GFA: we got by with a lot of help from our friends

Good Friday Agreement A major theme of the Leave campaign in the Brexit referendum was that the UK should "reclaim" its independence and become a Sovereign Power once more. Freed from the alleged shackles to the EU and behoven to no foreigners we should be able to rove around the world asserting our influence and increasing our prosperity. The 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement in Ireland, which we celebrate today, is a stark reminder that, not only were we then or are we now, a super-duper independent-acting world power, and, for that matter, neither is anyone else. In fact, we weren’t even capable, on our own, of sorting what was and is by world standards, a titchy little problem. The population Northern Ireland is barely 2 million (1 903 100 at the 2021 census if you want to be exact): a mere 3% or so of our population. That some of them were then and still are unhappy with their lot is, like Brexit, a self-inflicted wound. Or more precisely, also like Brexit, a Tory inflicted wound, because not once but three times the Tories torpedoed the attempts of Liberal governments to grant Home Rule to the whole island of Ireland. Indeed, the third time the patriotic "Land of Hope and Glory" Tories actually called upon the army to mutiny if the proposal were implemented. In the end the country was partitioned, a “fudge” unacceptable to “patriots” on both sides of the border. After years of violence, a sort of peace was restored with the Good Friday Agreement, not by the UK government acting alone with Irish government, but with discussions chaired by the United States Senator George Mitchell, and with the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, in close touch on the telephone. I strongly suspect that the welcome rush to massage Prime Minister Johnson’s botched Northern Ireland Protocol into the slightly more acceptable Windsor Framework was motivated by anxiety to curry the favour of US President Biden and ensure his blessing on the anniversary with the visit with which we are to be honoured tomorrow. The purpose of this post is not to air resentment of the involvement of the US or to belittle the difficulty on the situation. It is to point out that most issues these days, be they boundary disputes, drugs, trade, safety standards, human rights, energy, pollution, education, health, sustainability, tourism or whatever, involve international co-operation. The Brexiteers' promise of a nation independent of the ties that bind us to others is a false prospectus. Just as “no man is an island,” neither is a country, even if it is physically surrounded by water.

Lawson: Tories argue that black is white.

The Tories and their supportive press are hailing Nigel Lawson, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher, as an heroic figure whose economic policies rescued Britain from being an overtaxed, overregulated, bloated state into a roaring economic success. It is true that Lawson was a conviction politician who overturned the Keynesian policies which had become conventional in the post war period into what became known as the Washington Consensus of small states, low taxation, privatisation and deregulation. This he believed would lead to dynamic prosperity. Unfortunately, as we are now experiencing, his convictions were wrong. On taxation he was much applauded for cutting the basic rate of income tax to 25% (sic). He set the trend and it is now 20%. He managed to pay for this by increasing the levels of VAT: fine, but regressive in that it impinges on the poor rather than the wealthy and contributes to the present-day unacceptable and dysfunctional levels of poverty and inequality. Yes, there is plenty of room for taxation reform, but by switching from taxing desirable and productive activities (eg employment) to taxing undesirables (eg pollution, excess profits, rising house prices, land hoarding, short-term financial transactions). Another source of finance for his tax-cutting gamble was the sale of public assets - privatisation (gas, electricity, water, the railways, social housing etc.). These provided a “one off” boost to the treasury but have left us with utilities owned not by our government but foreign ones, hedge funds, and buy- to- let landlords. all capable of reaping excess profits for their own rather than our pockets. The deregulation and inadequate supervision of that which remained led to the 2008/9 banking crash and the current pollution of our rivers with sewage, to name but two. Our smaller state means that we have an impoverished education system, the highest level of child poverty for generations, a health service on its knees, a totally inadequate care service, prisons overcrowded, courts with a two-year backlog, endemic homelessness and a transport system not fit for purpose. As for the dynamism that was supposed to be unleashed - well , the 1% at the top have done very nicely, but largely through the ries inpropety prices short-term financial manipulation rather than innovative investment. For the rest of us, we have the lowest growth-rate in the G7 and, in terms of income per head, Poland will overtake us by the end of the decade.

