Treat with extreme caution

Homoeopathic medicine is founded on a bogus philosophy. Its continued use is a drain on NHS resource

Two years ago, a loose coalition of like-minded scientists wrote an open letter to chief executives of the National Health Service Trusts. The signatories simply stated that homoeopathy and other alternative therapies were unproven, and that the NHS should reserve its funds for treatments that had been shown to work. The letter marked an extraordinary downturn in the fortunes of homoeopathy in the UK over the following year, because the overwhelming majority of trusts either stopped sending patients to the four homoeopathic hospitals, or introduced measures to strictly limit referrals.

Consequently, the future of these hospitals is now in doubt. The Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital is set to close next year and the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital is likely to follow in its wake. Homoeo paths are now so worried about the collapse of their flagship hospitals that they are organising a march to deliver a petition to Downing Street on 22 June. Local campaign groups are being formed and patients are being urged to sign the petition.

Homoeopaths believe that the medical Establishment is crushing a valuable healing tradition that dates back more than two centuries and that still has much to offer patients. Homoeopaths are certainly passionate about the benefits of their treatment, but are their claims valid, or are they misguidedly promoting a bogus philosophy?

This is a question that I have been considering for the past two years, ever since I began co-authoring a book on the subject of alternative medicine with Professor Edzard Ernst. He was one of the signatories of the letter to the NHS trusts and is the world's first professor of complementary medicine. Before I present our conclusion, it is worth remembering why homoeo pathy has always existed beyond the borders of mainstream medicine.

Homoeopathy relies on two key principles, namely that like cures like, and that smaller doses deliver more powerful effects. In other words, if onions cause our eyes to stream, then a homoeopathic pill made from onion juice might be a potential cure for the eye irritation caused by hay fever. Crucially, the onion juice would need to be diluted repeatedly to produce the pill that can be administered to the patient, as homoeopaths believe that less is more.

Initially, this sounds attractive, and not dissimilar to the principle of vaccination, whereby a small amount of virus can be used to protect patients from viral infection. However, doctors use the principle of like cures like very selectively, whereas homoeopaths use it universally. Moreover, a vaccination always contains a measurable amount of active ingredient, whereas homoeopathic remedies are usually so dilute that they contain no active ingredient whatsoever.

A pill that contains no medicine is unlikely to be effective, but millions of patients swear by this treatment. From a scientific point of view, the obvious explanation is that any perceived benefit is purely a result of the placebo effect, because it is well established that any patient who believes in a remedy is likely to experience some improvement in their condition due to the psychological impact. Homoeopaths disagree, and claim that a "memory" of the homoeopathic ingredient has a profound physiological effect on the patient. So the key question is straightforward: is homoeopathy more than just a placebo treatment?

Fortunately, medical researchers have conducted more than 200 clinical trials to investigate the impact of homoeopathy on a whole range of conditions. Typically, one group of patients is given homoeopathic remedies and another group is given a known placebo, such as a sugar pill. Researchers then examine whether or not the homoeopathic group improves on average more than the placebo group. The overall conclusion from all this research is that homoeopathic remedies are indeed mere placebos.

In other words, their benefit is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. The latest and most definitive overview of the evidence was published in the Lancet in 2005 and was accompanied by an editorial entitled "The end of homoeopathy". It argued that ". . . doctors need to be bold and honest with their patients about homoeopathy's lack of benefit".

An unsound investment

However, even if homoeopathy is a placebo treatment, anybody working in health care will readily admit that the placebo effect can be a very powerful force for good. Therefore, it could be argued that homoeopaths should be allowed to flourish as they administer placebos that clearly appeal to patients. Despite the undoubted benefits of the placebo effect, however, there are numerous reasons why it is unjustifiable for the NHS to invest in homoeopathy.

First, it is important to recognise that money spent on homoeopathy means a lack of investment elsewhere in the NHS. It is estimated that the NHS spends £500m annually on alternative therapies, but instead of spending this money on unproven or disproven therapies it could be used to pay for 20,000 more nurses. Another way to appreciate the sum of money involved is to consider the recent refurbishment of the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital in London, which was completed in 2005 and cost £20m. The hospital is part of the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which contributed £10m to the refurbishment, even though it had to admit a deficit of £17.4m at the end of 2005. In other words, most of the overspend could have been avoided if the Trust had not spent so much money on refurbishing the spiritual home of homoeopathy.

