Author name: 胡思

In the UK, most households rely on gas boilers for heating and hot water. This quietly operating machine accounts for a significant portion of household energy expenditure, yet many have never adjusted the water temperature, resulting in years of wasted money and unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, simply lowering the flow temperature a bit can keep homes warm while substantially reducing costs.

Government guidelines are clear: for system boilers with a hot water tank, the flow temperature should be set at 60°C to prevent Legionnaires’ disease; for combi boilers, which do not have a tank and carry a lower risk, the hot water temperature can be set even lower, such as 55°C. The risk of Legionnaires’ disease is already low in typical homes, especially since Hong Kong residents tend to shower daily, leading to frequent water use and preventing hot water from stagnating in pipes. The real high-risk settings are large buildings like offices, shopping malls, and hotels, where complex piping and uneven water usage patterns make stagnation more likely.

Many believe that lowering the flow temperature will make indoor spaces uncomfortably cool, but this is a misconception. For most UK homes, a heating flow temperature of 55°C to 60°C is sufficient for daily needs. In rare cases where insulation is poor or radiators are undersized, it may feel less warm, but simply adjusting the dial higher poses no risk.

Why do many boiler dials feature an ‘e’, typically set around 67°C? This is a relic from the past, marking the ‘economy mode’ based on the thinking of non-condensing boilers: heat quickly at high temperatures and then shut off with the thermostat, believing that ‘high heat on, quick off’ is more gas-efficient. However, most modern boilers are condensing types, which can recover heat from the flue gases if the return water temperature is low enough, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, the ‘e’ at 67°C is outdated today.

A more practical reason is that gas engineers often raise the flow temperature during annual inspections to allow radiators to warm up more quickly for testing, but they frequently forget to reset it afterward. As a result, many households mistakenly believe that higher temperatures represent the ‘correct setting’, leading to increased gas consumption year after year.

Adjusting the temperature is straightforward: simply turn the dial. Typically, the boiler panel will have separate temperature settings for ‘heating’ and ‘hot water’. Set the heating to around 55°C or 60°C, and adjust the hot water according to personal needs, with the option to revert at any time.

How much can one save? For a typical three-bedroom UK household, lowering the heating flow temperature from 67°C to 55°C could conservatively reduce gas usage by about 6% to 10%. If annual gas expenses are around £1,000, this translates to annual savings of approximately £60 to £100; the more gas consumed, the greater the savings. Coupled with an appropriate heating schedule and room temperature settings, actual savings could be even higher, with no noticeable difference in indoor comfort.

When discussing heating, one cannot overlook TRVs (thermostatic radiator valves). Many people feel their radiators are not warm enough and turn the TRV to 5, mistakenly believing that higher settings yield more heat. In reality, the TRV numbers indicate the target room temperature, with 3 roughly equating to 20°C, which is comfortable enough. If a radiator is occasionally cold, it does not necessarily mean the heating is off; it could simply mean the room has reached the desired temperature or that the boiler is temporarily paused according to the schedule. Radiators do not need to be hot all day, as this would only waste energy.

While this article discusses how to use gas boilers more efficiently, in the long run, heat pumps remain a superior solution for heating and hot water. Gas boilers achieve a maximum efficiency of about 90%, whereas heat pumps can deliver three to four times that, outputting more heat from the same unit of electricity, far surpassing traditional equipment in efficiency.

Lowering the dial does not change habits or reduce warmth, yet it can save money, gas, and emissions. If millions of households are willing to lower their flow temperatures slightly, the national gas consumption would significantly decline, and your winter would remain just as warm, only more economical, contributing to the protection of the planet.

In the UK, most households own and use a dishwasher daily; many Hongkongers even jokingly refer to it as a ‘family harmoniser’. Unfortunately, a significant number of Hongkongers persist in handwashing their dishes after moving to the UK, believing that ‘washing by hand is cleaner’. This results in unnecessary effort, waste, and a complete mismatch with the cost structure of living in the UK.

First, let’s discuss water usage. Water bills in the UK are expensive, approximately five times that of Hong Kong. Handwashing dishes consumes 30–40 litres of clean water per session, and in winter, one must first run cold water before hot water is available. In contrast, an A-rated dishwasher requires only 9–12 litres for an entire cycle. Handwashing daily wastes an additional 20–30 litres, easily leading to extra water bills amounting to several dozen pounds annually. In the UK, handwashing dishes merely pours money down the drain.

Next, consider energy consumption. Using more hot water naturally leads to higher gas or electricity usage, and during handwashing, the water temperature drops quickly. If the water is too hot, it burns the hands, forcing one to use lukewarm water that is both energy-inefficient and less effective at removing grease. Dishwashers, however, can maintain temperatures above 60°C for extended periods, and the combination of high temperatures and powerful water circulation ensures thorough sterilisation and grease removal, far surpassing the effectiveness of handwashing. The common belief that ‘dishwashers don’t clean well’ is merely an outdated notion; the cleaning capabilities of machines are far more reliable than several rounds of handwashing.

