Category Archives: Economy

Reuters correspondent, research scientist and environmental advisor: “There may be the seeds of some good things in this pandemic”

There are many references to the falls in levels of air pollution in the world’s cities; as Kate Abnett (left) European Climate and Energy Correspondent, writes in an article for Reuters:

“Air pollution has decreased in urban areas across Europe during lockdowns to combat the coronavirus, new satellite images showed on Monday. Air pollution can cause or exacerbate lung cancer, pulmonary disease and strokes. China also recorded a drop in nitrogen dioxide pollution in cities during February, when the government imposed draconian lockdown measures to contain the raging epidemic”.

Dr David Wilson (right) – geologist and earth scientist – points out in the Financial Times the effect on economic output of the changes brought about by coronavirus. “Some of us will be travelling less. Some might seek a different trade-off between work and leisure. Carmakers might cut their excess production capacity”. He continues:

“I cannot be the only one to think that less air travel, more leisure, and not quite so many cars on the roads might all be rather good things”.

Stimulus there must surely be, but a stimulus programme which is aimed principally at the total level of gross domestic product risks worsening all the social ills of the world before the pandemic

The trouble comes from economists and financial journalists who, despite their best intentions, find it impossible to abandon the idea that GDP is good in itself (and that more must be better). Dr Wilson says that this ‘axiom of so much modern policymaking’ must be abandoned. ’The point of government is not to ensure economic output of so much per head of population, it is to give citizens the chance of good lives bailouts of businesses and households must learn from the mistakes of 2008 and protect the small and vulnerable.

In a recent paper, Alan Simpson (below left) – in a recent paper – also notes the dramatic improvements in air quality which have come with the Covid crisis.

He comments: “If we’re to learn anything it is that ‘recovery planning’ should not begin by re-filling the streets with a problem our children’s lungs didn’t need in the first place. Putting clean before dirty must be at the heart of post-crisis planning. It would mark the end of neoliberalism’s Armageddon economics”. He later focusses on strategic ‘food supply’ issues.

“Internationally, buffer stocks of food are getting caught up in siege mentalities. Kazakhstan, one of the world’s biggest shippers of wheat flour, has banned its export. The same ban applies to carrots, sugar and potatoes. Serbia has stopped exporting sunflower oil and other food goods. Russia is weighing up whether to follow suit. It won’t stop there. Wild weather across Europe and beyond is causing mayhem with global food supply. Domestic needs will come before international trade . . .

“We may grow only half our own food needs but, right now, Britain requires some 70,000 seasonal workers to pick the fruit and veg sitting in farms across the country. Besides cutting the UK’s ‘food imports’ bill (£50bn/p.a) this is an essential part of feeding the public. If the government is looking to deploy the Army in the midst of the crisis, at least let them begin as a Land Army . . .

“Food security is not going to be delivered by any compact between government, the army and the big supermarkets. The alternative needs to be more local, accountable and inclusive. Huge numbers of small suppliers are currently left stranded by the closure of local cafes, hotels and restaurants. Huge numbers of vulnerable households can’t even get onto the telephone or internet queues for supermarket deliveries. This is the moment when Britain should give new powers to local authorities; to be the binding between local supply, local need and the networks of volunteers offering to bring the two together”.

Dr Wilson sums up: ‘There may be the seeds of some good things in this pandemic — a fairer society, with more time for family than for chasing money, a decline in environmental destruction — and any sweeping government intervention ought to try to nurture them”.

 

 

 

.

 

The Great Unravelling: Part 2, Coronavirus: A Very British Cull

Read the article here.

Summary

Alan Simpson opens: “The nation is at war. Peacetime production has slumped, foreign travel collapsed, casualties rise. In every part of the country, people anxiously worry about how to avoid the enemy. This time, however, it is germs, not Germans, that we fear!”

What Britain needed was wartime mobilisation for peacetime survival. Instead handwashing and a mêlée of ‘unofficial’ messages have been offered that simply add to public confusion and anxiety.