Second, the placebo effect is real, but it can lull patients into a false sense of security by improving their sense of well-being without actually treating the underlying conditions. This might be all right for patients suffering from a cold or flu, which should clear up given time, but for more severe illnesses, homoeopathic treatment could lead to severe long-term problems. Because those who administer homoeopathic treatment are outside of conventional medicine and therefore largely unmonitored, it is impos sible to prove the damage caused by placebo. Never theless, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support this claim.

For example, in 2003 Professor Ernst was working with homoeopaths who were taking part in a study to see if they could treat asthma. Unknown to the professor or any of the other researchers, one of the homoeopaths had a brown spot on her arm, which was growing in size and changing in colour. Convinced that homoeopathy was genuinely effective, the homoeopath decided to treat it herself using her own remedies. Buoyed by the placebo effect, she continued her treatment for months, but the spot turned out to be a malignant melanoma. While she was still in the middle of treating asthma patients, the homoeopath died. Had she sought conventional treatment at an early stage, there would have been a 90 per cent chance that she would have survived for five years or more. By relying on homoeopathy, she had condemned herself to an inevitably early death.

The third problem is that anybody who is aware of the vast body of research and who still advises homoeopathy is misleading patients. In order to evoke the placebo effect, the patient has to be fooled into believing that homoeopathy is effective. In fact, bigger lies encourage bigger patient expectations and trigger bigger placebo effects, so exploiting the benefits of homoeopathy to the full would require homoeopaths to deliver the most fantastical justifications imaginable.

Over the past half-century, the trend has been towards a more open and honest relationship between doctor and patient, so homoeopaths who mislead patients flagrantly disregard ethical standards. Of course, many homoeopaths may be unaware of or may choose to disregard the vast body of scientific evidence against homoeo pathy, but arrogance and ignorance in health care are also unforgivable sins.

If it is justifiable for the manufacturers of homoeopathic remedies in effect to lie about the efficacy of their useless products in order to evoke a placebo benefit, then maybe the pharmaceutical companies could fairly argue that they ought to be allowed to sell sugar pills at high prices on the basis of the placebo effect as well. This would undermine the requirement for rigorous testing of drugs before they go on sale.

A fourth reason for spurning placebo-based medicines is that patients who use them for relatively mild conditions can later be led into dangerously inappropriate use of the same treatments. Imagine a patient with back pain who is referred to a homoeopath and who receives a moderate, short-term placebo effect. This might impress the patient, who then returns to the homoeopath for other advice. For example, it is known that homoeopaths offer alternatives to conventional vaccination - a 2002 survey of homoeopaths showed that only 3 per cent of them advised parents to give their baby the MMR vaccine. Hence, directing patients towards homoeo paths for back pain could encourage those patients not to have their children vaccinated against potentially dangerous diseases.

Killer cures

Such advice and treatment is irresponsible and dangerous. When I asked a young student to approach homoeopaths for advice on malaria prevention in 2006, ten out of ten homoeopaths were willing to sell their own remedies instead of telling the student to seek out expert advice and take the necessary drugs.

The student had explained that she would be spending ten weeks in West Africa; we had decided on this backstory because this region has the deadliest strain of malaria, which can kill within three days. Nevertheless, homoeopaths were willing to sell remedies that contained no active ingredient. Apparently, it was the memory of the ingredient that would protect the student, or, as one homoeopath put it: "The remedies should lower your susceptibility; because what they do is they make it so your energy - your living energy - doesn't have a kind of malaria-shaped hole in it. The malarial mosquitoes won't come along and fill that in. The remedies sort it out."

The homoeopathic industry likes to present itself as a caring, patient-centred alternative to conventional medicine, but in truth it offers disproven remedies and often makes scandalous and reckless claims. On World Aids Day 2007, the Society of Homoeopaths, which represents professional homoeopaths in the UK, organised an HIV/Aids symposium that promoted the outlandish ambitions of several speakers. For example, describing Harry van der Zee, editor of the International Journal for Classical Homoeo pathy, the society wrote: "Harry believes that, using the PC1 remedy, the Aids epidemic can be called to a halt, and that homoeopaths are the ones to do it."

There is one final reason for rejecting placebo-based medicines, perhaps the most important of all, which is that we do not actually need placebos to benefit from the placebo effect. A patient receiving proven treatments already receives the placebo effect, so to offer homoeopathy instead - which delivers only the placebo effect - would simply short-change the patient.