Another deeply ingrained myth is the belief that dishes must be rinsed before being placed in the machine. In reality, this is entirely unnecessary. The enzymes in dishwasher tablets are specifically designed to break down grease; one only needs to scrape off large food residues without rinsing. If additional cleanliness is desired, a small amount of dishwasher powder or liquid can be added to the pre-wash compartment or directly in the machine. This allows the initial water flow to soften stains, enabling a more thorough clean during the main wash.

Time is also a cost factor. Handwashing a meal’s worth of dishes—washing, rinsing, drying, and putting away—takes at least ten minutes. With two meals a day, that adds up to an hour and a half per week. A dishwasher, on the other hand, simply requires loading the dishes, pressing a button, and leaving. The true savings are not just in water and electricity, but in life itself. Household chores often lead to disputes; by letting machines take over, unnecessary tensions are naturally reduced, which is why dishwashers are dubbed ‘family harmonisers’.

To maximise the efficiency of a dishwasher, maintenance is not complicated. In areas with hard water, descaling every three months can maintain heating efficiency. Beyond that, little else is required; dishwashers are designed to make life easier.

Environmental protection begins with daily actions. The kitchen is a major consumer of household water; if all households in the country switched from handwashing to dishwashing, the water and electricity saved would offset some industrial emissions. Dishwashers are not a luxury but a rational choice; handwashing is not diligent but stubborn. In the UK, where water, electricity, and time are costly, entrusting dishwashing to machines is the most economical and civilised way of living.

Hong Kong is renowned worldwide for its simple tax system, yet its former colonial power, the United Kingdom, has taken a completely opposite path. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) criticizes that the latest budget not only failed to simplify the tax system but instead made it more fragmented, harder to understand, and more challenging to determine who ultimately bears the tax burden.

First, consider income tax. The current tax rates in the UK are clearly divided into three brackets: 20%, 40%, and 45%. For many years, salaries, rents, and interest have all been taxed progressively at the same rates. While this system is not ideal, at least the calculations were straightforward. The new system, however, imposes an additional 2% tax on rents, interest, and dividends, while salaries and pensions remain unaffected, and capital gains tax (CGT) retains its original two-tier structure. This appears to be a mere adjustment, but income tax in the UK is calculated not by type of income but by ‘total income’ filling the tax brackets progressively. Once a certain type of income is taxed, the entire structure shifts, making calculations increasingly convoluted.

Take an example to illustrate this confusion: an individual earns a salary of £40,000 and has an additional £20,000 from rents, interest, and dividends. With a total income of £60,000, the salary fills the basic tax bracket first, meaning that the £20,000 must be split into two segments: the portion within the basic tax bracket is taxed at 20% + 2%, while the portion within the higher tax bracket is taxed at 40% + 2%. Interest adds further complexity, as the tax-free allowance depends on total income, which could be £1,000, £500, or even £0. When income reaches £60,000, only £500 remains, which must first be deducted as exempt before recalculating within the tax brackets. Dividends already have their own tax rates (8.75%, 33.75%, 39.35%), and now face an additional uniform 2% tax, intertwining with other income taxes; CGT is calculated separately at either 20% or 24%. The result is that the same sum of money may traverse multiple tax brackets, apply various rates, and deduct different allowances. Even local taxpayers find this bewildering, let alone foreign investors.

Next, consider the mansion tax. The UK originally had only one local property tax, the council tax, which, while based on outdated valuations from 1991, at least constituted a single system. The government has now introduced an additional mansion tax alongside the old system, effectively operating two separate logics: the old system based on outdated valuations and the new system based on current market value. This has significantly increased administrative costs and further complicated the system, yet it does not address the real issues. Why not take this opportunity to conduct a comprehensive revaluation and modernize the council tax into a clear property tax that reflects current property prices?

The tax system becomes increasingly fragmented, and the root cause is not technical but political. Politicians lack vision and courage, fearing to confront entrenched interests and offend voters, opting instead for seemingly light measures that complicate the system further. As a result, direction is lost, principles are abandoned, and the system becomes more chaotic. Even basic tax matters require expert decoding, making discussions about attracting foreign investment and promoting growth seem futile.

The immigration cycle in the UK is undergoing a dramatic shift. Recent data indicates that by June 2025, the long-term net migration has plunged to 204,000, a staggering decrease of two-thirds from the previous year’s figure of 649,000—a speed of decline unprecedented in history.

Hongkongers are also beginning to reverse course. To date, over 2,000 Hong Kong residents have left the UK. The BNO scheme has issued more than 220,000 visas, with approximately 180,000 people having arrived in the UK. This initial wave of returnees may be small, but it symbolizes a new reality: even the most stable group is starting to waver.