He sees Boris Johnson’s preference for encouraging individual behaviour change (rather than more interventionist ‘test-and-trace’ and ‘social distancing’ policies) as likely to deliver a slower drift into a much deeper problem.

Most offensive of all is his claim that ‘herd immunity’ is what will save us is offensive, because “throughout history, herd immunity comes only after widespread infection and substantial death rates. Even the benefits are often short lived; with immunity not comprehensively passed on to succeeding generations of the herd”.

Johnson’s policy of turning his back on more interventionist measures, may result in ‘A Very British Cull’; ironically, one getting shut of large numbers of the voters who put him into power.

Simpson’s article predicts – according to the pattern revealed in Italy – that in less than three weeks – assuming the rate of increase remains constant – the total number of cases in Britain will have exceeded 16,000.

The World Health Organisation now says that China’s most effective strategy was the extensive testing, pro-active detection and immediate isolation of patients. This is what rapidly reduced infection rates. By choosing not to adopt vigorous ‘test-and-trace’ policies, Britain has opted not to know precise numbers. Simpson anticipates that by the end of three weeks, the capacity of the NHS to deal with the Coronavirus epidemic will be close to breaking point.

Due to the scale of NHS cuts since 2010 the UK has only 6.6 ‘critical care’ beds/100,000, whereas Italy has 12.5 ‘critical care’ beds/100,000 people. 14,000 EU nationals left the NHS during Britain’s Brexit debacle and there has been an 87% fall in NHS job applications that followed this.

His generation (the older generation) mustn’t miss the chance to face painful home truths. Coronavirus is to the elderly what climate is to the young. If population growth is a problem, it isn’t the kids. It’s those of us living longer. Coronavirus has grasped this in a way that prejudice doesn’t.

Far too often climate campaigners come across indifferent (older) voices saying “It’s population, not climate, you should worry about. So let’s look at the actual numbers. According to the UN, out of today’s global population of 7.6 billion there are about 2 billion children (under 15). By 2100, when the population may rise to 12 billion, the number of children is projected to be … 2 billion.

An economic implosion in 2020 is unavoidable 

No amount of Central Bank interest-rate reductions will avert this. Societies that are afraid to go outside, or share the air they breathe, and have lost faith in the safety nets they once took for granted, are only ever semi-functional. But it is around the silver linings of such a collapse that tomorrow’s New Jerusalem will have to be built.

The silver lining to a dire situation

In the absence of government leadership, whole communities have been quietly stepping up to the plate; providing the leadership the nation lacks. In Wuhan, an impromptu army of young volunteers, transporting food around on empty buses, has delivered the food and medicines that has kept others alive. It is what happens in a war. Dad’s Army, Mum’s Army and (increasingly) Kid’s Armies have stepped in, providing the emergency safety nets their society needs. One way or another, we are all following China’s lead. In the UK, the most visible sign of this came from those volunteering as emergency responders; providing non-medical support services to the NHS.

As self-isolation increases, it appears too in local support networks. We’re part of a neighbourhood ‘internet Group’ that offers shopping and support to anyone self-isolating. Go onto Twitter, WhatsApp or Facebook and you will find these in their thousands, all across the country.

Some reports suggest that up to 3 million UK volunteers are stepping in this space. Increasingly, as older/more vulnerable members self-isolate, it is younger people who underpin these safety nets. Slowly, we are rediscovering what previous generations did in wartime. They called it ‘social solidarity’.

Simpson forecasts that today’s crisis will see carbon emissions tumble, pollution levels plummet, and a generation of younger people emerge as social saviours. Around them a very different Green New Deal must then be written. Tomorrow’s security will require a more circular, cleaner, inclusive economics. It will have to put back to the planet more than it takes out, and turn its back on beliefs that we can just shop our way from one crisis to another. This won’t be before time.

 

 

 

.

 

The Great Unravelling: a system in meltdown, Part 1

Part 1: economic ramifications, food security and pandemic bonds

Many of the points highlighted in this article are summarised below. It is published in full here.