I do not expect that practising homoeopaths will accept any of my arguments above, because they are based on scientific evidence showing that homoeopathy is nothing more than a placebo. Even though this evidence is now indisputable, homoeopaths have, understandably, not shown any enthusiasm to acknowledge it.

For now, their campaign continues. Although it has not been updated for a while, the campaign website currently states that its petition has received only 382 signatures on paper, which means that there's a long way to go to reach the target of 250,000. But, of course, one of the central principles of homoeopathy is that less is more. Hence, in this case, a very small number of signatures may prove to be very effective. In fact, perhaps the Society of Homoeopaths should urge people to withdraw their names from the list, so that nobody at all signs the petition. Surely this would make it incredibly powerful and guaranteed to be effective.

"Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial" (Bantam Press, £16.99) by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst is published on 21 April

Homoeopathy by numbers

3,000 registered homoeopaths in the UK

1 in 3 British people use alternative therapies such as homoeopathy

42% of GPs refer patients to homoeopaths

0 molecules of an active ingredient in a typical "30c" homoeopathic solution

$1m reward offered by James Randi for proof that homoeopathy works

This article first appeared in the 21 April 2008 issue of the New Statesman, Food crisis

ALEX WILLIAMSON FOR NEW STATESMAN
Show Hide image

From antipasto to zoo, the A to Z of Brexit

We run through the Brexit alphabet.

As for anti-pasto


Is there any greater sign that austerity is not yet over than Boris Johnson getting the maximum value out of each of his jokes? In an interview with the Sun in September 2016, the Foreign Secretary suggested that Britain could control immigration as well as continue to trade freely with the EU in the following terms: “Our policy is having our cake and eating it. We are Pro-secco but by no means anti-pasto.” Very droll. Just as droll as the first time he rolled out the gag, in a July 2008 Telegraph column where he defended his decision to go on holiday abroad by noting that Tony Blair once spent a break “in the Tuscan palazzo of Count Girolamo Strozzi where he forged one of New Labour’s few hard-edged ideological positions: he was pro-sciutto and anti-pasto”. Stop it, Boris! This recycling is pasta joke. If you carry on, Liam Fox will want a pizza the action. Or you’ll be moved to the Minestrone of Defence. [Please, please stop – Ed.]

B is for big blue passports


Last year’s vote to leave the EU was a long time coming for the Tory awkward squad. Now that they’ve won, what exactly do they want? Turns out it’s much simpler than trade deals and migration quotas: just give us back our blue passports! As with most of the Brexit debate, it’s a cause that will be lost on most people under 50 – but, for the Sun and nostalgic headbangers such as the backbencher Andrew Rosindell, replacing the burgundy booklets used since 1988 is the only cause in town. “It’s a matter of identity. Having the pink European passports has been a humiliation,” Rosindell, the MP for Romford and a Proper Bloke who’d never otherwise touch anything “pink” unless he could help it, told the Sun in August. Ministers have since pledged to review the post-Brexit passport design – proof, if any more were needed, that this government serves only the whims of our weirdest MPs.


C is for civil servants


Those poor souls in Whitehall must be missing the days when all they had to fear was the press being nasty about how many biscuits they were eating on the taxpayer’s purse. Now it looks like there won’t be any time for biscuit breaks. The former civil service head and kindly veteran mandarin Bob Kerslake warned Theresa May at the end of last year that Whitehall does not have the capacity to deal with Brexit. “It’s not possible to do that at a point when the civil service is at its lowest numbers since the Second World War and continuing to fall,” he said in November. The Prime Minister shrugged off his concerns. Now disillusioned senior civil servants are planning to go the same way as Ivan Rogers, the EU ambassador who resigned in fury in January. Still, the money’s good: the top trade negotiator will earn £160,000 – more than the Prime Minister.

 

D is for David Davis


It’s little surprise that the Brexit Secretary, David Davis – having run for the Conservative Party leadership twice, represented two constituencies, and been politically active since he was a student in the 1970s – approaches politics with maturity and nuance. Nowhere was his great experience displayed with more finesse than when he reportedly swooped in for an unwanted embrace with Diane Abbott in the Commons bar after the shadow home secretary voted through Article 50 (out of loyalty to her party leader and against her conscience). “I am not blind,” he texted a friend, when asked if this was true. He eventually apologised, and went back to antagonising European politicians instead.

