UK Affairs

Let’s start with a little quiz. In a British supermarket, if you purchase the following three snacks, which do you think are subject to a 20% VAT? Tortilla corn chips, Calbee chips, or Pringles? If your answer was ‘all of them,’ I’m afraid you’re mistaken. The correct answer is: corn chips are exempt from VAT, Calbee chips incur a 20% VAT, and Pringles are also subject to VAT. Many people find this answer puzzling, and it’s common for first-time listeners to be left scratching their heads.

I first took notice of this issue while shopping at Costco Wholesale. At Costco, one often encounters a subtle situation: some food items are priced with VAT included, while others require an additional 20% VAT on top of the listed price. Sometimes, when I see something that seems cheaper, I think to myself, ‘What luck today, I’ve found a bargain.’ However, upon reaching the checkout, I discover that the price was just before VAT, and my earlier excitement feels a bit premature.

My curiosity was piqued recently when I bought two bags of snacks at Lidl. One bag was Tortilla corn chips, and the other was Calbee chips. Both are crunchy snacks with similar consumption methods. Upon reviewing the receipt at home, I noticed that the corn chips had an ‘A’ next to their price, indicating a 0% VAT, while the Calbee chips had a ‘B,’ meaning an additional 20% VAT was applied. I couldn’t help but ask, ‘Both are broadly classified as

why is there such a significant difference in tax rates? Is it because Calbee is an imported product, and the tax is higher to protect local goods?

Upon further investigation, I discovered that this discrepancy stems from a rather ‘historical’ and somewhat absurd tax logic. The fundamental principle of VAT in the UK is quite straightforward: basic food items are exempt from VAT. However, the law also lists several exceptions, one of which is explicitly stated: potato crisps. Any snack classified as crisps or similar is subject to a 20% VAT. Conversely, snacks made from corn, rice, or other grains can often be categorized as ordinary food, and thus are exempt from VAT. This leads to a rather amusing outcome: corn chips are exempt from VAT, but crisps are not.

The situation became even more intriguing when this rule was taken to court. The protagonist of this story is the well-known Pringles. The manufacturer believed it was being wrongly taxed, leading to the famous case of Procter & Gamble versus the UK tax authorities. Their argument was somewhat unconventional: Pringles are not actually crisps. Pringles contain only about 42% potato; the remaining ingredients include wheat starch and other materials, and they are produced through a process of molding rather than slicing and frying potatoes. In other words, they aimed to prove that ‘Pringles are a processed snack, not crisps.’

The proceedings became quite dramatic. The court began discussing questions typically reserved for snack conversations, such as: Are Pringles crunchy? Do they dissolve in the mouth like crisps? Do consumers consider them crisps? There were even claims that court officials actually sampled the product. Imagine the scene: judges sitting in court, reviewing legal texts while munching on Pringles. ‘Hmm, quite crunchy.’ ‘And they do dissolve in the mouth.’ ‘Feels similar to crisps.’ If someone happened to walk past the courthouse, they would find it hard to believe that a serious legal debate was underway, centered on the question: ‘Does this item qualify as a crisp?’

Ultimately, the court concluded that regardless of how one defines it, Pringles taste, look, and feel like crisps. Therefore, the ruling was straightforward: Pringles are indeed crisps and thus subject to VAT. Many people question why the tax authorities do not simply amend these peculiar rules. The reasons are quite pragmatic. First, food VAT involves a substantial amount of revenue. Arbitrarily redefining terms could impact the pricing of the entire food market. Second, if the government attempts to redefine ‘snacks,’ things could become even more complicated. For instance, do popcorn and cookies count as snacks? What about energy bars? This could lead to even more bizarre court debates.

Consequently, the government’s choice is often to leave things as they are, as long as they continue to function. For consumers, there are a few tips to keep in mind. When shopping in the UK, a simple rule to remember is: crisps usually incur VAT, ice cream typically incurs VAT, but many ordinary food items do not, especially when shopping at wholesale stores like Costco. It’s wise to check whether the listed prices include VAT; otherwise, you might be in for a little surprise at checkout. Nevertheless, even with this tax knowledge, I will likely continue purchasing Calbee chips and Pringles, even if it means paying a bit more VAT. After all, life is too short to worry about a 20% tax on a bag of crisps.

Why do UK student loans often appear impossible to repay? The reason is not simply the size of the debt, but the way the system is designed. In practice the UK student loan functions less like a conventional loan and more like a graduate tax, except that the tax stops once the loan and interest have been fully repaid.

Students in England can usually borrow two types of loans while at university. The first is a tuition fee loan, which pays the university directly. The tuition fee cap for domestic students in England is currently £9,535 per year. The second is a maintenance loan, paid directly to the student to cover rent, food, transport or other living costs. Students can spend this money as they wish. Because the maintenance loan is substantial, the total amount borrowed over three years often exceeds £50,000.

