Category: English

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tomas Jernberg, Professor, Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet

As a cardiologist, I frequently meet patients who have stopped taking medicines that could keep them alive. Often it’s because they’ve seen a dramatic headline or a worrying TV report about a drug they rely on. But sometimes, patients are right to pay attention: new studies really can overturn decades of medical practice.

Few drugs illustrate this tension better than beta blockers. Long prescribed after heart attacks, these medicines can be life-saving for some people, helpful for others and useless – or even harmful – for the rest.

Beta blockers have been used for more than 40 years in almost all patients with heart attacks. But this practice was based on studies done before modern treatments were available, and before we could detect very small heart attacks that do not affect the overall function of the heart.

Recently, two studies on beta blockers in patients with heart attacks were reported in the news. The Spanish-Italian study received the most attention. Media reports suggested that most heart attack patients did not benefit from beta blockers, and that in women the drug might even increase the risk of hospitalisation and death.

Reports like this can make people stop taking their medication.

At the same symposium in Madrid, the second study – which got less attention – showed almost the opposite. Patients with heart attacks did benefit from beta blockers. And if there were differences between the sexes, women might actually have had more benefit than men.

The heart of the matter: ejection fraction

A key to understanding the different results is something called the left ventricular ejection fraction. This is the percentage of blood in the left chamber of the heart – its main pumping chamber – that is pushed out into the body with each heartbeat. Normally, ejection fraction should be at least 50%.

If we look at all the studies together, including one I led and presented last year, the picture becomes clearer. Patients with an ejection fraction of 50% or higher after a heart attack do not benefit from beta blockers. But patients with an ejection fraction below 50% do benefit. And this is true for both men and women.

The European guidelines from 2023, as well as the recently published American guidelines, still recommend beta blockers after most heart attacks. Many doctors are therefore reluctant to change a therapy tradition that has been in place for 40 years.

My colleagues and I are now planning to pool data from the recent large studies on patients with heart attacks and an ejection fraction of 50% or more. The results, expected later this year, will probably give definite answers about beta blockers in this population and change future guidelines.

But many patients clearly benefit from beta blockers, including those with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (with or without a prior heart attack), angina pectoris (chest pain caused by reduced blood flow to the heart), or various heart rhythm disturbances.

Beta blockers can also be prescribed for other reasons, such as high blood pressure, migraine prevention, tremors, as well as off-label use for stress and anxiety. For patients, it’s not easy to know all the reasons why beta blockers are prescribed, and in some cases, they may not be suitable at all. So I’ll end with a good, if not very novel, piece of advice: always consult your doctor before making any changes to your medication.

Tomas Jernberg’s employer (Karolinska Institutet) has received a grant from MSD for a research project performed by Dr. Jernberg but not related to this article.

– ref. Heart attack patients: do you still need beta blockers? A cardiologist explains – https://theconversation.com/heart-attack-patients-do-you-still-need-beta-blockers-a-cardiologist-explains-264409

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mark Ireland, Senior Lecturer in Energy Geoscience, Newcastle University

“We are going to get all our oil and gas out of the North Sea”, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said recently. Her promise to “maximise extraction” sets up a clash between political ambitions, economic reality and geological limits.

Reform UK has also said drilling for more oil and gas in the North Sea would be a “day one” priority. But even if the Conservatives or Reform were to be elected and lifted the current moratorium on new exploration licenses, there might not be the promised prizes of oil and gas under the seabed – or enough appetite from investors – to deliver on that promise.

BP, in those days British Petroleum, first extracted gas from under the North Sea in 1967. It marked the start of what was to become, for decades, one of the most valuable sectors of the UK economy, with more than 400 separate oil and gas fields developed to date.

But production peaked in 1999 and the North Sea now produces less than half as much as in its heyday.

It is now a “mature” basin: most of the biggest and easiest-to-develop fields have already been discovered and depleted. What remains are smaller, sometimes more remote, and often more technically challenging or expensive resources and reserves.

This is typical of ageing oil and gas provinces, where production declines even as operating costs rise. New projects must compete with oil and gas extracted from other parts of the world where it is easier and cheaper and more appealing to investors.

Finding oil and gas

Historically, only one in eight exploration wells in the North Sea led to a field producing oil and gas. That ratio has improved: between 2008 and 2017, a bit more than one in four wells led to a commercial success.

