Can even Trump get something right?

Tweet

 

The Western Mail carried a story earlier this week (which I can’t find online, but basically seems to be a fairly minor edit of this story from three weeks ago) about the problem of desertion facing the Ukrainian armed forces. We knew, of course, that the Russian armed forces were suffering from desertion as well as draft avoidance in the light of the serious level of casualties, but the media in ‘the west’ have seemingly been reluctant to report that the same issue is impacting the Ukrainian armed forces. Whilst it’s credible that Russian problems have been greater than those faced by Ukraine, it’s reasonable to suspect that the gap might not be as large as a less-than-entirely-unbiased media might have us believe. And the fact that Ukraine is suffering its own problem with a high level of desertion should come as no surprise.

It raises a much bigger – and more general – question as to whether the sort of large scale ground war for which the generals and some politicians keep telling us we should be preparing will ever be possible in the future in the same way as it was in the past. The report tells us that the US has been urging Ukraine “to draft more troops, and allow for the conscription of those as young as 18”, since the current minimum age for conscription is 25. Leaving to one side the moral issue of whether anyone should be urging a country to send even more of its people, and at an even younger age, into a vicious and bloody war where many of them will be killed or injured, I found myself wondering how realistic it is in the modern world to expect that people, particularly young people, will willingly comply with an order to go out and kill ‘for their country’. We’re not in the first half of the twentieth century when information flows could be easily controlled, and where jingoism was a fairly normal phenomenon. People – even in dictatorships like Russia – have much easier access to information about what’s happening. Pro patria mori has never been particularly dulce or decorum whatever the politicians might tell us, and that was precisely the point which Wilfred Owen was making more than a century ago. Mass conscription for a major war in the twenty-first century is likely to be problematic for any country which attempts it, with resistance running very high.

Trump has said that he will end the war on day 1 of his renewed presidency. I struggle to understand his drivers. He says it is to stop the killing, which would be a noble enough aim; but coming from a man who has no previous record of concern for anyone other than himself, it doesn’t immediately strike me as being likely. After himself, those about whom he most seems to care are other billionaires, but we know that capitalist billionaires are amongst those who most benefit from war through their investments in the arms industry. It might simply be, for Trump, a case of not spending US money to support another country. That would certainly seem to fit with his ‘America First’ outlook, even if it shows a certain ignorance of the relationship between US government spending on armaments and the overall value of shares on the New York Stock Exchange, which seems to be Trump’s only metric of economic success.

However, whatever his rationale is (to the extent that he has one at all) his conclusion that the immediate priority should be to stop the fighting and killing is difficult to disagree with. And since Ukraine does not have – and without a massive injection of military manpower and firepower from friends and allies is unlikely ever to have – sufficient forces to recapture all its lost territory, an end to the fighting necessarily implies a redrawing of boundaries, on at least a temporary basis. Expecting Ukraine to cede vast swathes of territory in order to buy peace is neither fair nor just, but in the absence of any other basis for agreeing a peace deal, it is surely no worse than the current US position of telling Ukraine to simply conscript more young people who can be ‘expended’ in an ongoing war with no obviously better outcome in sight. There aren’t many boundaries in the world which aren’t the result of a war, a treaty following a war, or arbitrary lines drawn on a map by colonial masters. 

‘Might is right’ is a lousy basis on which to run a planet, but unless and until we collectively find a better way, it’s the basis on which almost all of the world’s current boundaries exist. Supporting the idea that a free and independent country should cede territory to one autocratic bully at the behest of another autocratic bully is uncomfortable, to say the least; but encouraging Ukraine to fight to the last Ukrainian would feel even less comfortable. The devil will, of course, lie in the detail and in the mechanisms for ensuring the integrity of any new boundaries. But on the principle, even Trump might be able to get something right, even if not based entirely on rational analysis or concern for fellow humans.

The unimportance of boundaries

Tweet There’s a certain inevitability about the way in which those in the UK who don’t like open borders have responded to the numbers of people travelling across Europe in recent weeks.  Part of it includes scornful references to the Schengen agreement, and they tell us how fortunate it is that the UK never signed up to it.

