), final tax (fTT), final infrastructure (fI), final private spend (fPS), and final Waste (fW). (See Table 3.)

Conclusions

(1) The multiplier effect is striking; varying from 2  to 2.5. Seeding with a GDP of 1 trillion and ending with 2.0 – 2.5 trillion.

(2) A surprising result is that GDP increases 10% when taxes are raised from 20p to 30p in the pound. Presumably because government spending recycles more than private spending.

(3)  Infrastructure benefits by a striking 58% when taxes are raised from 20p to 30p in the pound. The government has 58% more money for roads, schools, army etc. 

(4)  The downside of raising taxes from 20p to 30p in the pound, is that the money for private spending is reduced, but only by some 13%. It need not fall at all for the poorer half of the population, if the tax system is suitably 'progressive'. Tax rises are difficult to sell to the public, but perhaps not impossible, if we clearly need, and want: better army, better roads, better schools, NHS, etc. 

References:

[1] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2016/07/tax-and-spend.html 

=============================