Security and the Queen's Speech

We British people, along with  those in  most  countries, face three serious threats to our security.  Two are immediate: the possible escalation of the Russia/Ukraine war into a Europe-wide and potentially nuclear conflagration, and a "cost of living" crisis.  The third,  global heating, is more long term but requires immediate action.

The Prime Minister likes to pretend that he is playing a leading role in averting war and is today visiting both Finland and Sweden, presumably to acquaint them of the joys of being members of NATO.  In fact his interventions, along with the bellicose utterances of our Foreign Secretary, are more likely to inflame matters further than lead towards compromises which will at least stop the killing.

 Fortunately, in this context,  Britain's international standing is now so diminished that I doubt if what either of them says or does is likely to make much difference.

There is, however,  a great deal the government can do to help the most vulnerable to avoid the worst effects of the cost of living crisis arising from the explosion in energy prices and the prediction that inflation could reach 10%.  The effects of these are serious and immediate.  Already three quarters of a million of our fellow citizens are experiencing destitution (insufficient means to secure adequate food, warmth and shelter) and a further quarter of a million are expected to join them as the year progresses if there is no meaningful intervention. Their social security is at risk, which is totally unnecessary and complexly avoidable in a country as rich and highly developed as the UK.

In the government's programme announced yesterday (and rather grandly called the Queen's Speech)  the government claims that there are no short term fixes and that the problem must be dealt with by long term growth.  This is half true.  

There is  considerable need (and has been for decades) for us to improve our productivity in order for us to be competitive with other economies.  But we need to define "growth " more carefully.  That which uses non-renewable resources or further pollutes the planet is not the answer (but likely to be on the cards).  Only sustainable growth, if it can be achieved other than by the exploitation of other people's resources, is the long term acceptable solution.

Sustainable or otherwise , the million destitute people need help now, not is in some distant fairyland future.

Here's how that  could be given :

1.  State subsides to all low-to-medium-income households so that they can afford their fuel bills and keep warm.

2.  Increase all social security benefits by at least the anticipated rate of inflation and preferably more.  Re-introducing the £20 per week Universal Credit boost would be a start and could be done immediately)

3.  Abandon the proposed and deflationary increase in national Insurance contributions.

4.  Join Europe''s  Customs Union and Single Market. This would not be a betrayal of the Brexit vote. The Leave Campaign  frequently implied that we should remain in both. Such an act would have the added bonus of solving the Northern Ireland Protocol problem "at a stroke."   If formally rejoining is too much to swallow, then we we could "re-align" to them (which seems to be Jacob Rees Mogg's practice anyway). What we need in the famous Keynesian  "long run" and before we're all dead (which for the destitute million may not be al that long) is an export-led boom, and hampering out exporters by splendid isolation is not the best way of achieving one.

The first three of these proposals will cost a considerable amount of money, and the government will argue that the "public finances" cannot afford it.

That is nonsense.

In spite of the incompetence and missed opportunities of the last half century we are still a very rich country.  If our national income were shared equally between every child, woman and man living in the country, that would produce an  income of over £30 000 per year each. Or £120 000 for every family for four.

Untold affluence.

I'm not suggesting it should be so divided, just using that as an illustration of how rich we are.

So there is plenty of scope for additional taxation (perhaps just to come up to the OECD average).

The aim should be cut the taxes on those things that will lead to deflation  (income of the lower paid, taxes on employment such as NICs, and  expenditure taxes ),  and tax the many things that make least impact on current incomes and expenditure (known in the jargon as the "circular flow")

There's plenty to choose from:

• a windfall tax on excess profits (especially of the energy companies)
• a wealth tax: say 1% of all wealth over half a million
• a land tax
• an effective inheritance tax
• a financial transactions tax
• effective capital gains taxes
• carbon taxes
• pollution taxes.

Don't panic: I'm not suggestion we tax all of them - just illustrating the variety available if we had a political party courageous enough to grasp the many golden nettles.

 

More on the Batley and Spen Result.

Sadly comments on the result of our Batley and Spen by-election, even from the Labour Party, stress the narrowness of their win rather than the glaring failure of the Tories to take the seat, which they were widely predicted to do. 

Labour had two massive obstacles to overcome. First, the Conservative vote in 2019 was reduced by the presence on the ballot paper of a right wing so-called Heavy Woollen District candidate, Paul Halloran  who attracted 6 439 votes (12.2%).  When it was announced that  Halloran had decided (been persuaded?) not to stand in the by-election "progressive" hearts sank: without him to split their vote the Tories were almost bound to win.

