VE Day: at what price?

 

There can’t be many veterans left who actually fought in the 2^nd World War, and not many more of us who can remember what we did on VE Day. 

I was seven years old on the 8^th May, 1945, and on holiday in Scarborough with my parents and little sister, so it must have been Whitsuntide Week.  I have two memories.

 Outside Scarborough station was (maybe still is) an obelisk or column, and it was lit up with blue strip lighting on each of its four faces. That was the first time I had seen “neon” lighting. 

The second is that there was a happy  atmosphere and we wandered around with another family group singing a song with the opening line: “Let him go, let him tarry let him sink or let him swim.”  Nothing to do with the war but presumably popular at the time.

 I am indebted to the Liberal Democrat peer, William Wallace for what, in  addition to honouring the sacrifices made to achieve the victory, we might also remember at this time.  He suggests President Theodore Roosevelt’s   “Four Freedoms” speech in which he  explained to Congress why the Allies  were fighting:

“ We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world. …

The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

William also reminds us that five months before, Roosevelt and Churchill had signed the ‘Atlantic Charter’ – drafted by the British, revised by the Americans – which set out their shared aims in the war.  

 ‘…their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other; they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned; … they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;….’

I don’t know if President Trump will be present at today’s ceremonies, but if he is it would be useful to bring these to his attention, especially the first three lines of the Atlantic Charter quoted above.

It is also useful to remind out selves of the price in lives lost that the allied countries experienced in achieving the victory.

The approximate tally in the larger countries is  as follows:

Russia: 24 000 000

Poland: 5 600 000

India: 2 100 000

France: 567 000

UK: 450 000

USA: 418 000

  Given these figure we can perhaps better understand why Russia may feel “resentful” that the  New World Order established for which they had paid so much should become shaped essentially to support the interests of the USA and its closest allies. 

More tact and efforts to include them in the post war settlement might have produced a happier and more permanent settlement.  Have any Russian  representatives been invited to the commemorations?  If so that could reduce present tensions.

As this will undoubtedly be the last decadal celebration of VE Day when any of those who actually fought in the war are alive, I hope the UK will now stop trying to revive memories of  our past presumed greatness, and look forward to the modest centurions we can still make to building a world more in keeping with Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms.

 

Reform - but how?

 

Reform – but how?

Thursday 1st May 2025 may go down in our political history as a  seismic moment.  Nigel Farage’s “Reform” (the possessive is accurate: It is not a party in the normal sense of “belonging to the membership,”  but owned, or maybe just part-owed, by him) have certainly broken the mould in the way that the Liberal- SDP alliance of the early 1980s hoped but failed to do.  Whether they will really change our politics, or simply be a flash in the pan, remains to be seen, but it its victories are a massive achievement.

The consensus seems to be that Reform have exploited grievances, particularly about immigration, without offering, so far, realistic policies for repairing Britain’s depleted public realm.  In addition, the bulk of their councillors and one of their two mayors, have little experience of public service, but maybe that’s what we need (or maybe not, if Elon Musk’s adventures in the US are anything to go by.)

For once it’s fortunate that local government’s powers are so substantially reduced that these inexperienced councillors probably cant,  in the short do much harm.

However, if the major parties (and I would include the Nationalists, Greens and the Liberal Democrats in that category along with Labour and the Conservatives) are deflected from attempting to solve Britain’s real and acute problems, made even more acute by America’s abdication of participation in the pursuit of a fairer, lay-abiding, rules based liberal world, real harm will be done.

In my view our core problems (adapted from a recent post on a Liberal Democrat discussion site) are as follows:

1.    Physical Standard of Living. For a least a century and a half there has been an assumption that each generation should enjoy a better material standard of living  their parents.  In our developed economies we must move on from idea.  Yes, there will be advances in medicine and other scientific areas, in arts, music and leisure pursuits,  which improve our quality of life, but we already have the capability of affording everyone a decent material standard of living, provided we share more equitably. The idea that we can improve the lot of the disadvantaged only though further exploitation of the world’s scarce resources is now past its sell-by date, not least because of . . .

2.    Climate Change. We have to take this very seriously indeed, and challenge Sir Tony Blair’s and the climate- change deniers’ protestations. Preserving our planet as a habitable  environment for humans (and a goodly portion of nature’s flora and fauna)   is not just an optional add-on but must be central to our policies.  The current Labour government seems to be prepared to postpone or even ditch policies to limit damage to the environment if they impede short run physical growth and employment. We need to find other ways of “ raising all boats” to an acceptable standard.  Better sharing is the obvious one.

