Tough words won't cut it

Tweet

 

In their response to Trump’s support for Putin’s position on Ukraine, the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Finland, along with the presidents of the European Council and European Commission, issued a strongly worded statement, in which they made clear their view that “Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine‘s pathway to EU and NATO”, and “International borders must not be changed by force.” Brave words, but ultimately meaningless. Putin does not need a direct veto on Ukraine’s membership of Nato when his willing puppet in the White House has one, and has made it clear that he’s ready to use it. And the international borders of Ukraine have effectively already been changed by force. Indeed, the whole history of international borders shows that force is the most usual way in which they are changed. There are few – if any – international borders which are not the result of armed conflict at some point in the past. We might wish that the world had learned better by now, but it hasn’t, and the fine words of an assorted group of leaders don’t change that.

The situation in Ukraine remains where it has been for the last three years, with only three potential outcomes. The first is that Ukraine’s allies provide the resources, both weaponry and personnel, to defeat Russia and restore previous boundaries. There is little doubt that the capacity to do this exists, although whether it would ignite an even bigger problem is an unknown. The second is that Ukraine’s allies continue to supply just about enough weaponry to keep the war going until one or both sides – most probably Ukraine, as the smaller of the two – lose the will and the manpower to continue fighting. The third is that some sort of accommodation is reached with Putin under which new de facto, if not necessarily de jure, borders are agreed. None of these is palatable, but only one offers the hope of an early end to the slaughter.

Leaders like to be seen to be talking tough, but tough rhetoric solves little. As a statement of the way the world should be, it’s hard to fault what they say; but as a recognition of reality it’s a dismal failure. And what’s lacking above all is any sense of an understanding that the world isn’t as they want it to be – let alone of the fact that they are some of the key players who should be working to change the way the world works.

Does homelessness stop Trump getting the Nobel Prize?

Tweet

 

Lurking somewhere in the back of my mind is a vague recollection of a TV series fronted by James Burke back in the 1980s in which he explained how a change – sometimes quite a small change – in one factor could lead to large changes in apparently unrelated fields. Or maybe that rogue memory is based on one of Douglas Adams’ books: he was, as I recall, something of a proponent of the idea of the interconnectedness of everything. In any event, it set me to wondering whether Trump’s clampdown on homelessness and crime – the scale of which is, in his vivid imagination, enormous – in Washington DC is related to his overwhelming desire to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Bear with me here.

We know that he strongly believes that he is entitled to the award, and cannot tolerate the fact that Obama was given one and he has not been. The desire runs to extreme lengths, with reports today that he personally phoned the Norwegian Finance Minister, as the latter was going about his business on the streets of Oslo, to tell him that he wanted the prize. Just for good measure, he also discussed possible tariffs. No connection between the two things I’m sure, and certainly not a case of ‘nice country you’ve got there; shame if anything bad happened to it’. Maybe.

We also know that he seriously believes that bombing Iran was what ended the brief war with Israel and should therefore be counted as part of his record of bringing peace to troubled places. And we know, because he’s told us, repeatedly, that he is the only man who can end the Russia Ukraine war, and that he stands a 75% chance of doing just that in Alaska today. I hesitate to make such a wild claim, but it is at least possible that he has enough self-awareness to know that pulling off such a deal might just improve his chances of being invited to Oslo. But one of the obstacles to such a deal is, in his view, whether and to what extent Putin respects both Trump and the US. An objective observer might see that as problematic, given that Putin seemingly respects almost no-one, but I’m sure that it doesn’t look that way to Trump.

And that brings us back to the imagined disaster zone as which Trump sees Washington DC. He’s already told us that the rest of the world disrespects the US because of the dirt, crime and homelessness which exists in defiant denial of all statistical evidence to the contrary, and that he’s going to clean up the imaginary mess in order to earn back that respect. The route to winning his much-coveted prize therefore runs through deploying the National Guard to bulldoze homelessness camps, deport anyone who he doesn’t like the look of, and clear the slums. I realise that there is a danger in making his acts look almost rational, but it’s an explanation which might actually be closer to the truth than anything else.

Double standards usually apply

Tweet

 

It’s probably reasonable to assume that US Vice President Vance didn’t know that he needed a licence to go fishing on the lake at Chevening. Whether he would be so indulgent about a visitor to the US breaking a local law of which (s)he was ignorant is another question, but being fair-minded and reasonable doesn’t depend on reciprocity. Lammy, however, and the staff at Chevening should have known, and he certainly would have known had he been an avid angler.