What is causing this hesitation? The cost of living is certainly one factor, but the uncertainty surrounding policies is even more unsettling. The government’s recently released immigration white paper imposes conditions such as the B2 English requirement and a £12,570 income threshold—requirements that did not exist at the time of arrival—on Hongkongers already in the UK. The constant changes in rules make it difficult for families to establish long-term plans. For many who are renewing or applying for visas, the question of whether further thresholds will be added in the future has become a new source of anxiety.

The sharp decline in immigration also carries fiscal consequences. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has consistently pointed out that higher net immigration generally helps improve public finances, as immigrants are predominantly of working age, contributing more in taxes while utilizing fewer services. The net migration has now plummeted from over 600,000 to 204,000, indicating a reduction in the labor force, a shrinking tax base, and increased fiscal pressure.

Had it not been for the drastic reduction in immigration, Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt would not have needed to break election promises and impose significant tax increases. With a smaller population, income naturally declines; relying on tax increases to support finances is a causal relationship, not mere coincidence.

This brings us to the core issue: as net migration retreats to 204,000, repatriation begins, and fiscal constraints tighten due to a shrinking population, does the UK still need to tighten its immigration policy further?

In the foreseeable future, the UK will continue to face challenges such as labor shortages, a lack of healthcare workers, and an aging population, all while fiscal pressures mount. The answer is clear: immigration is not the problem but rather a solution to these issues. Raising immigration thresholds will only narrow the tax base, exacerbate fiscal deficits, and render social problems increasingly unmanageable.

As the tide of migration recedes and repatriation begins, immigration policies continue to tighten. If the direction of policy does not change, the UK will ultimately pay a longer-term and heavier price.

Mold in British homes is not merely a matter of bad luck; it is the result of a long-term misalignment among aging buildings, expensive energy, and lifestyle habits. Mold grows on walls as well as in the gaps of the system.

A significant portion of British housing was constructed in the last century or even earlier, originally relying on gaps and chimneys for ventilation. At that time, windows were not sealed, allowing moisture to dissipate naturally. Later, in an effort to improve insulation, double-glazed windows and sealed doors were installed nationwide, trapping heat but cutting off ventilation. As winter arrives, residents close their windows to keep warm, and some families, due to high energy costs, refrain from using heating for extended periods, causing walls to become cold. Warm, moist air condenses upon contact with cold walls, leading to persistent dampness and the quiet proliferation of mold in window frames, corners, and behind wardrobes.

The tragedy of Awaab Ishak serves as a mirror that British society is reluctant to face. This two-year-old child died after prolonged exposure to mold, despite repeated pleas for help from his family that went unheeded. This is not a natural phenomenon but rather a consequence of neglected public housing, strained local government finances, and ineffective management. When the most vulnerable find it hardest to stay dry, dampness transcends mere weather issues to become an extension of inequality.

Winter provides optimal conditions for mold. The British winter is damp and cold, often punctuated by sudden rain, making it nearly impossible to dry clothes outdoors. Residents are left with no choice but to hang wet garments indoors. However, in a low-temperature, poorly ventilated environment, drying a batch of clothes is akin to pouring several liters of water into the home, causing humidity to spike overnight. Many believe that tumble dryers consume too much electricity and thus avoid them; however, this notion is outdated. Heat pump dryers are highly efficient, using approximately 0.7–1.0 kWh per drying cycle, costing only about 20–30 pence at current electricity prices, significantly cheaper than older condenser dryers. Some opt for dehumidifiers, which, while better than nothing, are time-consuming and struggle to maintain a sealed room, making them less effective than heat pump dryers.

On the other hand, ventilation is the aspect most easily overlooked in the UK. Closing windows in winter is a natural reaction, but ventilation openings should not be blocked. Many residents seal trickle vents or small air holes in doors to conserve heat, effectively trapping moisture indoors. In fact, insulation itself does not cause mold; proper use of heating and maintaining air circulation can actually help reduce condensation. The problem often arises when two issues occur simultaneously: not using heating and sealing off ventilation.

As for structural solutions, the increasingly popular MVHR (Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery) system in Europe is worth noting. It can retain indoor heat while ventilating, only expelling moisture, thereby reducing heat loss and keeping the air dry—a long-term solution. However, in the UK, the adoption of this technology has been slow, and policies have not strongly promoted it.

The prevalence of mold in British homes is not a fate but a byproduct of a flawed combination: tighter housing, rising heating costs, and outdated lifestyles. By maintaining appropriate heating, not blocking ventilation, and using tumble dryers, mold can be significantly curtailed. The key to mold prevention is not merely purchasing more mold removers but rather allowing moisture to escape, preventing walls from becoming cold, and enabling residents to live comfortably.