More "beyond awful."

There are local government elections in a month’s time. The government is currently highlighting three of its “beyond awful” polices which are absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with local government but which are presumably designed to appeal to the worst instincts of their supporters and encourage them to turn out. 1. There is huge emphasis on their policy to discourage migrants and asylum seekers from coming here. Their three-word slogan “stop the boats” is copied from that used in Australia. The threat to disallow each and every claim for asylum made by someone who has arrived here illegally itself contravenes international international law to which the UK not only subscribes but in fact played a leading part in creating. 2. There is a threat to clamp down on “Grooming Gangs.” What are really needed are policies and resources to deal effectively with all forms of child abuse, most of which is perpetrated by individuals and within families. However, by highlighting “grooming gangs” our recollections are triggered of a prominent case of grooming by an gang of Asian men who operated in Rochdale. Hence there’s strong whiff of “dog whistle” racism. 3. “Wokism” is highlighted as an impediment to dealing with crime and all sorts of anti-social behaviour, as are the efforts of “lefty lawyers” who operate to ensure that people’s rights, not least their human rights, are respected. I take “Woke” to mean "respect of and sensitivity towards other people’s feelings.” Aided by the right-wing press, the Conservatives are , with some success, turning what might otherwise be called “politeness” into a term of abuse. I fervently hope that the Tories have misjudged the national mood, and the evidence will be their trouncing in the coming council elections, as a prelude to their eviction from office as and when they dare to call the general election

Johnson on Planet Z?

I watched most of ex-PM Johnson’s “appearance” before the Commons Privileges Committee, mostly because it was an historic occasion (as far as I know it has never happened to any other ex-PM), and a little bit because I wanted to see this former Eton Schoolboy whose report said of him that “he thinks the ordinary rules don’t apply to him” finally get his comeuppance. One thing is clear: if he honestly, really , truly, “on my heart” didn’t realise that the parties did not observe the rules his government was laying down for everyone else, than he isn’t fit to be responsible for feeding the Downing Street cat, never mind governing the country. However, that is not what the Committee must decide but rather: “Were his lies inadvertent?, negligent?” The wonder is that it will take another week or two for the Committee to publish their findings. The rest of the world must be laughing their socks off. Here’s a well-tried aphorism to help the Committee: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. Apart from the effrontery of denying what he obviously knew, there are two other aspects of the “evidence” which show his lack of empathy with his fellow citizens. 1. He implied throughout that the Downing Street Staff were entitled to some leeway because they “ worked very hard under considerable pressure." Probably true. So did millions of others: NHS staff struggling with life and death issues without adequate resources and protection because the government had failed to prepare for the predicted pandemic and implement the recommendations of the Cygnus Exercise conducted only a few years previously, while his own party were in power. Ditto care home staff. Ditto, to a lesser extent, the education services, the hospitality industry , emergency services and delivery drivers. 2. He argued again and again that these parties were “leaving dos” and were therefore “essential” work events. Most of us change jobs several times in our careers. I suspect very few people these days stay in the same job from day one to retirement. So leaving a job is by no means a unique lifetime event. I have done it eight times, (to clarify, have carried on doing the same job, teaching, but at different schools and institutions.) I’ve had to think very hard to recall what, if anything, marked my leaving each one. After four years in my first appointment I think I got a mention from the Headmaster in Assembly. (We still started each day with a story a hymn and a prayer in those days). After three years in the next, a small primary school, the staff bought me an LP record. It was of the Huddersfield Choral Society singing Haydn’s “Creation.” It conains the chorus "Achieved is the glorous work," which I arrogantly thought apt, but whether or not they did is another matter. The next one, after six years, I organised myself in the pub at the bottom of the school hill. This was very much a farewell “do” as my next job was at the other side of the world in Papua New Guinea. Against some of their jokey expectations I survived. I can’t remember anything about the other five. My final “retirement” was a bit of a damp squib because they weren’t sure whether or not they would “need me” the following school year. It may well be that some of the “leaving dos” in Downing Street marked the end of long and distinguished careers, but I have the impression that most marked the end of short-term stints. Contrast Downing street’s laxity with the rules pertaining to, and rigorously observed, in the highly significant “leaving dos” we all experience in our lifetimes: the funerals of our relatives and friends, very often dearly loved grandparents, parents, partners, siblings, contacts and colleagues. At some no relatives or friends were allowed at all. At others numbers were strictly limited, social distancing had to be observed both during the ceremony and traveling to and from the funeral, and relaxed socially gatherings after the ceremony to reminisce about the “dear departed” simply didn’t happen. We simply went home, often alone. Against this austere but necessary approach, which Johnson emphasised time and gain from his podium, the indulgence of the Downing Street trivialities is crass and insensitive. Johnson simply doesn’t understand: he is not fit for office.