It's apparently a non-trivial offence: it seems that the fine for fishing without the requisite licence is up to £2,500, even if you’re fishing in your own lake on your own land to which there is no public access, although unless you’re dull enough to invite a photographer to film the crime, you’re unlikely to be caught. It does sound a bit like what politicians normally like to call unnecessary red tape. In Lammy’s defence, inviting a photographer to capture the scene is hardly the action of someone who knows that he is breaking the law. My best guess is that he’s never fished before, and angling is one of those life-long passions which politicians suddenly remember when a good photo-op presents itself. That, though, begs the question – where did the rods come from? It’s possible that they are kept at Chevening for the use of guests (which might make this a case of serial offending) or that some underling was sent out to acquire them. In either case, someone should have known that a permit was required, even if that someone wasn’t Lammy himself.

Lammy has owned up to the problem, paid for a licence and apologised, and that seems to be the end of the matter. I can’t help wondering, though, whether offering to pay for a licence retrospectively would have worked the same magic for those who have been fined for similar offences, or whether double standards are in operation. Lammy has actually handled it rather well – none of the usual bluster about no wrongdoing, just a rapid apology and retrospective purchase of a licence. It does still, though, underline the eternal truth: them what owns or controls the land can get away with more than the rest of us.

Idiocy is what got him the job

Tweet

 

According to the US Ambassador to Israel this week, if Sir Starmer had been the UK’s PM during the Second World War, we’d all be speaking German now. He’s not the first to use the “…all be speaking German now if it weren’t for” (insert saviour of choice here) line, and he probably won’t be the last. It’s like some sort of bizarre corollary of Godwin’s Law, except in this case it’s an argument of first resort rather than last. Those deploying the line usually seem to think it’s an absolute killer line, but all it really demonstrates is an ignorance of history, especially linguistic history.

Even had the outcome of that war been different, the probability that the German overlords would have been able to replace the languages of all the conquered peoples with their own in such a historically short timescale are pretty much negligible. For evidence, one has only to look at what was, perhaps, the single most prolific attempted perpetrator of linguistic and cultural elimination in history, namely the UK itself, in its then guise of the British Empire (and it was, incidentally, the British Empire which declared war on Germany, not the UK). Whilst the language of the colonial administration might have been English, most people in the conquered realms continued speaking their own languages throughout the period of colonisation. And here in Wales, half a millennium of attempted linguistic cleansing succeeded only in reducing the use of Welsh, not eliminating it.

But the real problem with it as a line of argument is the way in which it reduces the consequences of conquest to a rather simplistic question about which language people end up speaking. It wasn't even relevant to the ambassador’s underlying point, which was that providing food to a starving population who have been driven from their homes by a completely disproportionate response by Israel somehow equates to a capitulation to Hamas: he would clearly prefer them to starve to death. Labour’s Emily Thornbury was surely right in saying that “This Ambassador is clearly an idiot,” but isn’t being an idiot his prime qualification for serving as part of the Trump administration?

Throwing people probably wouldn't help

Tweet

 

Yesterday, in advance of Trump’s meeting with Putin later this week to redraw Ukraine’s boundaries, Sir Starmer warned the world that he wouldn’t trust Vladimir Putin “as far as you can throw him”. It’s another of those rare occasions when Sir Starmer has spoken half sensibly. Only half mind, because there is also a major question about the trustworthiness of Trump. And looking at the two men, if it came to a distance throwing contest, I reckon that most of us might be able to throw Putin a millimetre or two further than Trump. It’s probably something to do with the Big Mac consumption ratio.

And that’s the problem with Sir Starmer’s statement backing Trump’s interventions over the Ukraine war: neither of the two parties can be trusted. Putin’s motivation is to get US recognition of his control over as much of Ukraine as possible; Trump’s appears to be earning himself a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the bloodshed, at least long enough for him to get to Oslo and collect it, regardless of whether any peace is just or lasting. Most of Europe is saying that Ukraine must be part of any agreement – the country must not simply be carved up between Trump and Putin.

