Sunak's damp squib

 As per my comments at this time last year I continue to believe  that we British make far too much fuss about the annual budget (though we are told this isn't one, but just a Spring Statement.) In spite of the horrors of the war in Ukraine this year's "event" has received lots of discussion and publicity before it and will doubtless have generated a lot of comment in tomorrow's papers.

This year, for once, there was an opportunity to relieve the really serous distress on the horizon for a large part of our population, and Mr Sunak has not taken it.

Let us be clear: neither the country as a whole nor the economy as a whole, are suffering, or about to suffer, a crisis.  The people who are are the entire Ukrainian population, the members, largely young conscripts, of the Russian armed forces, the Uyghurs in China, the people of war-torn Libya, Syria, Ethiopia and Yemen, the starving in Afghanistan and the residents of Hong Kong and  the Jilin province of China where the COVID pandemic is spreading rapidly.

We do, however face a considerable rise in energy prices.  For the country and economy as a whole this is, compared with the above, a minor inconvenience.  But for about 20% of our population it will, when the price rise kicks in, mean being  unable to afford to heat their homes.  A uncomfortable  winter awaits for many families, who will be driven into serious misery and debt.

There is no need for this.

The UK, in spite of its problems, remains one of the richest economies in the world.  This Word Bank  site shows that if our Gross National Income were divided equally between every child, woman and man in the country, each individual would receive  $US45 870 a year, equivalent to £34 750 at the current rate of exchange.

That would make an income of a whopping £139 000 a year for the average family of four .

Of course, the national income is not equally divided and I'm not suggesting it should be.  Differentials reward different skills, unique gifts, extra effort and imaginative enterprise. Personally I tend to think that a ratio of 1:10 between the lowest and highest paid should be sufficient to recognise these criteria, but that is a discussion for another post

Most of us do not, of course , receive all our income: the government takes a chunk of it in tax, for most of us before we get it, and another chunk when we spend it.

The proportion taken by the government  in the UK is all together about 33%, below the G7 average of 36% which the governments of other developed countries take.

So, were we to move towards the G7 average, or even exceed it, (our current government likes to be "world -beating,") there would be plenty of money for the government to do its duty: namely:

• protect poorer families from the rising energy prices by grants, not loans;
• increase all social security payments by, say,  the anticipated rate of inflation (currently 8% instead of 3%);
• restore the £20 Universal Credit uplift;
• bring the NHS provision up to scratch;
• finance social care;
• prepare for climate change;
• restore local government services to at leat their pre-2010 levels;
• level up.
  

The manner in which this extra tax is collected  should be such as to do least damage to sustainable growth.  In other words  to tax those things which impact least on  current incomes, and to concentrate on taxing "bads" (eg pollution,) rather  than "goods (eg employment.)

 There is an eclectic mixture from which to choose: land, unearned wealth accumulation through such things a rising house prices, a wealth tax, a windfall tax on companies that have made excess profits during the COVID crisis and will make them during  the energy crisis; incomes greater that 10 time the minimum wage, and counting . . .

Instead, what have we got?

• a rise in the threshold for paying NICs (which benefits higher earners more than lower earners, and doesn't benefit non-earners at all.  and in any case, it's a "bad" tax because it's a tax on employment, which is a "good"):
• 5p of fuel duty, which should have been retained if not increased because fossil fuels are  a "bad", a source of global heating, pollution, and are non-renewable;
• a promise of an income tax cut in two years, which helps the rich who don't need it more than the poor who do.

It doesn't even amount to tinkering at the edges.

War propoganda: how to skew it.

 

These (translated into English) are the paragraph headings of a monograph on War Propaganda published in 2001 by the French commentator Anne Morelli. 