The key feature of the system is income-contingent repayment. Graduates only begin repaying once their income exceeds a certain threshold. For those who started university between 2012 and 2022, this is known as Plan 2. The repayment threshold in 2025 is £27,295, and the government has announced that it will rise to £28,470 from April 2025. Graduates repay 9 percent of income above this threshold. If earnings fall below the threshold, no repayment is required.

The amount repaid therefore depends on income rather than the total debt. Suppose a graduate earns £38,470 a year. With a threshold of £28,470, the income above the threshold is £10,000, meaning annual repayments of £900, or about £75 per month. Whether the outstanding loan is £40,000 or £70,000 does not change the repayment that year.

Plan 2 loans also have a time limit. Any remaining balance is written off 30 years after repayments begin. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) suggests that only about a quarter of borrowers will fully repay their loans under this system. Most borrowers will still have a balance outstanding when the write-off occurs.

The system therefore behaves very much like a graduate tax. Higher earners repay more and are more likely to clear the full balance. Lower earners may repay only part of the loan before the remaining amount is written off by the government. Once the loan and interest have been fully repaid, deductions stop immediately.

Interest rates are also income dependent. Under Plan 2 the rate is based on the Retail Price Index with an additional margin of up to three percentage points. Students are normally charged RPI plus three percent while studying. After graduation the rate varies with income. Only the highest earners pay the maximum RPI plus three percent, while those on lower incomes pay interest closer to RPI alone.

Another less discussed feature is the repayment threshold itself. The system was originally designed so that the threshold would rise with inflation. In practice, however, governments have sometimes frozen the threshold and at other times increased it substantially. As a result, borrowers from different cohorts may face very different effective repayment burdens even under the same scheme. If student loans are effectively a graduate tax, the threshold arguably should be tied to inflation in law rather than adjusted at political discretion.

The UK student loan system also contains several different plans. Plan 1 applies mainly to students who began university before 2012 in England or Wales. Interest rates are generally lower under this plan. Plan 3 covers postgraduate loans, including both master’s and doctoral programmes. Plan 4 applies to students from Scotland and operates similarly to Plan 1 but with a higher repayment threshold.

Students starting university in England from 2023 fall under a new system known as Plan 5. The repayment threshold is lower and the repayment period has been extended to 40 years. Interest is fixed at the rate of inflation, measured by the Retail Price Index, without the additional margin used under Plan 2.

Understanding UK student loans therefore requires looking beyond the headline debt figure. What matters is not the size of the loan but the repayment rules. In practice the system functions like a graduate tax with an upper limit. The real policy question is not whether the debt can be repaid in full, but whether this structure remains a stable and transparent way to share the cost of higher education.

Beside Tower Bridge in London lies a warship that truly saw combat. She is not a replica, not a prop, but a steel vessel that emerged from the storms of the North Sea and the gunfire of the Korean War. HMS Belfast rests quietly on the Thames, yet the moment you step onto her deck, you realise this is no ordinary attraction, but a chapter of history you can physically enter.

Launched in 1938, this light cruiser took part in Arctic convoys, helped sink the German battleship Scharnhorst, and opened fire on the French coast during the D-Day landings in 1944. After the Second World War, she sailed to Asia and carried out bombardment missions during the Korean War. These are not just a few lines on an information board. They are gun turrets you can touch, a bridge and engine room you can see with your own eyes. Standing beside the great guns on the forward deck, looking out at the glass façades and skyline of modern London, you may suddenly sense that today’s prosperity and calm were once secured at the cost of steel and lives.

A recent news report has added a layer of warmth to this warship. The BBC told of a Hong Kong family who, while visiting the ship, unexpectedly found their grandfather’s name in the crew records, confirming that he had served on board during the Korean War. For that family, the visit was not merely an exhibition but a reunion with their own history. HMS Belfast is not only a symbol of Britain’s military past. It is also connected to Hong Kong, to the Far East, and to many Chinese who served under the structures of the Empire. As you walk through the narrow passageways below deck, you may find yourself thinking of your own elders and the stories they never fully told.

HMS Belfast is managed by the Imperial War Museums and forms part of its wider network. IWM members can enter free of charge. For non members, tickets cost about £26 for adults and around £13 for children aged five to fifteen, with free entry for those under five. Admission includes access to multiple decks and interactive exhibition areas. By London standards, it is a substantial and distinctive experience.

It is worth noting that this is a real warship converted into a museum. The corridors are narrow and the stairs steep. It may not be suitable for everyone, particularly those with limited mobility or sensitivity to enclosed spaces. Yet that very constraint makes the experience authentic. You are not reading history in a flat gallery space. You are moving through steel and rivets, sensing the living and fighting conditions of sailors decades ago. That level of immersion is rare in conventional museums.