But far fewer wells are being drilled today. Even with the advances in technology, such as improved geophysical imaging which allows us to better define opportunities ahead of drilling, the big discoveries were probably made decades ago.

UK exploration wells vs offshore fields by year:

The UK government’s North Sea Transition Authority estimates there could still be around 3.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent in more than 400 undeveloped prospects. But most of these potential fields are small, isolated or technically complex. Developing them will require high oil and gas prices, fiscal stability, and a lot of investor confidence.

Politics vs geology

Even if a future government relaxes exploration licensing rules, geology will remain the bigger constraint. The North Sea is simply not as cheap as it was, and global fossil fuel giants have many other options. It is currently far cheaper to produce oil and gas in other regions, the Middle East or North Africa for example. Projects in these countries are all competing for the same capital.

Volatility in the energy sector will continue to make investors cautious. The 2015 oil price crash cut activity in the UK sector to its lowest level in decades, and it has never fully recovered. As fossil fuels are sold on the global market, political volatility, international and national, can lead to rapid shifts in investor confidence.

In the UK the introduction of a windfall tax in 2023 and changing requirements for environmental impact assessments are all making decision making on long-term projects riskier. And while the UK still needs considerable volumes of gas in future (and more modest amounts of oil) both are declining as our energy system evolves and renewable energy expand.

The UK’s mix of economic uncertainty, mature geology and smaller discoveries will make it harder to attract major international energy firms.

The future of the North Sea

That doesn’t mean the North Sea has finished as a source of oil and gas. For instance, undeveloped discoveries – where oil or gas has been confirmed but not yet produced – represent a lower-risk opportunity. But returns may be modest as many are relatively small and isolated from existing infrastructure.

New exploration licenses, if issued, might extend production modestly, but they are unlikely to deliver another game-changing discovery.

Some analysts argue that future licensing should be highly strategic, limited to projects with clear economic importance or climate compatibility. That approach could reduce reliance on imported gas, which tends to be more carbon-intensive than gas produced domestically. This would certainly make more sense than restarting fracking. But it would still not recreate the industry’s heyday.

Easy oil is over

The North Sea will still produce oil and gas for years to come, but its role will shrink. Even with friendlier policies, the era of big discoveries and rapid growth isn’t coming back.

Maximising extraction may sound appealing to politicians, but geology, economics and climate commitments all point to the North Sea’s best oil and gas days being behind it. The real challenge now is managing the investment during decline while investing in the cleaner solutions that will replace it.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Mark Ireland has previously received funding from companies with fossil fuel interests.

– ref. Plans to ‘maximise extraction’ of North Sea oil and gas would soon run into geological limits – https://theconversation.com/plans-to-maximise-extraction-of-north-sea-oil-and-gas-would-soon-run-into-geological-limits-264614

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

Why do health stories about food and cancer grab so much attention? Because they offer an enticing promise: that a single item on your plate, or even a sudden change in what you crave, might hold the key to spotting disease early.

It’s a compelling idea, but in reality the science of appetite, taste, and cancer is far messier than the headlines suggest.

This eye-catching idea oversimplifies reality. While cancer can change appetite and taste, there’s no solid evidence that a sudden craving, such as an abrupt fixation on sweets, serves as a dependable early warning signal for undiagnosed cancer.

This is a classic case where interesting clinical anecdotes and stories have been stretched into a sweeping rule that doesn’t work as a screening tool.

The grain of truth behind these headlines comes from clinical observations. Some cancer patients do report altered taste and appetite. In older case studies, patients described dramatic changes – tea suddenly tasting awful, or favourite foods becoming repulsive – sometimes before diagnosis, sometimes after treatment began.

These accounts seem compelling, but they were never designed to prove that a particular craving reliably predicts cancer. They show that cancer can affect how we taste and eat, not that a single symptom can replace proper diagnosis.

Modern research paints a more complex picture. Studies examining “altered food behaviour” around cancer cover a wide range of changes: cravings, aversions, emotional eating and treatment-related appetite shifts.

These studies look at different cancers, stages, and time points – before, during and after treatment. The overall message is that eating behaviour can change in the context of cancer, influenced by biology (inflammation and metabolism), physiology (changes to taste and smell) and psychology (stress and mood).

Read more:
Why a daily glass of milk really could reduce bowel cancer risk – an oncologist explains

What we don’t see is a specific craving pattern that reliably warns of cancer in healthy people. Appetite changes can be part of the cancer story, but they’re not a diagnostic shortcut.