Alan Simpson opened: “The delusions of neoliberalism stand at the edge of an implosion just waiting to happen. But, as with the emperor’s new clothes, global leaders are too fearful to say that their economic model has been stripped naked”.

The last week has seen that – following the wild weather – coronavirus and tumbling stock markets are ganging up to form an economic “perfect storm.” It will only get worse.

Initially, the industrial world had only a passing interest in the coronavirus outbreak in China: stupid Chinese, eating the wrong stuff it thought — good job that an authoritarian state could turn a city of millions into a quarantine zone.

Then markets began to panic and central banks are having to intervene

But now Italy has followed suit. In a dramatic, middle of the night statement, the Prime Minister announced the quarantining of a whole region of northern Italy, affecting 16 million people around Milan and Venice. Even this may be too late. The ramifications are massive. Start with China.

  • Its output accounts for around a quarter of global manufacturing,
  • huge quantities of which are currently stored up in containers that cannot get out of Chinese ports.
  • accounts for one quarter of global automotive production
  • provides 8% of global exports of automotive components for other manufacturers, many of whom rely on just-in-time assembly processes.
  • The same applies to steel and plastics, chemicals and high-tech telecoms.
  • Tankers arriving now set off before China went into lockdown. The real shortages will start to kick in this month.

The ripple effect of these logjams is running through the entire industrial economy, including a shortage of available containers themselves.

And when goods don’t flow, nor do payments associated with them. First-world firms struggle to work out how to pay bills (and workers) in the same way that China is having to pay workers to stay at home in quarantined areas.

Food security

The UK Treasury official who has just advised that agriculture is unimportant to the UK economy could barely have been more mistaken. Real alarm bells should be ringing all around Parliament about the amount of crops that will rot in the ground of waterlogged fields around the land. How are we to feed the public throughout the coronavirus crisis?

Weather related problems, including flood, drought and fire will throw food production systems crisis, with no globalised supply lines to step in as the safety net. But food security is an issue Parliament has barely touched on.

Why are political leaders reluctant to call what we are facing “a pandemic”?

(WHO) definition of a pandemic is relatively clear. It is “an epidemic or actively spreading disease that affects two or more regions worldwide.” This clearly describes today’s geographical spread of the highly contagious novel coronavirus and its significant clusters of cases far from China; principally in Italy and Iran. Countries closer to China, like South Korea, have also experienced an explosion in novel coronavirus infections. And Europe and the US are rapidly catching up.

The World Bank has launched a $12bn fund to help developing nations deal with “the epidemic.” But this is where the politics turns ugly. Behind the scenes, casino spivs stand to lose lots of money if we call this a “pandemic” not an “epidemic.” It all goes back to

“Pandemic Bonds”

In June 2017, the World Bank announced the creation of “specialised bonds” that would fund the previously created Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility (PEFF) in the event of an officially recognised (ie WHO-recognised) pandemic. The high-yield bonds were sold under the premise that those who invested would lose their money if any of six deadly pandemics (including coronavirus) occurred. If a pandemic did not occur before the bonds mature on July 15, 2020, investors would receive what they had originally paid for the bonds along with generous interest and premium payments.

This is why Trump has gone out of his way to pooh-pooh use of the word “pandemic.” If we don’t call it out until after July 15 speculators get paid and it’s the public who then pick up the bills.

The first “pandemic bond” raised $225 million, at an interest rate of around 7%. Payouts are suspended if there is an outbreak of new influenza viruses or coronaviridae (SARS, MERS). The second, riskier bond raised $95 million at an interest rate of more than 11%. This bond keeps investors’ money if there is an outbreak of filovirus, coronavirus, lassa fever, rift valley fever, and/or Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever. The World Bank also issued $105 million in swap derivatives that work in a similar way.

In 2017, $425 million of these “pandemic bonds” were issued, with sales reportedly 200% oversubscribed. For many, they looked more like “a structured derivative time bomb” — one that could upend financial markets if a pandemic was declared by the WHO.