It's parliament that's on trial.

Johnson before the Privileges Committee It is a measure to which British politics has sunk that the media seem to believe that there is at lest a possibility that our ex Prime Minister Johnson might be exonerated by the House of Commons Privileges Committee when he appears before them on Wednesday to claim that he did not knowingly lie to the Commons when he said that that “all lockdown rules were observed” in Downing Street when the series of “Partygate “ events was held. What is at stake is far more than Johnsons reputation, which is soiled beyond repair in the eyes of most of us. It is that of parliament itself. If the committee of seven MPs, four Tories, two Labour and one SNP do not find Johnston guilty of lying, preferably unanimously but at least by a majority, and recommend a sufficiently severe sanction, then our claim to be a liberal democracy is beschmisched. Mr Johnson’s supporters tell the media, and they dutifully report, that he is confident he will receive a clean bill of health. This could be true, as he appears to be a master of self deception. However Andrew Rawlinson in yesterday's Observer (19/03/2300) details the history that shows the facts do not support the claim of confidence. Briefly they are: 1) While still Prime Minister, Johnson did his best to block the reference to the Privileges Committee; 2) When this ploy failed No 10 delayed for months submitting to the Committee the evidence (What’s App records etc) it had requested; 3) By persisting with its requests, the Committee was accused of conducting a “witch hunt”; 4) When the written evidence was eventually produced, it was redacted to such as extent as to be almost meaningless; 5) The Metropolitan Police, after their own investigation, issued 126 fines for breakages of the law, including one to Johnson; 6) When the civil servant Sue Gray was known to have accepted a post with the Labour Party, her report, which had been hailed as impartial, fair and factual, including by Johnson himself, wqas and is now claimed to be biased and unreliable. Mr johnson's presence at several paries is sevidenced by photographs. If ever there was an “open and shut” case, this must be it. Any claim that Johnson “did not know” that he was there, or that it was a "party" is risible. But Johnson has a reputation of being like a “greased piglet.” His attempts to wriggle free could provide material for our satirists for years to come - a fitting end to a “beyond awful” career in politics. We must hope.