It’s worth bearing in mind how common appetite changes are in everyday life. Many ordinary factors affect what tastes good and what the body wants, including medications, pregnancy, stress, quitting smoking and anaemia.

A sudden enthusiasm for a particular food might be interesting, but it rarely points to a single cause. That’s why doctors look for clusters of symptoms and lasting patterns rather than drawing conclusions from one change.

Chewing ice

There is one area where cravings connect meaningfully to health: ice chewing. Constantly chewing ice (called pagophagia) can signal iron deficiency, which has treatable causes that should be found and addressed. This is completely different from claims that tumours program sugar cravings.

Ice chewing represents a well-established link between unusual eating behaviour and a specific, testable condition. Iron deficiency itself is both common and often missed.

Iron is essential for making haemoglobin, which carries oxygen in red blood cells, and plays broader roles in energy and immune function. When levels drop, symptoms are often vague: persistent fatigue despite adequate sleep, exercise intolerance, shortness of breath and headaches, to name a few.

These overlap with many other conditions, which is why testing matters rather than guessing. Iron comes from red meat, poultry, seafood, beans, lentils, leafy greens, and fortified cereals and breads. However, a “good” diet doesn’t always guarantee adequate iron if losses are high, needs are elevated, or absorption is poor – another reason to confirm and treat the problem with proper testing.

No magic clues

Returning to the headlines, it’s easy to see why supposed tell-tale cravings capture attention. They promise a simple signal in a confusing health landscape. But medicine rarely offers magic clues.

The sensible approach is twofold. First, treat new, persistent, and unexplained changes in taste or appetite as worth noting – not panicking about. Consider the full picture: other symptoms, recent illnesses, medications, stress and overall health. If behaviour like ice chewing appears or fatigue becomes stubborn, checking for iron deficiency makes sense.

Second, for cancer risk concerns, rely on established warning signs and screening tests. Unexplained weight loss, unusual bleeding, changes in bowel habits, swallowing difficulties, new or changing lumps and age-appropriate screening catch far more cancers than chasing a single craving ever will.

Read more:
King Charles is changing his diet to keep his cancer at bay – here’s what the evidence says

The craving narrative carries another danger: it can fuel harmful behaviour, like trying to “starve” a tumour by cutting out major nutrients.

Severe restriction can cause dangerous weight loss, malnutrition and, worse, treatment tolerance, undermining recovery rather than helping. Tumours don’t outsmart sensible nutrition. What helps most is maintaining strength with a balanced diet, staying active when possible, following evidence-based screening and treatment, and using targeted tests – like iron studies – when symptoms suggest they might be helpful.

Appetite and taste are sensitive measures of health and their changes deserve attention. They’re part of the medical conversation, not a crystal ball.

If something feels wrong and stays wrong – whether that’s a new aversion to familiar foods, an odd fixation that won’t go away, or constant ice chewing – the next step isn’t to search Google for hidden meanings. Instead, talk with a doctor.

Simple tests can quickly rule out common problems, and if something more serious is happening, acting on established warning signs and screening guidelines offers the best chance of catching it early.

Justin Stebbing does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Can certain food cravings predict a cancer diagnosis, up to three months before other symptoms appear? – https://theconversation.com/can-certain-food-cravings-predict-a-cancer-diagnosis-up-to-three-months-before-other-symptoms-appear-264378

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hiroki Shin, Associate Professor of History, University of Birmingham

The confusion and commotion over cryptocurrency often reminds me of the 19th-century German drama Faust. In Goethe’s masterpiece, the devil Mephistopheles offers an emperor the tantalising vision of limitless wealth through the printing of paper money.

The emperor grasps the idea (unheard of at the time the play is set), and the magical wealth which paper creates brings brief prosperity to his troubled dominion.

But what appeared to be an inexhaustible source of value soon proves illusory. A combination of misunderstanding and hype leads to economic and moral corruption, and the empire descends into chaos.

It is a tale which could well have parallels for digital currencies now. People use them despite not fully understanding how they work, sometimes to their financial loss.

And history shows us that we should be wary of the idea that currency systems always change for the better, following some sort of natural evolutionary path. In fact, new currency systems don’t always succeed, and even when they do, monetary regime change can be a long and arduous process.