It’s true, of course, that the retention of border controls by the UK has prevented many people from reaching the UK.  It’s also true that the open border policy of much of Europe means that once people are in the Schengen area, there is no physical means of preventing them travelling as they like within that area.  Such a response within the UK does, though, reinforce the perception elsewhere in Europe that the UK is a member of the EU but not really part of it.  The UK’s anti-EU brigade may claim that they want to return to a ‘common market’, but in truth, they struggle with the concept of a ‘common’ anything.

It also betrays an attitude towards borders which is based on a perception that some borders are right and natural and need to be protected, whereas others do not, and an attitude towards movement by people which regards it as a privilege rather than as a right.  Both of those attitudes are being reinforced on a daily basis.  It’s something that should worry us more than it seems to.

Most of those who demand the continuation of full and rigorous border controls at all points of entry would be outraged at the thought of border controls between England and Scotland or Wales (although, to be fair, some of them strike me as the sort of people who’d really rather like to introduce controls on movement between counties if they thought they could get away with it).  But why?  What is it about the boundaries between states which makes them more sacrosanct than other boundaries?  All boundaries are, ultimately, human constructs.  There’s nothing eternal or inevitable about any of them; and most, if not all, have moved regularly over the centuries.  The idea that they are rigid, natural, and eternal is of fairly recent origin.

Politicians would be doing us a better service if they expended their efforts on working out how to prepare for, and deal with the consequences of, free movement than on using the current problems to restrict that freedom still further.

Endian destiny

Tweet Persistence, they say, is a virtue; and to that extent, Cameron’s determination to push ahead with his plans for reducing the number of MPs is at least consistent.  There is also a saying about discretion and valour, however, and he looks doomed to fail.

I rather suspect that his invitation to Plaid, SNP, DUP, SDLP and Green MPs to back his bill will fall on even stonier ground than his appeal to Labour and Lib Dem MPs to do so.  Indeed, there has surely to be significant doubt as to whether even his own troops will support him, especially some of those newly released to the back benches.

His core argument, repeated regularly, is that ‘all seats should be the same size with the same number of voters’; but that is not, of course, what he’s actually proposing.  Indeed, it would be silly for anyone to propose such a thing; constituencies can never be precisely equal in either size of voter numbers. 

There will always be a quota and a variation around that quota – all he’s really proposing is to reduce the extent of that variation around the quota.  But the extent to which one should allow variation will always be a matter of opinion.  Whether they should be within 5% or 10% or 15% is essentially an arbitrary decision.  What we can say, though, is that the smaller the allowed variation, the more arbitrary the resultant boundaries are likely to be, when compared to community links, history, etc.  And the proposals produced to date seem to confirm that.

I wouldn’t particularly defend the current level of variation, but neither am I enamoured of the proposed alternative.  What is being presented as some great issue of principle is really not that at all; it’s more of an Endian debate about the ‘right’ percentage figure, ignoring issues about community and relationships.

But ‘Endian’ debates occur a lot in politics, and it’s surprising how far politicians are prepared to go in pursuit of them.  That’s something else which Cameron is demonstrating well.

Boundaries and protests

Tweet

The howls of protest from some quarters about the proposed new constituency boundaries were entirely predictable, and had probably been rehearsed for weeks if not months.  That doesn’t mean that they’re entirely unjustified, of course.  Some of the boundaries look highly artificial to me, and seem to ignore geographical and community links.  It’s not a problem unique to Wales, though; merely more acute because of the greater proportionate change here.

The outcome is a more or less inevitable result of giving primacy to the argument that MPs should have, as nearly as possible, equal numbers of constituents.  It’s a difficult argument to counter, but it does depend to some extent on what we see as the primary rôle of MPs.

If they are there, first and foremost, to make laws on behalf of the UK as a whole, then the argument for parity of constituencies is a strong one.  But if they are there, first and foremost, to be representatives of the people and communities in their constituencies, then the extent of geographical spread and homogeneity (or lack thereof) in constituencies becomes a more important one. 