A "nothing changes" budget

The Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, finished his speech on an upbeat note: “Inflation down, debt falling, growth up.” Well, that’s certainly world-beating perception management. It’s all true, but fails to mention that inflation at the end of the year will still be at 2.9%, nearly half as much again as the 2% target level, [government] debt is predicted to fall, but will still be 30% above the acceptable level, and growth, at a predicted 0.2%, is the lowest in the G7 and a tiny fraction of the 3% the politicians would like to see. It is hard to see how the budget is likey to do anything to make the UK a happier place. We have three major social/economic problems in Britain, inequality, poverty and low productivity. The budget does little or nothing to alleviate any of them. In fact, inequality and poverty are likely to become worse Our level of inequality is unacceptable because it is so demonstratively unfair. People on average incomes and below, however comfortable in absolute terms their lifestyles might be, cannot be expected to be satisfied with their lot if the people at the top are creaming off shedloads. Examples abound. According to figures in last November’s “Prospect” magazine Lloyds Banking Group pays its CEO £8.9m a year, 255 times the average pay (£28, 005) of the lower quartile of employees. For Greggs its £2m, 98 time £19, 824. In 2022 the UK the median household (not individual, household) income was £32 300. An income sufficient to allow them to increase their annual pension pot contribution from £40 000 to £60 000, as permitted by this budget, would be beyond their wildest dreams in a different world. While assisting the well-off to become even better off, the budget does little or nothing to reduce the levels of poverty of which this rich country should be deeply ashamed. The cruel bedroom tax persists, as does the cutting off of benefits to the third and any subsequent children. Benefits, already inadequate, will receive only below-inflation increases. About 1 in 5 households are forced to exist below the poverty line (eg having to chose between eating and heating), over 4m children live in poverty, more than half of them in households where at least one parent is in work. Although the UK is a rich country (still sixth in the world) we would be even richer if, instead of stagnating, our economy grew at the same rate as comparable countries. The budget attempts to tackle the problem by increasing the number of workers. The availability of child care is to be vastly extended in the hope of tempting more parents into paid employment. Hence, the economy gets two for the price of one. Every sixth-former who studies economics learns that if a householder does his/her own cleaning or car repairs nothing is added to GDP. However if he/she employs a cleaner or a garage, then the cleaner’s or mechanic’s wages are added to GDP, which therefore grows. The additional child-care employee’s wages are added to GDP as are the wages of the former home-maker if he/she takes to opportunity to go out for paid employment, or, in this day and age, works from home without the distraction of keeping an eye on toddler. Surely this is the wrong tack? We have enough “stuff” and there’s enough to satisfy everyone if we leaned to share it properly. What would improve our quality of life is more leisure, more family time (including nurturing the children), more enjoying friendships, more walking in the countryside, more playing games,more time to appreciate the wonders of the world we live in. Not more work, but more productive work in less time. To achieve this we need investment. The budget’s exemption from tax for profits invested may achieve this, but what we really need is a change in the culture: to encourage those with spare money to use it for long-term investment rather that a short-term pitch in the markets.

Beyond awful

It is unfortunate that most of the media’s reporting of the banning of Gary Lineker from the BBC has centred around his allusion to the “language used by Germany in the 1930s” rather than his actual description of the government’s policy on asylum seekers as: “Beyond awful. . . an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people.” This has enabled Tory mouthpieces to distract attention from the actual policy and criticism by cries of foul, unfair, a gross exaggeration etc.” Tory perception management never misses an opportunity. It is hugely encouraging that the “sporting fraternity and sorority” have massed around Mr Lineker in support and the BBC has been forced to abandon its flagship sports programme in its usual form. Well done to them for for standing up for common decency when our politicians haven’t dared. I hope that when the fuss has died down it is the description of the policy which stays in the public mind rather than the distraction of Germany. Gary Lineker has done us a favour. In thirteen years of mean, selfish and incompetent government encompassing the bedroom tax, the cut in overseas aid, the “test and trace” shambles, government procurement via a VIP line of "mates," the illegal prorogation of parliament, and “partygate,” to name but some, we critics have exhausted our lexicon of descriptions: unbelievable, shambolic, bizarre, beyond belief, incomprehensible, cruel, inhumane .. . . So thanks, Mr Lineker, for another string to our bow. I hope “beyond awful” will in future be prefixed to every mention of this Conservative government, and their trademark populist policies, until they are ousted. Maybe it will even live on in history. To help foreign correspondents, in the languages in which I have a smattering “beyond awful” is , in French “ au delà d’horrible”; German, “überaus schrecklich”; Italian “oltre terribile;” Chichewa,” kupitirira zoopsa” and neo- Melanesian, ” long hap nogut.”