3.    Inequality.  It is now beyond question that the neoliberal bonanza of deregulation for private profit has not only failed to improve standards but also led to an unacceptable increase in inequality.  The wealth has soared upwards rather than trickled down.  Hence the “left behind” are legitimately indignant and understandably but unfortunately  looking towards phoney “saviours” such as “Reform “to wreck the system.  Once again the answer is better sharing rather than a yet bigger cake than the ample one we already have.

4.    Participation.  Elections at all levels have become competitive auctions of “what we can do for you” rather than what we can enable.   This is true at both national and local levels, not least with the regard to the conferring of powers on executive mayors.  We need policies to encourage participation and consultation in communities along with greater autonomy to councils and councillors as close to the people they represent as possible. Instead the present national government is abolishing the councils closest to the people and  handing powers to charismatic individuals in the hope that they will wave effective magic wands (or  begging bowls to Whitehall and Westminster.)

5.    Communications. Given the fantastic developments in this area in recent years we desperately need measure to control the flaunting  of misinformation and “alternative facts,”  and to ensure that provision of a balance of reasoned opinions based on generally accepted truths.  This is not going to be easy.  We also need to recognise that the communications revolution has hit what used to be called the “Third World” as well as the developed one.  Subsistence farmers the world over know what luxury is available in some economies and want a share.  We must recognise and accommodate this.  We need reasoned arguments for legitimising immigration and providing legal routs for those who wish to add to and share in our prosperity. Not yet another party sloganising about “luxury hotel accommodation” and “stopping the boats.”

6.    Internationalism.  Rather than cut ourselves off even further from other countries struggling to create a fairer and more liberal environment and turning inwards to more jingoistic self-aggrandisement we need to recognise that internationalism is  the true patriotism.  We need to “Look Wide”  and participate fully in the international organisations designed to create the “New World Order for which we allegedly fought the World Wars, the victories in which we shall celebrate on Thursday.  And not, please, as “leaders,” but just involved and effective partners.

I hope that our major established parties will have the courage to fight for the above and not allow  Farage and his party to be a distraction from the true reform which our country so desperately needs.

Russia and Ukraine, Britain and Ireland

 

 

I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of the similarities between and Britain’s relations with Ireland and Russia’s with Ukraine.  The histories of  the two pairs have  obvious similarities.

The British, or perhaps more precisely, the English, have over the centuries tended to regard the Irish as part of “Us”  whilst most if not all of the Irish think of themselves as different.  From the 12^th Century onwards English kings have claimed to be “Lords,” then Kings of Ireland and our rulers have made successive but unsuccessful attempts, stretching through the Earl of Essex, Oliver Cromwell, William of Orange, and the Black and Tans” to "sort out" Ireland, to the present compromise whereby the bulk of Ireland is allowed to be different, but the top right-hand corner remains part of “Us”( though often still different when it suits them with regard to grammar schools, gay marriage , abortion, proportional representation, Single Market membership  and maybe other quirks.)

Ukraine and Russia both claim common ancestorship with the Slavic settlers  of the 11^th century, and have been in a close relationship since the days of Catherine the Great,  who annexed he Crimea in the 18^th Century. The whole county was part of the Russian Empire (aka the Soviet Union) and  Russian is the dominant language in both the Crimea and Donbas, and a strong second in several other areas.  In these, as in Northern Ireland, a significant chunk and possible a majority of the populations would be quite happy to become (or, in the case of the Crimea, remain) part of Russia.

White smoke from the meeting of Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy during the funeral of Pope Francis indicates that an agreement to end the present fighting  may be in the offing, and involve the ceding of some Ukrainian territory to Russia.  The speculation  might, yet again, be one of Trumps wishful thoughts, but it might be true. 

If true , it will be reported as  a sell-out  and a betrayal of the Ukrainian soldiers and citizens who have given their lives in the defence of their country, and an unacceptable capitulation by the West to Putin’s  bullying.

It may be that dedicated Irish Republicans feel similarly betrayed by the retention of Northern Ireland as part of the UK.  But they know that this is not the end of the story.  By fair means (waiting patiently for demographics to  bring the Nationalists into a majority over the Unionists in Northern Ireland) or by foul means (continued terrorist/guerrilla activity) there will probably eventually be  a United Ireland.

A settlement which patriotic nationalist in Ukraine will regard as “temporary” would probably have a similar future.  Either demography, guerrilla warfare or political agitation will eventually lead to  unification or a settlement acceptable to all sides.

The alternative is to continue a war of attrition in which young Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, and hapless citizens , all equally precious to  God in the eyes of the late Francis and sincere members of other religions, continue to be sacrificed,  support from other European countries to fill the gap left by the US  will eventually peter out, and a similar “compromise “ is eventually reached several thousands of deaths and mutilations later.