It’s clear which of those two drivers is uppermost in the government’s mind – MPs are there to support (or oppose) the government’s legislative programme, and do as they are told.  But the reality is that we expect them to do both.  In a sense, the second element has become less important in Wales and Scotland as much of the representative work is now done elsewhere, so perhaps we should be less worried.

There is another aspect, though, and it is the extent to which Wales’ voice is lost in a parliament where the overwhelming majority of MPs come from English constituencies.  There are still plenty of issues of concern to Wales being discussed and decided in London, and the size and clarity of the Welsh voice is important in that regard.

Whether the difference between 30 and 40 out of 600 is really significant is another question entirely; and the inability of most of Wales’ MPs to find a specifically Welsh voice rather then being simply the Welsh wing of their UK parties undermines their argument for Welsh over-representation.  The argument for deliberate over-representation of the smaller nations in the UK Parliament is, in essence a ‘nationalist’ argument.  It is rooted in the idea that Wales is a nation which needs to have its voice heard, rather than a region to be treated on the same basis as the regions of England.

It’s fascinating to hear that argument, albeit not in quite those terms, being put by politicians in the UK parties.  The problem is that given their track record it simply sounds like an altruistic cover for protecting their own personal and party interests.  Labour, in particular, have long had a tendency to conflate their party’s interests with those of Wales, but it’s no more credible on the issue of constituency boundaries than it is on a host of other issues.

It’s also fascinating that some nationalists at least seem to be welcoming the reduction in Welsh representation.  If I could be certain that it is just another step on the road to independence than I might be tempted to join them.  But there is no guarantee that it is, and as long as Wales is part of the UK, I really don’t see why anyone would argue against the idea of maximising our representation.

Rigging the system

Tweet

Ynys Môn council has been dysfunctional for many years, and regular attempts from both inside and outside the island to resolve the issues have failed.  The differences are generally not political, but personal; councillors are as prone to falling out with members of their own party as they are to falling out with members of other parties.  And ‘independent’ covers a multitude of sins.

Clearly, something needed to be done, and sending in the commissioners can have come as no surprise to most people.  New elections – and preferable a largely new set of councillors – are an inevitable part of the longer term solution.  I’m concerned, though, about the latest proposals from the boundary commission.  Or, rather, I’m concerned about the direction given to the boundary commission by the minister.

The general guidance used by the boundary commission in relation to all councils in Wales is set out here.  In paragraphs 5.4 onwards, the preference for single-member wards is made clear.  Although the commission can and must consider whether multi-member wards have advantages, in general they are asked to prefer single-member wards.

The minister has the right to over-rule the consideration – paragraph 5.5 of the general guidance specifies that he may do so in specified areas.  In the case of Ynys Môn, he has decided to do so.  As the introduction to the report on the island’s electoral arrangements makes clear, the Minister made a specific direction in relation to Ynys Môn, which “requires that we should, in the first instance, consider the desirability of multi-member electoral divisions throughout the County”.

Personally, like anyone else who advocates STV, I favour multi-member wards; they’re essential if we want to have a more proportional result.  So I have no objection to the introduction of multi-member wards per se (although I’d prefer it to be accompanied by a move to STV).

But is it right to have a different approach in one council area from that being implemented everywhere else, where the main reason for that difference appears to be to facilitate the election of different people?  There is no doubt in my mind that the Minister has acted in accordance with the powers conferred upon him, because those powers don’t seem to require that he provides any reason or argument for adopting a different approach in one area, or place any constraints on what considerations he might apply.

And that’s where my concern lies.  There is a dangerous precedent here, under which the Minister has directly interfered in the work of the boundary commission to instruct them to take a particular approach in Ynys Môn, largely because he doesn’t like the result of the elections there.  I don’t like them either – but I’m simply not convinced that rigging the electoral system is the right way to deal with that problem. 

And Ynys Môn isn’t the only place where I don’t like the results of the elections.  If the Minister also feels that, what is to stop him interfering further in other areas to obtain a result more to his liking?