Coins and tokens were used more than 2,000 years ago, and continued through to the 19th century before paper finally dominated. Rather than a clean, irreversible shift from coins to notes, nations often alternated between the two systems.

There were failed experiments with paper money in 14th-century China, 17th-century Sweden and 18th-century France, to mention just a few.

Research on these problematic attempts suggests that social division also makes new currency shifts especially vulnerable.

During the American war of independence for example, a currency (the “continental dollar”) was briefly introduced in 1775. It was later abandoned due to mismanagement and misunderstanding, but had also served to sharpen political tensions between the patriots who supported it, and the loyalists to Britain, who detested it.

Similarly, in the 1750s and 1760s, the Swedish government issued non-redeemable paper money to pay its war debts. The consequent extreme inflation coincided with intense social division and led to a period of political chaos.

In 1789, at the start of the French Revolution, a paper form of government bond was issued, which rapidly lost its value. Seven years later, the “assignat” had become virtually worthless.

Britain fared slightly better, as I explore in my book The Age of Paper. Its departure from the metal standard in 1797, amid the financial pressures of the Anglo–French war, did not produce a collapse of the nation’s paper currency.

But the paper-based regime came to a halt in 1819, a year of bitter class conflicts, which culminated in the Peterloo massacre, where at least 18 people were killed and hundreds wounded by the cavalry at a peaceful rally for democratic reform. The public had come to detest Bank of England notes, which became a symbol of economic depression and political oppression.

Britain then followed the pattern of other nations, reverting to a traditional monetary system that rested on the solid value of precious metals.

These cases of failed paper currencies – and there are many more – show that the general acceptance of currency ultimately requires shared values and social solidarity. Paper currency works when people trust it, knowing that it has been valued and accepted by others in the past, and will be valued and accepted in the future.

It would otherwise be unlikely for a piece of paper to become a reliable means of payment and value. Once such shared values are lost, there is usually a downward cycle of currency depreciation.

Cryptic currency

In the 21st-century, cryptocurrencies challenge the conventional idea of money as something of value – or at least linked to something of value, like gold. And as something that is issued and managed by a trusted central authority.

For cryptocurrencies exist only in the realm of blockchain technology. Their value is created and maintained not by central banks, but by complex computer algorithms.

To many, all of these abstract computational processes make cryptocurrencies as mysterious as Mephistopheles’ dark magic in Faust.

Even so, with Donald Trump’s strong support, cryptocurrencies are enjoying a surge in popularity. This trend will undoubtedly be reinforced by further deregulation which means requirements for transparency will be relaxed, and safeguards for consumer protection weakened.

The rise in popularity has coincided with the US government’s apparent preference for weakening the dollar in the international currency markets as a way of boosting US exports by pushing down the prices of US goods abroad.

These events may lead to a profound transformation in the monetary system on a global scale. As the US dollar loses value and crypto regulations are relaxed, countries and investors around the world may be enticed to diversify their assets and increase their holdings of cryptocurrency.

But the combination of social division and rapid expansion may not be a positive sign for the future of cryptocurrency. Far from establishing it as a dominant medium of exchange in a new decentralised regime, history suggests that its rapid growth in a fractured society might instead accelerate its self-destruction.

Hiroki Shin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. History is full of failed attempts to establish new currencies. So what makes crypto different? – https://theconversation.com/history-is-full-of-failed-attempts-to-establish-new-currencies-so-what-makes-crypto-different-258867

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Caygill, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Nottingham Trent University

Angela Rayner has resigned as the UK’s deputy prime minister after a report found she had breached the ministerial code by not paying enough stamp duty on her second home.

In her resignation letter she said she deeply regretted what she maintained was an error, and the report from the prime minister’s ethics adviser said she had “acted with integrity” despite the breach. However, it was still enough to force Rayner, who was also housing secretary, to step down, prompting a cabinet reshuffle.

We asked Thomas Caygill, senior lecturer in politics at Nottingham Trent University, to explain what was likely to happen next and what the affair could mean for the government.

Why did Angela Rayner have to resign?

At the 2024 general election, Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised the British public that any government he led would work to clean up politics after years of Tory sleaze. When in opposition, both he and Rayner took a very firm line in response to scandals among Conservative ministers, including Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak.