Sadly, the truth about the world in which we live (rather then the one in which we might prefer to live) is that two dictators, each heavily armed with the means to wipe us all out, meeting in Alaska can and will carve up Ukraine and, come to that, any other country that they choose (a side-deal on Greenland, maybe, as a quid pro quo?), and no-one can stop them. Without US support, unless the rest of the world – and particularly Europe – is willing to commit resources, including military personnel, to the defence of Ukraine, then the ultimate outcome is certain, with only the timescale in doubt. It’s not fair, it’s not right, it’s not just, it’s not the sort of world most of us would want, but Trump is surely right to say the cards are stacked against Ukraine. He should know – he’s the one who stacked them.

For decades, we have lived under the delusion that the world order is rules-based, but the US has always had a shaky commitment, at best, to that concept, and has abandoned it completely under Trump. The truth is that we live in a world where the powerful can and do impose their will on those less strong than themselves – Trump has merely shredded the pretence that things were otherwise. Might is right, in practice if not in theory. With the US having gone rogue, the choice is between telling Zelensky to fight to the last Ukrainian, or advising him to accept that some territorial loss is the price of peace, and concentrating on getting back the stolen children and rebuilding what’s left of Ukraine, with absolutely no guarantee that Putin won’t try and grab more of the country in a few years time. It’s not a pleasant choice, but not choosing the second means that Sir Starmer is effectively choosing the first. Slathered in a good dose of meaningless rhetoric about the evil Putin.

How we get to a position where the world can get back to at least the pretence of having a rules-based international order is a much bigger question, to which none of us have the answer. But we can at least start by asking the question, something which Sir Starmer seems unable to comprehend.

A convenient lie

Tweet

 

One of the convenient lies we are told on a regular basis is that governments and politicians make the laws, but the way in which those laws are enforced is ‘an operational matter’, entirely in the hands of individual police forces, who set their own priorities when it comes to using the limited resources allocated to them by those same governments and politicians. Thus it was parliament, at the behest of the Home Secretary, which declared that showing any sort of support for Palestine Action was itself a terrorist act, punishable by up to 14 years in prison, but it was the Metropolitan Police who decided that this was such a high priority that it justified arresting over 500 people, many of them for doing little more than holding up a placard, and then bailing them on suspicion of terrorism.

Maybe the Home Secretary, an authoritarian to her fingernails, didn’t actually tell the Met that she wanted the maximum number of arrests to be made. Maybe she didn’t even give them the odd nod and wink about her expectations. Perhaps her expectations were already clear enough for the police to ‘know’ what they needed to do. But there are now two possible outcomes. The first is that the authorities really will charge most or all of those people with terrorism, adding to the courts backlog in order to hear cases, most of which will, at huge public expense, end up with a minor fine or even a discharge given the pettiness of the ‘offences’. The second is that they will, rather more wisely, simply drop all further action to avoid a situation where they look like the complete idiots they have made of themselves.

It's possible, of course, that the police have deliberately been heavy-handed in order to expose the ridiculous nature of the law that they are being expected to enforce, in the hope that the government will back off and allow them to get back to dealing with proper crime. That does, though, require rather more cunning and Machiavellianism than the Met are usually known for. And, in any event, Occam’s Razor applies.

There is little doubt as to the guilt of those holding up placards, although that says more about the silliness of the law than the actions of the protesters or the police. In the meantime, it means that the police have released more than 500 suspected terrorists, each of whom has committed an offence carrying a custodial sentence of up to 14 years, onto the streets of the UK to continue their nefarious activities. We are expected to believe two things at the same time: firstly that these are dangerous terrorists who deserve to be locked up for a very long time, and secondly that it is safe to allow them to roam the country. A rational and sensible government might stop and think about the course they are following, but we’re more likely to see them doubling down on the rhetoric. As well as seeing more protests and more arrests. I suppose it’s what the UK deserves for electing an authoritarian and illiberal government.

Statehood includes the right to choose a government

Tweet

 

Whether or not Palestine meets the usual requirements to recognition as a state remains in doubt, as noted last week. Israel is certainly doing its utmost to ensure that there are no enforceable boundaries nor any functioning administration with which the rest of the world could deal. That doesn’t take away the right of Palestinians to have an independent state if they so choose, even if statehood may not be exactly the thing uppermost in their minds as Gazans desperately struggle for food. And it surely can’t be right that an occupying power – wherever in the world it might be – can frustrate the right of territories it occupies to gain statehood.