Then in addition the maverick former Labour MP George Galloway entered the fray for the so called "Workers' Party, thus potentially  splitting the Labour vote.

Labour had not one but two obstacles to overcome, two mountains to climb.

In these circumstances it is astonishing that the Tories failed to take the seat.  That is what, in my view, should be in the headlines

In last Saturday's Guardian the normally perceptive  Jonathan Freedman claimed that "Batley and Spen  saw a 2.9% swing away from Labour  and towards the Conservatives, the largest swing to a govenmt party  in 39 years"  (My emphasis).  This, if technically correct, is highly misleading.

In fact their percentage share of the vote fell for both Labour (-7.4 percentage points) and Conservatives (-1.6).  This was presumably largely due to the presence of no less than 14 other candidates.  Interestingly the Conservatives do no seem to have benefited much  from Halloran's 6000+ votes.

The alleged 2.9% "Swing" is calculated by taking the difference between the two changes in share of the vote (7.4 - 1.6 = 5.8) and dividing it by 2 (=2.9 ). The impression that 2.9% of voters switched from Labour to Conservative may have made sense in the 1950s and the days of "two horse races" and Peter Snow's "swingometer." 

 It makes no sense in a multiparty contest in which increases and decreases in major parties' shares are likely  to be the result of shifts to other parties rather than direct swaps between the two major parties.

The real message  of the Batley and Spen by-election is a major Conservative  failure to win a contest weighted in their favour.  Together with the massive Liberal Democrat victory in Chesham and Amersham, it is another sign that Mr Johnson's Teflon carapace is not impregnable.

Coronavirus: a little league table

Yesterday I wrote to a friend whom I first met when we both worked as teachers in Papua New Guinea. He is now a Roman Catholic priest and works in the Solomon Islands.  He does not have  access to the internet and his copies of the Manchester Guardian Weekly arrive in bundles, often months late, so along with personal chit-chat I like to give him up-to-date information. Here's what I found about the incidence of the coronavirus in the various countries in which we are both interested, have friends, or worked. As at 4thAugust, 2020: Country       Total deaths           Death per million of population  UK                 46 000                680 Italy               35 000                 582 USA            160 000                 480 France         30 296                  464  Ireland            1 763                 350 Germany          9 232               110 India              40 000                 28 Australia            232                   9 New Zealand      22                    4.4 Malawi             123                     6 PNG                       2                  0.2 Your can check up to date the figures here, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdvegas1?%22%20%5Cl%20%22countries  and add more countries in which you may be interested. The crucial figure is surely deaths per million of population, and in a quick glance  down the list of all the countries in the world (except for some reason the Solomon Islands) I spotted only San Marino (1 283) and Belgium  (850) with higher figures per head than the UK's, which   are even worse than those for the US. In fairness we could argue that the deaths per head in the European countries  and US are all of the same order, though the UK's figures are double those  of Ireland and six time those of Germany.  And, of course, things will change.  Tragically the virus is now spreading rapidly though India,  Australia is currently experiencing a rapid increase in infections if not yet deaths and heaven help them if the disease catches on in Malawi, PNG, or other very poor countries. Of course, population size is not the only factor, and I'm sure the government is earnestly exploring other influences ready for the enquiry.  Population density, age distribution, concentrations of BAME people who seem to be more susceptible to the virus than others, will all affect he figures. But the  current figures brutally expose as lies the specific statements from Mr Johnson that we are "word beaters" and  the implications by other ministers that we have so far been "successful" and must not spoil this "success" by paying less attention than we should to the government's guidelines. Why aren't these figures splashed daily across the media?  In the 1980s the Greater London Council, under the leadership of Ken Livingstone, displayed in lights  on their magnificent headquarters directly opposite  the Houses of Parliament the daily total of people unemployed as a result of Mrs Thatcher's* misguided economic policies.  Someone should do something similar to convince the British People (Johnson loves that phrase) of the truth the government tries to obscure with its bluster.. The one consolation is that the eyes of the American people seem to be opening to the inadequacy of Donald Trump.  I hope it will not be too long before a similar awakening takes place here. * In an extraordinary fit of anti-democratic pique Mrs Thatcher  retaliated by abolishing  the GLC along with the rest of the Metropolitan County Councils, including our own West Yorkshire.