 

E is for Eighth, Henry the

 

Brexit wouldn’t mean Brexit without the resurgence of archaic English legislation and an unelected autocrat inflicting havoc on a divided nation. So Theresa May’s attempt to use 500-year-old powers known as “Henry VIII clauses” to convert EU directives into UK law is pretty unsurprising. As the government website explains, these are provisions added to a bill which enable “primary legislation to be amended or repealed by subordinate legislation with or without further parliamentary scrutiny”. The mechanism, established by the testy Tudor in 1539 to make law by proclamation, could help the PM repeal individual bits of EU legislation without full scrutiny by MPs – to parliament’s outrage. But perhaps it’s for the best. Henry VIII was an expert in divorce, after all.

 

F is for FIFTY (50), article


Oh, Article 50. Who thought that such a small clause could cause such a big fuss? It’s the little bit of the Lisbon Treaty no one thought would ever be relevant – the part that tells member states how to leave the European Union. Not to be spoken of without first using the verb “to trigger”, and not to be confused with its hipster younger sibling Article 49 (the part of the treaty which explains how to join, rather than leave, clung on to by wistful Remainers), Article 50 simply lays out how difficult it will be for any member state that uses it, allowing only two years of negotiating time after notification.

In the end, Article 50 was invoked on 29 March by handing over a letter in public to the European Council president, Donald Tusk, despite dire warnings by the Telegraph, which claimed it would be “hand-delivered at [a] secret time and location amid fears of sabotage by Remainers”. So Peter Mandelson forbore to rugby-tackle the British ambassador on his way to submit the letter, and Tusk decided it wouldn’t be funny, after all, to turn off the lights and pretend he was out.

 

G is for Goldman Sachs


Suddenly, progressives are sad to see the notorious investment bank Goldman Sachs taking its custom elsewhere – or some of it, anyway. It has confirmed that “hundreds” of its employees will be moved out of London and it will base its decision on its future dealings with the UK on the nature of the Brexit deal reached.

 

H is for horses


The Commons Northern Ireland select committee is at the sharp end of the complexities of leaving the EU. In February, Michael Lux, the former head of the European Commission’s customs procedures unit, stunned the committee by casually mentioning that with the UK leaving the customs union, a dog or a horse wandering across the land border with Ireland would need a customs form. After gasps from the committee, the independent unionist MP Sylvia Hermon replied: “I cannot imagine a form has to be filled out when a dog runs from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. This is just unenforceable.” Let’s hope not.

 

I is for Iraq

 

As promised, Kenneth Clarke was the only Conservative MP to vote against triggering Article 50. He told the Times the atmosphere reminded him of the Iraq War: “That was the last time I stuck my neck out in supporting a really unpopular cause – 70 per cent of the British public were in favour of the invasion and most of the Conservative Party was in a patriotic fury. Within 12 months, you couldn’t meet a member of the public who had ever known anybody who was in favour of it.”

 

J is for Juncker

 

“Arch-federalist” is just about as villainous as one can be made to sound in the context of EU bureaucracy, and Jean-Claude Juncker is the man most often described as such by his Eurosceptic enemies. (He also once said that power was erotic, although he now finds it less so: “Why are you in love with a person? The day you know means that you have stopped being in love,” he mused to the FT in March.)

The European Commission president described Brexit as “a failure and a tragedy” and is riling Brexiteers by insisting that the UK settle its bill with Brussels before embarking on trade negotiations. Although the Luxembourger is reassuring Britain that this “isn’t a punishment”, the “very salty” fee could be as high as €60bn. Somebody pass Bill Cash the smelling salts.

 

K is for Keir (Starmer)


Oh, Keir. Things could have been so different. Running for parliament in 2015, the former director of public prosecutions might have hoped for a safe seat and plum job in Ed Miliband’s cabinet. Now, however, he’s one of the few adults left around the shadow cabinet table and an unhappy poster boy for Labour’s hopeless Brexit bind. With all the verve of a man rehearsing his own eulogy, he told the Commons of the Article 50 bill in January: “It is a very difficult bill for the Labour Party.” And so, despite Sir Keir’s lawyerly turns at the despatch box, it was. Although his competent performances and forensic scrutiny have given Labour hope, his stated ambition – for Labour to “speak not for the 52 Per Cent or 48 Per Cent but the 100 Per Cent” – is looking less achievable by the day.