He adds, “And that’s where we are now. Call it a crisis. Call it an emergency. But whatever you do, don’t use the word “pandemic” because it might kill the market”. Concluding that there is no way to magic this crisis away, he says we must manage our way through it as best we can, adding, “But calling a pandemic a pandemic would at least treat countries and communities as human entities, not just chips in casino capitalism”.

 

Alan Simpson

8 March 2020

 

 

 

 

.

Wake up Britain! The EC sees inland waterway transport as a serious, sustainable alternative

Welcome news on ESO’s website

eso

The European Skippers Organisation (ESO) was set up to make the voices of the European Barge Union (EBU) and independent inland waterway transport (IWT) entrepreneurs clearly heard by the European Commission. Over the years, the organisation has occupied itself with various matters, including market regulation, fleet renewal, market observation, waterway bottlenecks, inland shipping promotion, crew regulation, training, accommodation, environmental problems and River Information Services.

2019: Brussels sees IWT as a serious and sustainable alternative 

ESO reports that in December, the European Commission presented its climate plans for the next decades. To reach the climate goals and reduce greenhouse gases the EC wants to give inland shipping a bigger role in transport in the EU, conveying more cargo, improving existing infrastructure and building new waterways. Never before has such a policy been made in favour of inland shipping which will move forward and do the utmost to fulfil the challenges ahead, for the benefit of people, planet and prosperity.

UK at Forefront of Transport Innovation (not)

Surprisingly there was no reference to the potential of water freight in a major report (UK at the Forefront of Transport Innovation) on how the UK can capitalise on opportunities offered by transport technologies and innovation to benefit the economy, society and the citizen. It was published on 31st January 2019 by the Government Office for Science.waterfreight

Waterborne Technology Platform, the European research and innovation platform for waterborne industries published their January 2019 report presenting vision, strategy, time-path and expected benefits of targeted research into inland waterway transport and ports.

The EU’s Green Transport Deal  

A Euractive Green Deal article reports that in October, climate chief Frans Timmermans told the European Parliament that he wants to establish ‘green ports’ around Europe, which offer clean refuelling infrastructure and reduced costs for less-polluting ships.

Boats, barges and ships will form a vital part of the new mobility plan in the EC proposal to shift a “substantial” part of the 75% of freight carried by road to inland waterways and rail.

 

 

 

 

.

After a climate-friendly Flybe decision, will government respond to Tory challenge on the scandalous North-South funding imbalance?

Due to WordPress malfunction I cannot upload images to this site. They are included in the email alert

The Financial Times casts doubt on the prime minister’s commitment to the regions in two articles today

As Jim Pickard reports, in Flybe collapse puts commitment to regions in doubt, some MPs are voicing concerned about the impact of the bankruptcy on their constituencies. He points out that Boris Johnson’s administration had repeatedly vowed to improve “regional connectivity” and sees the Flybe decision as a failure to uphold this commitment.

The economic case was put by Kelly Tolhurst, the aviation minister: “Unfortunately, in a competitive market, companies do fail, and it is not the role of government to prop them up”. 

Snapshot FT reader’s comment: decision is climate friendly

Tory think-tank Onward has found “dramatic” differences in spending to the advantage of London in recent years

In another article, Pickard reports that – in his election manifesto last year – Mr Johnson promised to ramp up the Housing Infrastructure Fund from its current £5.5bn to £10bn to support the delivery of new homes in local authorities “across every English region”

Housing Infrastructure Fund graphic

He refers to a report called “The Challenge”, by the Tory think-tank Onward (May 2019) which has found “dramatic” differences in spending to the advantage of London in recent years.

It argued that government spending has for years been skewed towards the most prosperous parts of the country, in part because of the Treasury’s “Green Book” — which sets spending criteria.

The differences in spending included:

  • capital spending on transport in London at £6,600 per head between 2008 and 2019, compared with the English average of £2,400,
  • research funding for universities — was nearly twice the UK average in London, at £3,900 per head versus £2,300 per head from 2001 to 2017 and
  • London received 47% of Arts Council England spending and central government funding of arts institutions over the same period.