So the Labour pair have, in a way, made a rod for their own backs. Rayner had no choice but to resign after the findings of the report prepared by the prime minister’s independent ethics adviser (Sir Laurie Magnus) concluded that she did not meet the “highest possible standards of proper conduct”. If you set high ethical standards, you have to meet them without exception.

What happens now?

Rayner’s resignation leaves a gap around the cabinet table. She served as both secretary of state for housing, communities and local government and deputy prime minister. The first post will need filling and has triggered a wider cabinet reshuffle.

Starmer does not necessarily need to appoint a new deputy prime minister as the role is technically a mere honorific, given to a member of the cabinet to signify seniority. The office was vacant between 2015 and 2021, for instance. However, Starmer may feel the need to shore up his position after recent rebellions amongst his own MPs.

Rayner has also resigned as deputy leader of the Labour party, a position she was directly elected to by party members and which is unconnected with the position of deputy prime minister. She did not have to resign this post as a result of the Magnus report – since it related to her conduct in ministerial office – but she presumably did so to avoid being a further distraction for the government and party.

The cabinet does have the power to appoint a temporary deputy leader or leave the position vacant until the party conference (starting on the September 28). There are some rumours that justice secretary Shabana Mahmood could be appointed as temporary deputy leader.

However there will need to be a new election with a timeline set by Labour’s National Executive Committee. There is no set time so it could be over in weeks or it could take months. It is unlikely that the NEC will meet before early next week to make that decision.

We can expect Labour’s conference (September 28 to October 1) to become a showcase of potential candidates for deputy leader. Nominees must be a Labour MP.

They will also need the support of 20% of Labour MPs and either 5% of local Labour parties (CLPs) or at least three affiliates (at least two trade unions) amounting to 5% of affiliated supporters. There will then be a vote of all party members and affiliated supporters.

Who might replace Rayner in either role?

We can probably expect the winner of the deputy party leader contest to be a big challenger to Starmer’s authority – most likely from the left of the party. Names currently being touted are Emily Thornberry (current chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee) and Rosena Allin-Khan. Both MPs served as shadow ministers while Labour were in opposition but were not invited to join the government last July after Labour’s election victory.

A challenger to Starmer is most likely given the mood of the parliamentary and wider party following poor poll ratings and recent rebellions over welfare reform. Anneliese Dodds is another potential contender. She resigned from government last year over cuts to international development.

Why is this situation so damaging for Keir Starmer?

Starmer is now in a more perilous position without Rayner. She was popular with the left of the party and seen as a key bridge between him and the wider party. Monday saw the launch of the phase two of Starmer’s government which has now been overshadowed by Rayner’s tax affairs and subsequent resignation.

Rayner was a rival to Starmer and no longer having her in government bound by collective ministerial responsibility will mean she is able to criticise the government and Starmer more vocally. She has also been key to the development and introduction of the employment rights bill, although this is now in its final stages and expected to become law in the coming months. It is undoubtedly one of her achievements in office.

She is also a northern working-class woman and her departure is symbolic in this regard, especially as Lucy Powell has also now left government as part of the wider reshuffle.

The only upside for Starmer is that he can now reshuffle his cabinet to cement phase two of his government. However, reshuffling as a result of a scandal could project government instability – something Labour promised to stop ahead of the 2024 general election. Reshuffles can be a chance to turn a moment of weakness into a moment of strength but that will be far harder in this case.

What should we expect for Rayner now?

We can expect Rayner to take a step back for now. However she remains an MP and is a vocal member of the party. In time she will likely become an active backbencher and a potentially vocal critic of the government (now that she is not bound by collective ministerial responsibility).

With just under four years left of Labour’s term, if she avoids being a critic, she could re-enter government in the future. What happens will depend on how she sees her own future.

How damaging is this for Labour?

This is damaging for the party, it has already seen a rapid decline in its poll ratings over the course of the past year. It harms the party’s reputation further, after promising change and promising to bring an end to scandal, they have been tinged by it again.

This plays into Reform UK’s hands who are trying to argue that the two main parties are cut from the same cloth. Nigel Farage will be filled with glee that this has all exploded during the Reform UK conference, where he is seeking to cement himself and his party as the real opposition to Labour.

This of course doesn’t mean Labour will lose the 2029 general election, however it is feeding a narrative that Labour will find hard to break unless it can prove to the British people that it is delivering on its promises. Starmer said on Monday that the government was moving into its delivery phase, and it’s not a moment to soon.