London does not lack attractions. Yet places that invite quiet reflection are fewer than one might think. Next time you walk past Tower Bridge, consider setting aside half a day to come aboard. Stand on the deck with the river wind in your face, look at the city as it is today, and reflect on the gunfire and distant voyages that once shaped it. The visit may carry more weight than you expect.

In the UK, a few pounds can take you hundreds of miles. This is not a sporadic promotion, but rather a result of a mature market.

The long-distance bus market in the UK is primarily dominated by three operators: National Express, FlixBus, and Megabus. These companies compete through online direct sales and dynamic pricing, allowing tickets to be purchased for as little as a few pounds if booked in advance. Routes such as London to Manchester and Birmingham to Edinburgh, which span 200 to 400 miles, often cost less than a single fare on a local train.

The low prices are supported by a cost structure that works. Long-distance buses operate with high-density seating, and online ticket sales reduce intermediaries, resulting in high fleet utilization. Most importantly, dynamic pricing plays a crucial role: the earlier you book, the cheaper the fare, while prices rise during peak times. This is similar to the logic used by airlines, but with a lower barrier to entry. Those who plan ahead can exchange minimal costs for long-distance travel.

Time is the primary trade-off. A journey that takes 2 hours by train may take 4 to 6 hours by bus, with traffic congestion on highways being unavoidable. The onboard facilities range from practical to minimal; most buses are equipped with air conditioning, charging sockets, and onboard restrooms, but hygiene standards depend on passenger usage, so expectations should be tempered.

Long-distance buses also fill the gaps left by rail services. Early morning and late-night services between Heathrow and Gatwick airports are often more reliable than trains. When rail fares are exorbitant or services are cancelled at short notice, buses become a predictable alternative.

Traveling hundreds of miles for a few pounds is essentially a trade-off. Passengers exchange time for price advantages and comfort for distance. For students and those on a budget, this is a rational choice; for those who prioritize efficiency, it may not be worth it. However, the availability of such options contributes to market flexibility.

In an era of rising transportation costs, long-distance buses maintain the lowest threshold for intercity mobility. They are neither glamorous nor fast, but they are practical. The question is not whether they are good enough, but how much more you are willing to pay for a faster option.

On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 to overturn the extensive global tariffs imposed by President Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This case transcends a mere trade dispute; it is a significant ruling regarding the constitutional boundaries of power. The issue at hand is not whether the tariffs had political support, but whether the president had the authority to impose them.

Beginning in April 2025, Trump declared a state of economic emergency, imposing a baseline tariff of at least 10% on imports from most trading partners, with even higher rates for certain countries and products. The White House justified this move by citing trade deficits, supply chain risks, and national security concerns related to the influx of fentanyl. The administration argued that the law granted the president the authority to regulate imports during an emergency, thereby encompassing tariff measures.

However, businesses and several state governments filed lawsuits, arguing that the law did not explicitly authorize the president to impose tariffs. Tariffs are fundamentally a form of taxation, and the U.S. Constitution clearly grants the power to levy taxes and tariffs to Congress. The executive branch may adjust tariffs under explicit congressional authorization, but it cannot unilaterally create a new comprehensive taxation tool. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

The majority of justices noted that when a law involves significant economic and political implications, Congress must express its authorization for the executive branch to act in clear and specific terms. General emergency authorization clauses cannot be extended to serve as a basis for reshaping the entire tariff system. This encapsulates the core spirit of the so-called major questions doctrine. In other words, the boundaries of executive power cannot be defined by the executive itself.

Dissenting opinions argued that trade policy falls within the political realm and should be managed by elected officials. However, the majority opinion emphasized that precisely because the policy has far-reaching effects, judicial review is necessary to ensure the legitimacy of the source of power. The judiciary does not interfere in politics; rather, it upholds the baseline of the system.

As for whether tariffs already collected need to be refunded, this remains a technical and procedural issue. Generally, when tariffs are deemed illegal by a court, affected businesses can apply for refunds through customs and court procedures. If the ruling is retroactive, theoretically, illegal taxes should be refunded; if it only restricts future collections, the approach may differ. Specific arrangements will depend on the details of administrative execution and subsequent legal processes.

The significance of this ruling extends beyond a single trade policy victory or defeat; it reaffirms the constitutional framework. Congress legislates, the president executes, and the judiciary reviews—each branch has its distinct role and mutual checks and balances. When the executive branch seeks to expand its power under the guise of a state of emergency, the role of the courts is to delineate the boundaries.

The overturning of Trump’s tariffs does not signify the end of trade disputes, nor does it imply the disappearance of political divisions. It serves as a reminder that the President of the United States is not a monarch endowed with divine right. True democracy lies not only in electoral outcomes but also in institutional design; it rests not only on authorization but also on the balance of power.