 

L is for lords getting feisty


Perhaps there is something in the idea that Britain has a fundamentally different culture from its European counterparts. It must be the only country where progressive values are most vehemently defended by an unelected chamber, including hereditary chieftains. Yes, those freedom fighters in mink are the only ones to have provided any meaningful opposition to hard Brexit in parliament, sending the Article 50 bill back to the Commons to urge protection of EU migrant rights and a “meaningful” parliamentary vote on the final deal. They capitulated in the end and the bill passed – but let’s hope they make some more mischief with the Great Repeal Bill.

 

M for “My Maggie”

 

As Britain prepares to sever ties with a trading bloc of 500 million people just 21 miles from its shores, our government understandably needs to look around for new opportunities. And so Theresa May was on a plane to Washington to meet the new US president faster than you could say, “Grab them by the what?” May declined to raise Donald Trump’s history of sexist comments at their meeting, but she did wring a (sort of) guarantee out of him to remain committed to Nato. In any case, she charmed him more than Angela Merkel, who visited in March – not only did Trump not hold the German chancellor’s hand, he even refused to shake it for a photo-op in the Oval Office. To the delight of Tory Brexiteers, May and Trump appeared to get on well, with the president recalling the relationship between Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Prime Minister May, he is said to have told his aides, is “my Maggie”. (Let’s be honest, she probably doesn’t call him “my Ronnie”.) Trump also returned a bust of Winston Churchill to the Oval Office, an act that brought a couple of right-wing lobby journalists close to shedding tears of patriotic joy.

 

N is for Nazis

 

It wouldn’t be a proper political event without someone making an inappropriate reference to Nazis, and our politicians haven’t disappointed this year. Ever the diplomat, Boris Johnson accused the French president, François Hollande, of wishing to “administer punishment beatings to anybody who seeks to escape [the EU], in the manner of some World War Two movie”. If he wishes to make comparisons to a propaganda-driven insurgency based on scapegoating minority groups, Johnson needn’t look back so far in the past . . .

 

O is for Osborne


The former chancellor George Osborne is enjoying winding up his old cabinet rival Theresa May from the back benches, warning that Brexit will be a “bitter” divorce and accusing the government of choosing “not to make the economy
the priority”. However, this is just another part-time occupation in an increasingly cluttered CV. George “Six Jobs” Osborne is advising the investment firm BlackRock, fulfilling private speaking engagements, working as a McCain Institute fellow, chairing the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, representing the constituents of Tatton (sometimes), and now the editor of the London Evening Standard.

Good for him! Finally, he is delivering on the promise he made at the Treasury of “full employment”.

 

P is for the press

 

The Brexit-supporting press has responded to recent events with the calmness and classiness for which it is famed. The Sun beamed “Dover and out” on to the White Cliffs to celebrate Article 50 being invoked. The Mail wrote “FREEDOM!” in 9,000-point capital letters on its front page (under a headline about Nicola Sturgeon’s and Theresa May’s “Legs-it”). And the Telegraph celebrated a bonfire of red tape that will lead to Britain getting back the ability to use energy-inefficient light bulbs and slaughter insufficiently endangered newts. Suddenly, all the pain seems worthwhile.

 

Q is for queen


“QUEEN BACKS BREXIT” shouted the front page of the Sun three months before the EU referendum. Inevitably. Buckingham Palace swiftly complained about it to the press watchdog. The Sun stood by its story, which consisted of a source relaying Eurosceptic remarks made by the Queen during a lunch at Windsor Castle in 2011. Nick Clegg, said to have attended this lunch, called the story “nonsense”. But the tabloid – ever tenacious in pursuit of dubious news values – ran a similar front page on the eve of the vote: “What Queen asked dinner guests: GIVE ME THREE GOOD REASONS TO STAY IN EUROPE”. The next day, the country gave her its answer.

 

R is for red, white and blue Brexit

 

Suggesting Brexit is nothing more than government by tea towel, Theresa May sent a shudder through the nation in December by describing her chief goal as a “red, white and blue Brexit”. This was in response to commentators characterising the middle ground between a hard and a soft departure as “grey Brexit”. Presumably, given the racial overtones of some of the Leave campaigning, she didn’t want the idea of a “white Brexit” to gain currency.