 

o    1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves!

o   .2 . Our adversary is solely responsible for this war!

o    3. Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil

o    4. We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests!

o    5. The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention

o    6. The enemy makes use of illegal weapons

o    7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable

o   8. Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause

o   9. Our cause is sacred

o    10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor

Please feel free to assess how they are being applied during the present  Ukrainian Crisis in both Russia and the West (and especially the British media, including my beloved Guardian)

You can find further and better particulars of Morelli's work, and an assessment of it, here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Basic_Principles_of_War_Propaganda

Ukarine two + weeks on

 The war in Ukraine has now lasted more than twice as long as most pundits predicted.  Inevitably the "fog of war" has descended and it is difficult to discern any actual facts  from the many claims and counterclaims.  What is sadly indisputable  is that hundreds if not thousands of largely young soldiers, plus many  civilians, some of them children, have already been killed, others maimed, and thousands of families have fled their homes to seek asylum elsewhere.  The only pleasing fact in this scenario is that the Ukrainian railways offer free travel to the refugees.  I wonder if, in similar circumstances  that would happen here.

Nothing I've read or heard causes me to change the views expressed in the two previous posts: that we have brought this on ourselves by failing to respect Russia's legitimate "pride" and prematurely,  almost gloatingly, offering NATO and EU membership to Russia's former satellite states.  

There are indeed those who claim that, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in a "secret treaty," Russia agreed to withdraw Soviet  tanks from East Germany on condition that NATO did not move into the former Soviet "sphere of influence."  Others deny this.    My own view is that if such a deal was not made it should have been.

 Be that as it may, now is the time for the diplomats to get round a table and find a compromise which will save face on both sides.  We are told that Russia has made an offer: that the invaders will withdraw  if Ukraine agrees not to join NATO, and cedes the Crimea and the Donbas to Russia. 

The Ukrainian government, naturally, declares this to be totally unacceptable.

Maybe, but it is at least a starting point for discussion, and that is what diplomats are for and how international disputes should be resolved in our 21st century.  

Or have we learned nothing from the horrors of the 20th?

The "West's" reaction to the Russian proposal supports that of the Ukrainian  government:  it is unacceptable to expect a sovereign (how damaging that word has come to be) state to accept such a condition.

But once upon a time, and not all that long ago,  there was a sovereign state called Cuba with a leader if not exactly democratically elected, at least appointed with popular acclaim.  That sovereign state decided that it would happily offer itself as a base for Soviet missiles  to point at the US, rather as the sovereign UK had and continues to offer itself as a base for US missiles pointing at Russia.

But what was sauce for the goose was not sauce for the gander, sovereign Cuba was firmly told that such a deal was not acceptable, and the face saving solution was that the Soviet  ships carrying the missiles would turn round on condition that the US  removed  its missiles pointing at Russia from Turkey.

I find it painfully tragic that young Russian soldiers and young Ukrainian soldiers should be required to shoot at, maim and kill each other, and families  flee their homes, becasue  the adults in charge of their countries can't get together and hammer out a civilised solution.

Ukraine: UK compromised.

 Two days before the Russians actually invaded Ukraine Prime Minister Johnson was on the airwaves and warned, not once, but twice, that if President Putin ordered such an invasion he would be "breaking international law."  It seems he doesn't do irony.

A report in the Guardian gives details of contributions madeby Russians  (or ex-Russian - some have taken British citizenship) have  to  the Tory party.

Here are three details:

Mr Luboy Chernukhin:    £700 000

Mr Alexander Temerko:  £357 000

Mr Mohamed Amersi:    £258 000

These and other donors claim that they have no influence whatsoever over Tory party or UK government policy.  Quite so.*

The  function of London (Londongrad) as a centre for money laundering  also adds considerably to the British balance of payments and makes life easier for any government.

I suspect that Mr Johnson has quite enjoyed his few days of strutting around on the world stage and making grave pronouncements.  There has, however,  been little evidence of anyone phoning him (or our Foreign Secretary) rather than vice versa.  

