Labour and Syria November 2015

Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of the Labour Party. In the context of British politics he is of the Left. A Backbencher in the Commons for many years and a serial breaker of the Labour Whip. A couple of years ago the Prime Minister lost a vote in the Commons seeking to extend a bombing campaign into Syria in support of rebels opposing the Assad regime (by any measure a tyrant determined to hold onto power by any means including the use of chemical weapons). Syria was and is allied to Russia.

By general consensus our escapades in the Middle East and North Africa have not been a success. Indeed it could be argued that our actions (with the USA, France and others) have ensured that what we describe as 'failed/dysfunctional states' become ruined 'failed/dysfunctional states'. It can also be argued that, the space created by making a 'failed state' a certainty by our intervention, would be filled by terrorists. This has come to pass. We now have ISIL/Da'esh – an extreme Jihadist organisation which some have described as a death cult in both Iraq and Syria. I agree. Its origins are in the sands of Arabia – but of that more another time. Having filled the space in Iraq they then moved into Syria and we have the catastrophe that now exists. Where are these 'gung-ho' Liberal Interventionists now! Just because it worked in Kosovo does not mean it works everywhere and in all circumstances.

The Prime Minister (a third rate Public Relations person with an attitude of entitlement) is now coming back seeking (or he will when he thinks he has enough votes) the authorization of the Commons for an air Campaign in Syria as well as Iraq against Da'esh. (UK is already operational in Iraq following a request from their Government).

Reading carefully the Prime Minister's statement and the questions from Jeremy Corbyn (Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition) I see that the argument is framed in terms of the protection of UK citizens i.e. security and safety. This is of great importance but we cannot ignore the terrorist murders in Paris on 13^th November nor those in Beirut, Ankara, Baghdad and other places. President Hollande of France is surely correct that what we face is nothing less than the attempted destruction of our civilization. I am with him and all people who desire a free, pluralistic, democratic and worthwhile place in this world. So my first point is that we must stand and act in solidarity with the French and all like minded people. This does mean an air campaign in Syria against Da'esh.

It is disingenuous to query the UNSC resolution 2249 which clearly states:-

“Noting the letters dated 25^th June and 20^th September 2014 from the Iraqi authorities which state that Da'esh has established a safe haven outside Iraq's borders that is a direct threat to the the security of the Iraqi people and territory,….

5) Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so take all necessary measures,…...”

This clearly shows that Da'esh (an enemy who we are attacking in Iraq) is now also in Syria. It follows that we should attack them there!. “All necessary measures” could also not be more clear. It is not restrictive nor conditional (save legality under International Law which it would be!)!

We need to be involved showing solidarity with our French cousins and in support of our way of life. The more strength politically and diplomatically we would have if we were also involved militarily. A country cannot be semi-detached militarily but fully attached politically and diplomatically. You may wish it otherwise but that is not the case. Nobody loves or indeed listens to the pontifications of some sanctimonious moraliser who refuses to get his/her hands dirty. So most important are the political and diplomatic positions. Militarily our contribution will be small but the political and diplomatic benefits make it very worthwhile.

What is important is the endgame/exit strategy. We should use are full engagement to ensure, as far as we are able:-

cease fire between Assad and his non Da'esh enemies, creation of safe havens in Iraq and Syria, humanitarian aid, re-construction and sustainable democratic institutions in both countries. This will not be a quick fix but it is better to try than not or even worse just sit on the sidelines carping and wringing your hands.

Then perhaps Labour can get on with its historic task of making this country more equal and an even better place to live.

Why Jeremy Corbyn will deliver the exact opposite of what he wishes

'Were things other than they are': ought to be the motto of Jeremy Corbyn. To read his proposals one would think that all the events of the last 40 years had not occurred and if they are recognised they can be wished away. Dangerous, naive nonsense!

First let us dispose of the 'motherhood and apple pie':-“...a fairer, kinder Britain...”; “...decent jobs...”; “Fair taxes for all...” etc. etc.. Nobody is against this sort of stuff!

“Growth not austerity”, Jeremy Corbyn has to show that this proposal will retain the confidence of the money markets. He has failed to do so. Markets are less rational than he would believe (strangely common ground with neo-liberals in believing that they are). Academics can produce all the statistics they like about rational behaviour in markets but it is not the whole story. Consider this: a huge house building programme, nationalisation of transport and energy; not replacing Trident, lifelong education. Don't get me wrong these are all proper policies but they are (in our present circumstances) undeliverable for this UK electorate. Moreover the circumstances are not going to change substantially. The globalisation train left the station years ago. World financial markets are very integrated. In that context then how is Jeremy Corbyn going to finance his projects – short answer he cannot – its pie in the sky!

But progress can be made if rolling back neo-liberal excess is what is required and that certainly is the case. Starting at the right place is important – let's take energy and transport. These utilities which are now at best oligopolies require licences to operate, the government has control over that process. Licence conditions as to price increases, customer service, Company Accounts transparency and profit levels are possible as well as extending FOI provisions to them. That these companies would squeal is to be expected – all I would say is that in the short consultation period all representations would have to be made public at the end of the consultation period. This is how to tackle the clear abuse of market position that has occurred with the 'botched' Tory privatisations which assumed that natural monopolies and/or oligopolies would behave differently from the more rapacious examples in the private sector. That sort of naive thinking is of the same ilk as Jeremy Corbyn.

So apart from the unlikely event of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister just proposing such policies ensures that Labour cannot win allowing the Conservative Party even more leeway to attack ordinary people. So I would urge all those who have a vote not to use it for Jeremy Corbyn. The road to hell and all that – with the addition of McCluskyite, Moronic, Marxists.

UK Economic Prospects with an Election Coming

At my age I should know better than pay much attention to what Politicians say particularly at the time of an election. However what we have is; Eurozone deflation, Japan in its third decade of stagnation, oil price collapse, political instability in the Middle East and on the Russia - Ukraine border, slowdown in China, UK and Eurozone printing money (asset bubble in the offing yet again!) and UK debt increasing all against the background of increasing inequality in wealth and income. Is it too much to ask for a bit of statesmanship and international vision? The evidence thus far is that I do ask too much. Nevertheless let us analyse what we can in the UK with an eye on international implications.

The Coalition Government has reduced the structural deficit i.e. the amount borrowed to support day to day spending. Yes that's right our day to day expenditure continues to exceed our income!! - the shortfall being made up by borrowing. This Government said that it would have eliminated this deficit by 2014/15 financial year. The Office of Budget Responsibility in December 2014 (Economic and Fiscal Outlook) states that (with a whole load of assumptions about growth performance, tax receipts and commitment from an incoming Government to very large further cuts in Public Expenditure) then this deficit could be eliminated in 2018/19. Who was it who said the best indicator of future performance is past performance! So the past 5 years have seen debt grow not decline. This should put into context any claims that this Government has the nous and will to achieve what is now being claimed.

The Labour Party and the centre Left give the impression that they will be fiscally responsible and the unspoken (or not yet spelt out clearly enough) policy is one of growing the economy out of the doldrums. Yet again we hit the issue of performance. The UK economy has found it very difficult to sustain growth in GDP of 3% per annum without problems - mainly inflation and balance of payments. However past experience does show that a Centre Left government would seriously attempt to do something about the gross and growing inequalities of wealth and income in the UK and other economies seduced by the neo-liberal/conservative supply side/trickle down fantasy.

So on balance I say go for growth (and get the Banks to fully repay their debts to the Country after 2007/8) in concert with other like minded Centre Left parties in Europe and North America.