Opponents of recognition claim that it would ‘reward’ terrorism and somehow legitimise the horrific attack by Hamas which sparked the latest round of fighting. It’s true if, and only if, one’s historical perspective on Gaza starts on 7 October 2023. On any longer timescale, terrorism didn’t start then and has never been restricted to one side: indeed, Israel as a state only exists as an internationally recognised state within its current recognised boundaries as a result of terrorist acts by Israeli settlers in the 1940s. And even that is choosing an artificial start date – history doesn’t start and stop neatly at any point in time that we choose. Sir Starmer and others have declared that ‘we don’t negotiate with terrorists’, one of those statements which is only true up until the point when negotiation becomes the only rational option, and there are numerous historical examples of that.

The leader of the Tories has come up with another obstacle to recognition, claiming that the UK shouldn’t recognise a state led by people we consider to be terrorists. Superficially, it sounds almost rational – after all, does anyone really think that Hamas are the best people to be governing any part of Palestine? It is, though, a deeply colonialist attitude, perhaps not entirely surprising from someone who has newly thrown off any suggestion that she might in any way be Nigerian, with its implicit assumption that the rest of the world can or should determine who the Palestinians might want to represent them. And is she seriously suggesting that, if Hamas stand aside now to gain recognition and the people of Palestine subsequently choose to elect a government led by Hamas, or a similar group under another name, that the UK should then de-recognise Palestine? It doesn’t look like a position to which she has given much thought.

Actually, although it’s surely inadvertent on her part, maybe there is a non-colonialist point to be made here after all. The world might indeed be a safer place for humanity as a whole if certain governments were removed from power by international action (even if we might disagree about which ones). But a world in which states were required to abide by certain globally adopted standards (such as a declaration of human rights, perhaps?) and where governments could be removed by collective action by other states if they did not would require a few things to be in place, not the least of which are a global set of rules and the will and organisation to enforce them. Something about Badenoch’s attitude towards international law tells me that that is most definitely not what she has in mind. Which just leaves opportunistic posturing.

The appearance of action

Tweet

 

There have been suggestions in the past that Scotland could overcome the Labour-Tory Westminster blockage of a new referendum on independence if an election resulted in a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament and that parliament then declared Scotland to be an independent country. There is no legal requirement for a referendum before independence; many of the UK’s former colonies never bothered with such niceties. Some fought for their independence, others negotiated for it, some (perhaps most notably the USA) simply declared themselves independent. But one of the most important tests of whether a country can become independent without the consent of the state currently in control is the question of international recognition. A declaration of independence which no other state recognised could turn out to be pretty meaningless, leaving the administration unable to trade effectively or make any other sort of international agreements, which is a major reason for the SNP having avoided trying it to date.

Sir Starmer is right to understand the importance of international recognition in the process of establishing a Palestinian state, and were the other essentials of statehood in place, it would be a powerful step to take. The problem is that they are not – and Israel is in the process of making sure that their absence is as irrevocable as possible. Between clearing large parts of Gaza of its population, and encouraging settlers to force Palestinians from their land in the West Bank, there are no longer any clear boundaries for a Palestinian State. There may be internationally agreed lines on a map, but they are largely meaningless. Nor is there much by way of a functioning administration, which could be recognised as the ‘government’ of the new state, in large parts of the territory.

Recognition is symbolic, but of little real effect compared to the other steps that the UK could take in terms of sanctions and cessation of military exports. And delayed recognition is even less effective – merely giving the Israeli government a clear timeline in which it needs to complete the elimination of any viable Palestinian state. But then, symbolism is probably all Sir Starmer really wants: the appearance of action without making any real difference. In fact, that phrase (“the appearance of action without making any real difference”) could well come to be the defining characteristic of Starmer’s Labour. And not just in relation to Palestine.

Can Corbyn change?

Tweet

 

The history of setting up new parties in the UK is not exactly a trail littered by success. One of the main reasons for that is the electoral system which, as long as there are two parties generally perceived as ‘natural’ front runners, allows two main parties to shut others out by each claiming that any vote not for one is, in effect, a vote for the other. It’s a tactic which has been used for decades by Labour and Tory alike, and goes a long way to explaining why neither of those parties has ever embraced electoral reform.

One of the features of such a system, however, is that there is an inherent tipping point; once any third party reaches a certain percentage of the vote it can suddenly have the effect of shutting out one or other of the traditional two main parties. Opinion polls suggest that Reform Ltd may have reached that tipping point, although there is a lot that could, and probably will, go wrong for Farage between now and the next Westminster election. It is in that context that Corbyn and friends have decided to launch a new party. Maybe, if the old system really is reaching the end of the road, the UK could see both the two old main parties being swept aside by two new main parties, however unlikely that might seem in historical terms.