 

S is for Scotland

 

“Now is not the time” was Theresa May’s response to the Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s demand for a second independence referendum, in the light of Scotland voting Remain. The Prime Minister believes Scottish voters should have full knowledge of the Brexit deal before going to the polls again. Which is kind of an argument for a second EU referendum on the final terms, but shhhh. During the campaign, top Brexiteers queued up to dismiss the prospect of Scottish independence returning to the table. Nigel Farage called the idea “moonshine”; David Davis said it would happen “under no circumstances”; the Labour Leaver Kate Hoey described it as a “wonderful red herring”; and the failed Tory leadership candidate Michael Gove said there was “no prospect” of it.

 

T is for Singapore model, the


The idea of copying Singapore’s low-tax, low-regulation economic model has long been popular with the kind of Brexiteer who would willingly read Ayn Rand. But has that country provided the blueprint for Brexit Britain? Jeremy Corbyn seems to think so, as he has been trying to get the rest of us to call it “Bargain-Basement Brexit”. And in her Lancaster House speech in January, Theresa May warned the EU27 that the UK would impose “the competitive tax rates and the policies that would attract the world’s best companies and biggest investors” if they offered the UK a bad deal. Is there a catch? Er, yes: the UK’s corporation tax rate is already low in European terms. And in truth, Singapore’s dirigiste technocratic government would give Douglas Carswell nightmares. Oh, and a quarter of its population are immigrants.

 

U is for Unexpectedly welcome

 

Over the past few months, left-wing Remainers have started to experience an unusual, creeping sensation. Is it . . . are they . . . could it be that they are happy to see Tony Blair? This disconcerting feeling has been helped by the Blessed Toblerone’s decision to give up some of his more whiffy lucrative side hustles (he is also doing up most of his shirt buttons again). In the absence of other strong pro-European voices, Blair has returned to the fray, making the case for liberal internationalism and arguing that the public should have the chance to change its mind on Brexit once it knows the final deal. Stop sounding so reasonable, Tony. It’s unnerving.

 

V is for Verhofstadt


“Get thee behind me, Satan,” was David Davis’s message to Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s gap-toothed chief negotiator, in evidence to the Commons foreign affairs select committee in September. The former Belgian prime minister was all too happy not to oblige – and became a leading player in the pre-divorce phoney war. His contributions to the debate, such as suggesting “associate citizenship” of the EU for disenfranchised Britons post-Brexit, have been catnip for the 48 Per Cent. Equally unhelpful has been his suggestion that an independent Scotland would have no problem retaining EU membership. No wonder Nigel Farage called his appointment a “declaration of war”.

 

W is for WTO terms

 

Hardly anyone knows what it means, but nevertheless “WTO terms” is a magical phrase suddenly being used by everybody on all sides of the Brexit debate to shut opponents up. Basically, if the UK doesn’t strike a trade deal with the EU, then it will trade according to World Trade Organisation rules, which would bring in tariffs or other trade barriers for some of our exports of products and services to EU countries, and vice versa.

 

X is for x-iting the EU


The Department for Exiting the EU, set up by Theresa May after the 23 June referendum, is not Whitehall’s most popular hangout. Civil servants in other departments are frustrated by its existence, as Brexit has repercussions for every policy brief. Some of the ministry’s officials have been characterised as “school bullies”, barging in to take control of everything. Perhaps, like No 10, the Foreign Office and Treasury, it could enhance its reputation with a cat, which could be called DExMew.

 

Y is for yacht

Leavers are ever keen to talk up Britain’s future as a buccaneering trading nation – and some are taking it nauseatingly literally. Up to 100 Conservative MPs are backing a Daily Telegraph campaign to spend £120m on a shiny new replacement for the Royal Yacht Britannia, decommissioned by Tony Blair in a fit of Europhile pique in 1997. They believe a new yacht – but not, say, a decent trade deal – is the key to the renewed success of Global Britain’s export sector. And as if this weren’t the perfect imperial nostalgia trip, the MPs Gerald Howarth and Jake Berry have suggested slashing the international aid budget to pay for it. The international trade minister Mark Garnier has warned them off that idea but encouraged them to formulate a business plan. “No one is trying to stop you bringing one forward,” he said. Can somebody please try?

 

Z is for Zoos


No, we didn’t just need a Z entry. About 80 per cent of our animal welfare law originates from the EU, which is praised as an animal-friendly area – compared to, say, the US and China, which have far less regulation. On Britain leaving the EU, our legislation on animal welfare will be up in the air. The only certainty will be mandatory pet British bulldogs for every household. What could be more patriotic? 

This article first appeared in the 06 April 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Spring Double Issue

0800 7318496