FT cartoon

Pickard’s conclusion that such evidence raises questions about the depth of the prime minister’s commitment to the regions is qualified by his FT colleague, Camilla Cavendish: “Boris Johnson’s ‘levelling up’ agenda depends on devolving power”

 

 

 

 

,

Public health emergency: move some freight from road to water and reduce air pollution

“There are an estimated 11,000 deaths per year at the moment, but this will rise as the population continues to age”. (The British Heart Foundation (BHF) 

Summarising an Environmental Law paragraph:

  • Transport is the biggest source of air pollution in the UK.
  • In town centres and alongside busy roads, motor vehicles are responsible for most local pollution.
  • Surface transport is responsible for around a quarter of UK emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – a major contributor to climate change.
  • Many areas still fail to meet national air quality objectives and European limit values for some pollutants – particularly particles and nitrogen dioxide.

As the shortage of HGV drivers in the UK has climbed to 59,000 and 64% of transport and storage businesses now face severe skills shortages, (according to a recent report by the Freight Transport Association) it is a good time to consider a shift from HGV to barge.

The British Heart Foundation (BHF), has warned that more than 160,000 people could die over the next decade from strokes and heart attacks caused by air pollution. Jacob West, executive director of healthcare innovation at the BHF, which compiled the figures, said: “Every day, millions of us across the country are inhaling toxic particles which enter our blood and get stuck in our organs, raising our risk of heart attacks and stroke”.

Bellona Europe (header below) comments that inland waterway transport has greater potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than road or rail, when discussing ways to make the mobility sector more clean and carbon-neutral.

“With air pollution contributing to around 40,000 deaths a year and four in 10 children at school in high-pollution communities, it’s clear that tackling air pollution needs to be everyone’s urgent business.”

 

 

 

 

.

Reversing decades of neglect: government-commissioned report on upskilling and reskilling adults in the workforce

Dr Philip Augar (below right), chair of the Post-18 Education and Funding Review Panel, was commissioned by the May government in February 2018 to improve the availability of technical and vocational education by providing alternatives to university education.

Dr Augar opens his report by pointing out that the review is the first since the Robbins report in 1963 to consider both parts of tertiary education together:

Prime Minister Harold Wilson – in the ‘60s and ‘70s – supported tertiary education by supporting the setting up of the Open University, channelling funds into local-authority run colleges of education and creating extra places in universities, polytechnics and technical colleges.

Since then, Augar points out, no government of any persuasion has considered further education to be a priority.

The consequence has been decades of neglect and a loss of status and prestige amongst learners, employers and the public at large.

He sees the review as a unique opportunity to deliver an objective assessment of the current situation, to articulate the country’s future needs from tertiary Introduction education, and to propose remedies that are practical and realistic in addressing the issues it has identified:

“It is an opportunity to consider the roles both should play in meeting the country’s social and economic needs, how they fit together, how they should be funded and whether they are delivering value for students and taxpayers”.

The review asks whether the changing pattern of public subsidy is strategically desirable

It points out that the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the public subsidy amounts to about £30,000 per student for those studying Arts and Humanities and as much as £37,000 for those taking courses in the Creative Arts. The equivalent is £28,000 for Engineering students and £24,000 for those studying Maths and Computer Science.

And Figure 3.11 (based on HMRC data) also shows that the government’s investment in providing Engineering degrees has fallen by about £9,000 per student since 2011, but risen by more than £6,000 for Creative Arts degrees – over 30% more per student for Creative Arts than it does for Engineering.

After describing post-18 (or ‘tertiary’) education in England as a story of both care and neglect, depending on whether students are amongst the 50% of young people who participate in higher education (HE) or the rest, Philip Augar continues:

“The panel believes that this disparity simply has to be addressed. Doing so is a matter of fairness and equity and is likely to bring considerable social and economic benefits to individuals and the country at large.”

In a changing labour market it is vitally important to offer upskilling and reskilling to older adults in the workforce with basic or intermediate skills and an FT editorial adds a reference to the “knock-on effects on productivity, wage growth and social harmony”.