To be fair no other Western politician seems to have had much effect on Russia's actions either, but it is clear that Britain, outside the EU and with a proven liar and unreliable partner as a prime minister, we have been sidelined.  In contrast  both President Macron and the German Chancellor Scholz deserve decent marks for trying.  The key decisions, if any , will be made by President Biden and he is hamstrung by an unhelpful congress.

One thing Mr Johnson has said is valid: that President Putin cannot be allowed to succeed.

He won't, but there is not much in the short run that "The West" can do to bring this about, though we must try with effective sanctions, including those which make our own lives less comfortable.

In the longer run Mr Putin, or his successors, will be defeated by circumstances.  We are all aware of the attempts since the Second World War by powerful nations to impose their will on weaker ones.  They have all failed.

Korea: well, I suppose that could be counted as a "score draw": the North still under the dictatorial (communist?) heel, the South a flourishing capitalist (democratic?) society.

Vietnam

Afghanistan (twice, the Russians first, then the US et al.)

Iraq.

It is incredibly sad that hundreds if not thousands of young Russians and Ukrainians  will die or be maimed  before the present failure becomes apparent.  And families of refugees may run into millions.

One hope is that the Russian people themselves will come to recognise Putin's folly, overthrow him and return to rational normality.

When that happens Russia should be offered respect (see previous post.)

*  Much is made of the West's "freedom."  How "free" are we  to make rational political decisions when one party has access to shedloads of money on this scale to be used  to measure and influence public opinion, and the rest of us rely  on peanuts?  Contributions to political parties should be limited  to a realistic amount per adult per year (£100?) supplemented by state funding.

Russia, Ukraine and the UK

 Those who want more fully to understand what is going on in the Russia/Ukraine dispute could do worse than listen to this excellent  "podcast,"

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox?projector=1 

 but should take a deep breath first and be prepared to emerge mentally exhausted.

My sincere hope is that a diplomatic solution will be found (see earlier post) and that not a singe young Ukrainian  nor a singe young Russian sheds his or her blood to satisfy the egos of  posturing politicians.

It is encouraging to see that, on the surface at least, the search for a diplomatic solution is coming from the Europeans, last week from President Macron of France and today Chancellor Scholz of Germany.  Publicly US President Biden is making a more aggressive stance  which is being vigorously supported  by Prime Minister Johnson cheered on by his uncompromising Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, whilst our Defence Secretary Ben Wallace  tries to smear  the Europeans' diplomatic initiatives with " a whiff of Munich."

Mr Johnson, in public interviews, claims to be concentrating on "coordinating the Western response" and therefore hasn't the time at present to answer questions on the Downing Street parties (or even whether he has yet filled in his form). Clearly for him the crisis is a godsend to to give him an excuse for some  international grandstanding which may distract  attention from his domestic shambles.

Whatever the outcome of the present crisis, I think it will be noted as a clear illustration that, having left the EU, Britain's influence on world affairs has greatly diminished.  It is fairly certain that, whatever President Biden decides to do, Britain will follow like a tame lapdog.  How much better to be at the heart of the European diplomatic initiatives along with the French and the Germans.

President Biden has eight years of diplomatic experience in high office.  There is every reason to hope that, behind his strong words, he too is seeking a diplomatic solution,( as J F Kennedy did in the Cuban Crisis, by agreeing to withdraw nuclear missile based in Turkey and pointing  at Moscow, if Khrushchev  turned away  from installing Soviet missiles in Cuba.)

However, as we discovered with Prime Minster Anthony Eden's ill-fated  invasion of Suez in 1956, years of experience as No 2 does not guarantee  balanced decisions when in the top job.

 Fingers crossed.

What does No 10 actually do?

There's an episode of "Yes Prime Minister" in which the PM's  principal private secretary, Bernard, explains to Jim Hacker that prime ministers don't  actually do much.  I think it's the one in which Hacker is suffering from jet lag and keeps falling asleep after his successful (ie well covered by the media) visit to the US President.  Hacker is anxious that, after his few days' absence, there must be a huge backlog of work for him to catch up on.  

