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.

Trump's tariffs (and other wars).

 

As a classic attention seeker President Trump must have enjoyed his day in the sun yesterday, with the eyes of  concerned citizens in almost every country in the world on him.  The Guardian’s leader predicted that ”No British retaliation [would] mean GDP 0.4%  lower this year and 0.6% next.” (2^nd April.)  By my calculations that means 40p less in every prospective £100 earned, then 60p.  The bombarded in Gaza, front-line soldiers  and citizens of Ukraine,  and millions starving in Sudan and South Sudan, not to mention about 200 other “hot” wars, would presumably give their ears for that level of inconvenience.

Be that as it may, if this is the start of the imposition retaliatory tariffs  world prosperity is at the beginning of a downward spiral similar to that of the 1930s, when one major economy after anther tried to “export its unemployment” by imposing “tit for tat” tariffs.

President Trump’s reasoning is wrong on at least two counts. First, the “rust belt” will not be rebuilt and his “left behind” supporters will not get their old jobs back.  It seems ludicrous to have to remind one of the world’s most dynamic economies that the modern world economy is dynamic and countries prosper when they produce what the world is going to want tomorrow rather than what we used to want yesterday.  (Something to which Britain has had and still has difficulty in adapting to.)

Secondly, the idea that tariffs generate a “nice little earner” from foreigners paying to sell their  products  in your country, is highly misleading.  A tariff is a tax at least partly and often largely  paid by a country's  own consumers.  In the jargon, a tariff raises the price to the consumer and lowers the price received by the producer, the relative incidence being determined by the relative elasticities of supply and demand.  “A” level candidates in economics are taught to draw graphs to demonstrate this until it’s coming out of their ears.

A  friend of a former “Peace Corps” friend has just sent me a list of five conversation stoppers he suggests to throw in when stuck with MAGA relatives round the table.  No 2 is “I can’t wait for Trump’s Tariffs.  I’m sick of paying so little for everything.”

Oh, and one other thing: Trump regards countries which collect sales taxes  or VAT as discriminating against America, and believes this justifies even higher tariffs.   They don’t and it doesn’t.   These taxes are normally paid by all domestic producers so the playing field from that point of view is level.  The most marginal of GCSE candidates could have told him that.

The problem for our governments is how best to respond.  Some leaders are quite belligerent and advocate punishing America in kind.  The purpose is supposedly to  force America to back down.  But, as in the 1930s the likely result, with obstinate boneheads in charge, is to punish ourselves.

Perhaps a “softly softly” approach could be better.  Do nothing now.  Wait and see.  Maybe soon the American people will tire of paying higher prices for world products, realise they’ve been duped and, if they can’t turn Trump out, at least elect a congress that can put a stop to this cavalier nonsense. 

And in any case, Trump may very soon lose interest and move on to another fad.  If so, let’s hope it doesn’t involve nuclear weapons.

The spring statement

 

Spring Statement

 

When Herbert Morrison, deputy leader of the Labour Party during the Attlee Post War government (and grandfather of Peter Mandelson) was asked to define socialism he loftily replied “Socialism is What a Labour Government Does."

 It is hard to apply that description to the actions of the present government which could better be described as "Toryism continued," and not even all that “lite.”

 Given the present run down condition of just about every public service you can think of, and not least the prison service, it is absolute madness  for this rich country to be talking about even further cuts in public expenditure.  More expenditure is needed in almost every area.

 Nor is it in the least bit  humane, honourable or In any sense socially acceptable   to fund the additional arms expenditure now thought to be necessary on the back of the world’s poor (overseas aid) or our domestic disabled citizens.

To be fair, the government is hemmed in by four  problems:

 1.  The press is largely hostile  to Labour, and will rubbish whatever they do, even if that damages Britain (so much for patriotism.)

2.  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is female and mocked as "Rachel from accounts"  (No one ever talked of Jim (Callaghan) or Denis (Healy) from accounts, still less Sir Stafford!)

3. She is hamstrung  in raising the extra money  because:

a)  The Liz Truss legacy makes it likely  that extra borrowing would make British government debt look dodgy and raise interest rates.

b)  Labour promised in its manifesto not to increase the major revenue raisers (income tax, NICs and VAT).

c)  Labour's pollsters think that reverting to "tax and spend" will ruin their electoral chances.

4. Labour lacks confidence, and rightly so, because it knows that it lacks robust support from the public.  Only a third of those who voted supported it, which, given the low turnout, represented barely a quarter of those entitled to vote, and many of those voted not FOR labour, but AGAINST the Tories (ABC: Anyone But Conservative).

 Nevertheless I believe Labour’s wisest course is to be bold and take the “tax and spend” alternative

 There was a letter in Saturday's Guardian (23^rd March)from a  Prof Helen Goodman (a former Treasury official) which listed some of the taxes Labour could raise without breaking its election pledge, viz:

·       raise capital gains tax to the same rate as income tax (£14bn);

·       reduce tax relief on pension to the standard rate( £13bn);

·       remove loopholes for City lawyers' partnerships (£8bn);

·       tax internet giants (presumably Amazon et al) to stop unfair competition with high street traders;

·       bring council tax up to date.

 The Liberal Democrat options  appear to be to tax the big banks, the social media giants and the online gambling companies.

 Any combination of the above, or further picks from the  list  of  the founder of the Tax Justice Network Richard Murphy, would suffice to repair the public realm and play our part in the proper defence of Europe in the immediate future

The long run  we need a full scale reform our out taxation system, which should include a long-overdue Liberal favourite of a Land Tax (It is easy to move wealth overseas and thus avoid taxation, but land tends to stay where it is.)

 Naturally the hostile press would scream blue murder but the necessary revenues would still leave our tax take no higher than the average of the other large European economies.

And it’s four years to the next election.  If  by then the public realm is seen to be in spanking condition, with hospital waiting lists down, special needs children and elderly pensioners properly cared for, young people able to buy or rent a genuinely  affordable home, the BBC World Service proclaim truth  and decency throughout  the planet, criminals  being re-habilitated, the potholes filled, cheap renewable energy  on tap,  etc. etc  . . . . the list is  endless. . . . then the confected indignation of a few non-domiciled media moguls on behalf of the rich would by then be forgotten.

 The alternative, of a continued dreary downward trudge towards further mediocrity could so easily result in the return power of a lying and deceitful combination of right-wing Tories combined with Reform.