At present the decline in vocational education is widespread and protracted. Most of the neglected 50% of the 18-30-year-old population who do not go to university, and older non-graduates are at work and, if they are educated at all after the age of 18, are educated mainly in further education colleges where teachers are paid on average less than their counterparts in schools:

“Funding levels are inadequate to cover essential maintenance or to provide modern facilities, and funding flows are complex to navigate. Not surprisingly, the sector is demoralised, has little to spend on mission groups and is consequently under-reported in the media and under-represented in Westminster”.

The FT editorial board welcomes the recommendation to expand the tuition fee loan system to all adults made by Augar, whom they describe as a businessman and historian.

It points out that increasing numbers are attending university, in sharp contrast to the UK’s vocational education system, which has seen funding cut by 45% in real terms since 2010 and agrees:

  • The Treasury should make up the funding shortfall in grants for science and technology courses, which receive less taxpayer funding despite wider benefits and that
  • more resources will be needed to fund opportunities for lifelong learning and training.

Its conclusion: “Creating a system in which all contribute and all benefit is essential. would be good both for the economy and to promote a fairer society . . . with knock-on effects on productivity, wage growth and social harmony”.

 

 

 

o

 

Wry smile? Michael Rosen’s 10-point Guide to Labour Leadership Candidates

A gift from Robert Kornreich, a Kings Heath reader; emphasis added.

1. The Economy: if you’re asked about why ‘Labour crashed the economy’ – concede everything. Apologise profusely. Say, ‘Yes we did.’ Smile weakly. Agree if the interviewer makes out ‘there was no money left.’ Agree that it was ‘necessary’ to ‘get things right’ and ‘tough decisions had to be made’ and perhaps ‘we were in the wrong place to put them right at the time.’

Don’t ever point out that in fact it wasn’t the ‘economy’ (in the sense  of the government’s finances) that had ‘crashed’. It was the bankers’ who wouldn’t or couldn’t lend money any more.

Never point out that the UK is a currency-issuing economy. Never point out that the government has been issuing billions of what they call ‘quantitative easing’ which has the net effect of making the super-rich richer by increasing the value of their assets.

Don’t make a big deal out of ‘inequality’. Instead, cite the misleading statistics on the inequality of pay. These ignore the inequality of wealth which factors in ‘assets’ e.g. property.

Never mention trade unions. It has been shown that a unionised workforce is able to squeeze a little bit more wages out of the system, alongside better work safety, guaranteed breaks, improvements of working conditions. Never ever mention this. Let interviewers talk about ‘union barons’ and smile weakly.

Never mention ‘nationalisation’. Give that up. All of it. Right away. If power firms, railway companies, water companies, the postal service or any other part of the economy is doing a rubbish job and ripping off people, on no account suggest that nationalisation might be a possible solution. Keep talking about ‘responsible business’ or some cack about ‘a new kind of capitalist’.

The amount of national debt in proportion to the GDP is worrying some economists. You can mention this but if anyone says that you talking about this is ‘damaging confidence’, clam up and smile weakly.  

The amount of private debt created by the Tories in order to make up for weak demand is getting to a point where some in the financial community are getting a teensy bit worried that the old domino effect could strike again: a bank in some part of the world system might shut its doors and then another and another and we’re back in 2008. The fact that this is finance capitalism being finance capitalism must never be mentioned by you. You must keep up the pretence that this is some kind of present difficulty in what is really a perfect system. Talk about ‘regulation’ and ‘responsible banking’ as if that could or would solve anything.

If the whole financial system collapses, blame Russia, China, Iran and Jeremy Corbyn. 

2. Foreign policy. You are just allowed to say that perhaps the Iraq War was not ideal (don’t mention the millions of deaths, rise and rise of terrorist groups)  but there are no other wars that you can say were wrong. 

You should talk as if ‘Britain’ (never say ‘UK’) has to ‘help sort out’ anything going on anywhere so long as the US thinks it’s right to do so. Clearly, Iran needs to be ‘sorted out’ next, so say so. Never question the right of ‘Britain’ to do so.