Bernard carefully enumerates:

Chairing the Cabinet: two hours a week

Prime Minister's questions: 2 x half an hour a week (as it was in those days)

Reporting to the Queen: half an hour a week

plus one or two other things;

 amounting in all to, say, about seven hours a week  (These figures are from memory and may not be strictly accurate, but give the general idea.)

So what does the prime-minister actually do (rather than "be" which is what the present incumbent seems most interested in)?

The Cabinet Office itself was not created until 1916.  Until then, when "Wellington thrashed Bonaparte" and "Britain really ruled the Waves"* and the UK established its world-wide empire, we got along without one.  Today it employs, according to Google, 8 000 staff.  Not all of them work in Downing street but, wherever they're based, what do they actually do?

The Prime Minister's Office is currently part of this Cabinet Office.  I haven't been able to find out how many people are employed in it, but Google points out that the invitation to the BYO "work event" in the Downing Street garden was sent to about 100 people.

Now, as part of the proposed "reforms", the No 10 operation is to become a separate government department  with its own Permanent Secretary.  These are normally paid £208,000+a year with a knighthood thrown in towards the end.

There is a clear and obvious need for lots of highly competent, and therefore decently paid,  civil servants to staff the departments of state that actually do something:  the Treasury, Home Office, the Departments of Health, Education, etc.  There is, as was recognised in 1916 for the more successful prosecution of the war, some need for co-ordination.  Whether this really needs 8 000 people should be questioned.

Technically, and in my view ideally, the prime minister is "first among equals."  He  will need "eyes and ears" to help him in his responsibility for co-ordination, promotions and demotions,  and deciding on priorities.

 And in the presentation and defence of government policy.  According to Michael Cockerell in "Unmasking our Leaders" (Biteback Publishing, 2021, pages 252/3) Gordon Brown "spent much of Monday, much of Tuesday and all of Wednesday morning prepping" for Prime Minister's Questions.  But, then, he was a perfectionist.

The present occupant seems mainly concerned with publicity.  There is a clear need for co-ordination of the programme here, and for a props and costumes department to provide the necessary supply of hard hats, high-viz jackets and  and medical-looking  outerwear.

That this should now be thought to require an entirely new government department demonstrates that the  government of the UK is now more a matter of showmanship than serious policies.

 

*  Gilbert and Sullivan, "Iolanthe."

Unlevelling-Up

 

There are now four funds devoted to the government’s so called “levelling- up” policy.

They are

The Future High Streets Fund,

The Community Renewal Fund

The Towns Fund,

The Levelling Up Fund.

 

The funds of the first three have already been allocated, as has £1.4bn of the Levelling-Up fund, with a further £1.8bn to be announced

Here, according to a Guardian article published 2^nd February, are details of how some of the funds, totalling £4.7bn, have so far been allocated..

 

Bromsgrove (Worcs)         £15m (c£148 per head)    Sajid  Javid's patch     

Central Bedfordshire         £26.7m (£91 per head)     Nadine Dorries’s  “

Richmond (Yorkshire)         Done very nicely               Rishi sundak’s" 

Eight of poorest areas       

In England, including                  

Tendring, Swale, Barking

and    Dagenham .             Less than £10/head.

North generally                  £32 per head.     c/f £413/ head lost in cuts                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     in austerity decade.

 

Had the date of the publication been 1st April I'd have thought these figures were rather clumsy attempts at satire.

 

Yesterday’s announcement  about the rest of the  levelling up fund has two major flaws.

1.     1.There is no extra money.

2.     2. Depressed areas are to have executive  mayors elected by First Past the Post (the second preference vote to ensure a majority rather than a plurality is to be abolished.)  This is to tilt the odds in favour of electing Tories.

What  areas laid waste by de-industrialisation and public sector austerity really need are:

1.   Much more  money: a guaranteed  equalisation grant from the central government.

2.    . Elected  regional authorities with properly representative views on the needs of the area.  You might call it regional assembly democracy