Despite agreeing with much of what Corbyn has said over the years on a range of issues, I have serious concerns about a new party led by him.

Firstly, he has never exactly been an enthusiast for electoral reform. There is, of course, an element of chicken-and-egg about the issue – the best way for a new party to break through is under an electoral system which allocates seats more accurately on the basis of votes cast, and the best way of getting that sort of electoral reform is for one of the parties which is being shut out by the current system to somehow win a majority under the current system. Serious, long term reform of the UK political system depends on implementing a change which clearly runs counter to the interests of those making the decisions. Nevertheless, a clear commitment to reform might be the best way for a new party to encourage others to support it on a one-off basis in a single election. Has Corbyn the vision to understand that?

Secondly, unless the new party can get its vote share up to around 30%, it could end up with a respectable vote in many constituencies whilst winning precisely no seats. And it could even end up losing seats for the Green Party. Success in the short term necessarily involves a willingness to form alliances. Corbyn is steeped in old Labour Party values, including the one which welcomes co-operation with other parties just as long as those other parties recognise Labour’s hegemony and do as they are told. Can Corbyn put such attitudes to one side and form the sort of cross-party alliances required to bring about electoral success – and in England, that primarily means with the Green Party?

Thirdly, Corbyn has always had a strange blind spot when it comes to Wales and Scotland. This is a man who supports national liberation struggles across the globe, and is a long-time supporter of a free and united Ireland. Yet, when it comes to those parts of the UK which don’t have a stretch of water separating them from England, he somehow seems to see the dominance of England as being part of the natural order of things. Working with others in Wales and Scotland will require a willingness to adapt his attitude towards them – has he the sense to do that?

At the moment, there’s something of a gap where detailed policies should be, and we’ll have to wait and see how that gap is filled. Vague aspirational stuff isn’t enough, even if it generates a few headlines.

When is a tax not a tax?

Tweet

 

The government which decided to reduce pensioner income by scrapping the Winter Fuel Allowance, and which continually hints at the ‘unaffordability’ of the pensions triple lock is, apparently, the same government which is now forecasting a ‘tsunami’ of pensioner poverty. It’s almost as though cause and effect is some sort of alien concept. They’re not alone, of course – the Tories and the Farageists are making similar noises about affordability. The alternative to funding an adequate level of pension through taxation is, it seems, for employees to save more.

Superficially, it sounds rational and logical; those of us benefitting from occupational pensions certainly understand the benefits of saving into a work-based pension plan. The difference, though, is not all it is painted as being. The state pension is nominally funded by tax deductions from employees and employers, and it’s true that those taxes might well need to increase if there are more pensioners and if the level of pensions continues to rise. Mandatory occupational pensions (the government’s preferred alternative), on the other hand, are funded by compulsory payments by employers and compulsory deductions from salary. The payments might not be defined as ‘taxes’ because the money never goes through any government accounts, but their effects on business operating costs and net disposable income are remarkably similar. It turns out that we can indeed afford to pay better pensions if the same people pay the same money to a private company and pretend that it’s nothing at all like a tax.

Whilst the difference might not be immediately obvious to those paying the contributions, there are, of course, some other differences. The first is that private pensions money is invested to pay for future benefits rather than used to pay current benefits. But the difference between an investment-based approach and the current Ponzi-scheme approach for state pensions is a matter of political choice, not an inevitable consequence of a state-run scheme. The second difference is, purely coincidentally I’m sure, that the private pensions company take a slice off the top as payment for administration and profit for their shareholders.

The biggest and most important difference is in terms of who benefits and by how much. The state pension is based on paying a single basic amount to all, even if the contribution rate is based, albeit loosely, on the income of the individual employee. There is, in that sense, an element of redistribution involved. Workplace pensions, however (and this is true, although in slightly different ways, of both defined benefit and defined contribution schemes), pay out a pension amount which is related to the payments made – and thus, in turn, to the salary of the individual. Labour’s preference for a savings-based approach to increasing pensions thus has two main financial effects – increasing profit for finance companies in the City of London, and ensuring that benefits flow to the richest rather than the poorest. All in the interests of pretending to reduce the demands on what they insist on calling ‘taxpayers’ money’ by replacing a potential tax increase with an alternative compulsory levy. It’s hard to find a clearer statement of modern-day Labour Party values.