When the media machine gets going explaining why some country (any country) is the greatest threat the world has ever known, agree with this. Smile weakly. Point out that this is ‘patriotic’.

Talk about something called ‘Britain’s standing in the world’ as if you’re talking about Queen Victoria being crowned Empress of India.  Talking of Queens, always say the Queen is wonderful. And so is the Royal Family. Nick Boris Johnson’s phrase ‘beyond reproach’. Mention that your mother loves Prince William.

3. The Election defeat. Make absolutely clear that there was only one cause for this: Corbyn. Never admit that any move over Brexit that he put forward came as a result of something your group pushed him into. On no account let anyone make comparisons of the popular vote: Brown (less than Corbyn), Miliband (less than Corbyn). Never make the point that the Labour Party hasn’t actually disappeared and that 10 million people voted for a Corbyn-led Labour Party this time and 12 million last time.

Keep saying the manifesto was a mistake. Don’t go into details. Begin sentences with, ‘I just think that…’

43 out of the 59 constituencies that went from Labour to Tory were in Leave seats. On no account mention this. Don’t mention the fact that probably, once Johnson came back with a deal, the game was up for Labour.

What you have to keep saying is ‘we’re listening to people’s concerns’. Be very clear that this isn’t anything to do with poverty caused deliberately by the Tories. That’s much too confrontational. ‘Listening to people’s concerns’ means you visiting somewhere for the TV and  letting people on camera or on the radio ramble on at you for hours about how they aren’t racist but the trouble is that immigrants have cut their wages, getting council houses, putting pressure on the national health and talking loudly on buses.

On no account point out that poverty, housing shortage and an under-funded NHS were created by the Tory government through austerity as a deliberate part of cutting the role of the state and them (not immigrants) trying to create a cheaper labour force. You must never ever say this. 

4. Antisemitism. You will be asked about ‘antisemitism in the Labour Party’. This is good. You will not be asked about ‘antisemitism in society’, or ‘antisemitism in the Tory Party’, so you must not mention these either. There is only ‘antisemitism in the Labour Party’. Concede everything.

On no account question whether any report or account was in any way exaggerated, distorted. You must not mention the fact that when Johnson was elected as leader of the Tory Party, every journalist in every newspaper knew that he had been editor of the Spectator and had edited ‘Taki’ who regularly poured out antisemitic jibes in his column for Johnson or on his own blog or other publications. Don’t mention that not a single one of these journalists mentioned this. Don’t say that you are in any way concerned by Rees-Mogg and his antisemitic jibes about ‘illuminati’ and Soros, his retweeting of a tweet from the Alternativ für Deutschland or that he has hung out with far right groups.

Don’t on any account mention the links between the Tory MEPs and far-right groups in Europe. Don’t mention that Boris and Orban (antisemite) appear to get along very nicely. On no account dig up anything on the way that Dominic Cummings talks about Goldman Sachs – it’s almost identical to the way antisemites used to talk about Rothschild.

Just keep saying sorry for ‘antisemitism in the Labour Party’ as if it’s the first, last and only presence of antisemitism in the UK today.

Always refer to ‘the Jewish community’ as if it is one monolithic entity all thinking and living in more or less the same way, even though it’s a teeny bit antisemitic to say so. It’s the kind of antisemitism that no one notices so it doesn’t matter.

5. Israel.  Remember Ed Miliband – he suggested that one way to get the ‘Peace Process’ going again was for the UK to recognise a Palestinian state before negations. He was immediately vilified, Maureen Lipman left the Labour Party and, apparently, thousands of Jews followed her. Miliband was, according to the Jewish Chronicle ‘toxic’. On no account repeat Ed’s proposal.

Talk about the ‘peace process’ as if it’s a real thing. You can frown in a caring sort of a way about the West Bank and Gaza but on no account propose anything concrete or useful. Accept that all problems in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza are caused by Palestinians. 