Thomas Caygill is currently in receipt of a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant for research on post-legislative scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament and has previously received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. What will Angela Rayner’s resignation mean for Keir Starmer’s government? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/what-will-angela-rayners-resignation-mean-for-keir-starmers-government-expert-qanda-264714

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ben Mayfield, Lecturer in Law, Lancaster University

The debate over former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner’s tax arrangements demonstrated that there are few topics more complex than the law of trusts. It was politically awkward, to say the least, when a deputy PM and housing secretary had to admit getting it wrong, and underpaying £40,000 in stamp duty.

Rayner has resigned after being found to have breached the ministerial code in the wake of the stamp duty row. That erupted after she was said to have put her share of her constituency home in Greater Manchester in trust for her son, and to have bought another home in Hove, East Sussex, paying a lower rate of stamp duty than should be owed by a second homeowner.

In Rayner’s case, a probable oversight and a trust created with legitimate intentions got caught up in legislation designed to discourage tax avoidance and ownership of a second home. Of course, it also left her open to accusations of hypocrisy, as a member of a government that championed higher taxes for second homeowners.

Earlier in the week, Rayner had said she took legal advice on the purchase. But her conveyancers then claimed not to have advised her on any additional tax liabilities that might have arisen due to the existence of a trust for her child.

So what is a trust – and why are they controversial for tax purposes?

Trusts have a long history – it’s claimed that they were established to protect the property of knights who left England to join the Crusades. But despite these medieval origins, the modern trust still has a range of uses. For most people this will be as a mechanism for the ownership of land. All land has a legal title (the paperwork held by the Land Registry proving who owns the property in law).

But in addition to the legal title there will be what’s called an equitable interest in the land – this is, the right to the financial value of it. When two or more people buy a house together they create a trust. Both names appear on the legal title and both will be entitled to a share of the equity too. Because there is a trust, one party cannot sell the house without the agreement of the other.

The case of Rayner’s constituency home is an example of how trusts are commonly used – for the protection of family assets. Children below the age of 18 are unable to own land, so if parents want to gift them land they need to use a trust. The legal title is held by a trustee such as a parent, lawyer or friend and the child is entitled to the value of the property as it is held for their benefit.

Rayner and her ex-husband are said to have created a trust which bought her share of the constituency home for the benefit of their disabled son. This followed a payout for damages in the son’s medical negligence claim.

She retained no legal ownership of the house by the time she bought the Hove flat. A parent who creates a trust like this puts the financial value beyond their own reach and would be unable to sell the land to benefit from it personally.

Where Rayner came unstuck

But the Rayner case throws up an important question. Why, in the eyes of the law, is a parent who has given their only house away to a child in trust still considered a homeowner for stamp duty purposes? This introduces another use of the trust – the legal avoidance of tax. Trusts have been used to protect family assets from taxes such as inheritance tax – and so the government has tried to close loopholes and limit these opportunities.

This is what makes this situation so damaging for Rayner. As well as raising funds for the government, property taxes have also been used to nudge behaviour. For example an additional 5% rate of stamp duty is meant to discourage homeowners from tying up a second home. House price inflation has of course made this an increasing source of revenue for the government.

Read more:
Housebuyers hate stamp duty. Why hasn’t it been reformed before now?

The law taxes the buyers of second homes more heavily than those who own only one house. This is aimed at avoiding problems such as housing shortages in holiday destinations, and the kind of social disruption seen in places affected by the ownership of second or holiday homes in areas such as Wales and the Lake District.

In his time as chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown made many such trusts subject to inheritance tax. If a homeowner was able to avoid the higher rate of stamp duty by putting their property into trust for their children, this could open a new loophole similar to that of inheritance tax, but for stamp duty.

Before her resignation, Rayner’s political opponents also noted that, as deputy prime minister, she already enjoyed the use of Admiralty House. This is a grace-and-favour apartment in Whitehall which she did not, of course, own herself.

But perhaps the biggest question the controversy has raised is this. If a housing secretary, deputy prime minister and a team of experienced land lawyers are unable to accurately divine the correct rate of stamp duty, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Ben Mayfield does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How Angela Rayner managed to underpay stamp duty – family trusts and tax avoidance explained – https://theconversation.com/how-angela-rayner-managed-to-underpay-stamp-duty-family-trusts-and-tax-avoidance-explained-264706