6. Brexit. You’re stuffed. There will either be a very hard Brexit or a very very hard no-deal Brexit. Remember, no one understands trade deals, nor do you. Keep saying phrases like ‘the very best for Britain’. It doesn’t mean anything because something can be, say, the very best for bankers and it’s absolutely no good for working people. The advantage of keeping going on about ‘Britain’ is that it feeds into people’s sense of entitlement and special status as Brits in the world.

7. Education. Don’t disagree with the academy and free schools programme. Don’t make a fuss about unaccountable academy management siphoning off millions. On no account oppose grammar schools. These offer the illusion that they are good for the poor because a tiny percentage of poor people go to them. Never describe the schools that are not grammar schools as  ‘Sec Mods’. Keep calling them High Schools and do the ‘progressive’ bit by saying that there are teachers in High Schools who are doing a fantastic job. This has the advantage of being both patronising and unnecessary and completely misses the point that the people you will call the ‘disadvantaged’ are disadvantaged by grammar schools.

8. Social mobility. This is going to be one of your big ones. Keep going on about social mobility. On no account mention the fact that there are 3 key motors that prevent social mobility: inherited wealth, private education and inherited wealth. To mention these is class war. Don’t do it.

In fact, social mobility also accepts the idea that there must be and will always have to be the very poor, not quite so poor, the fairly poor, the not poor, the quite well off, the very well off and the eyewatering obscenely super-rich. All we can hope for, you point out, is that a few people might move up from one of these layers to another. On no account mention that someone must move down for someone else to move up – assuming the numbers stay the same. In other words, social mobility means society immobility. No change. Keep going on about social mobility as if it’s a really progressive alternative radical idea. Mention the fact that your grandfather was poor, you are not and it’s all down to ‘social mobility’. Never mention the role of the expansion of the economy over the last 100 years as a factor.

9. Immigration.  The best plan here is to agree with everything that the Tories do. They will probably fill the airwaves with anti-immigrant rhetoric mixed with how wonderful certain individual migrants have been. Just copy this.

They will say that they’re going to follow the Australian system, so you should either agree or find another country – Canada or New Zealand (somewhere with a largely white government and English-speaking) – and say that we could follow what they do. The election has shown that not challenging anti-immigrant rhetoric leads many people to think that immigrants have caused their poverty which then in turn leads them to vote for the very people who have made them poor.  You must not make this point.

10. Housing. The last Labour Governments could have created a fantastic legacy of social housing. Gordon Brown muttered as much himself as he was leaving office. You could try to say one or two things about social housing but it generally reeks of ‘old socialism’, so avoid it.  In order to sound modern and forward looking, you need to say things like ‘we’re looking into exciting forms of shared partnerships’ or ‘we’re talking with business about how to get more affordable homes on to the market’. The great thing about the word ‘affordable’ is that it sounds like anyone and everyone can ‘afford’ the housing that’s ‘affordable’. They can’t. It’s complete nonsense but you must go on using the word anyway.

 

PS That’s all for now. Come back to me for more in a few days time.

Tuesday, 17 December 2019

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.com/2019/12/my-media-10-point-guide-to-labour.html

 

 

 

 

o

183 economists and academics say the Labour Party deserves to form the next UK government

CityAM, London’s most-read financial and business newspaper, reported (“Economists give Labour a boost by backing spending plans”) that Professor David G Blanchflower (below, right) headed the list of signatories to a letter (25 November 2019). It added under an illustration: Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party would markedly increase the size of the state to roughly German and French levels”

Summary of the economists’ letter which opened: “The UK economy needs reform”

For too long, it has prioritised:

  • consumption over investment
  • short-term financial returns over long-term innovation,
  • rising asset values over rising wages,
  • and deficit reduction over the quality of public services.

The results:

  • ten years of near zero productivity growth,
  • corporate investment has stagnated,
  • average earnings are still lower than in 2008,
  • a gulf has arisen between London and the South East and the rest of the country
  • and public services are under intolerable strain – which the economic costs of a hard Brexit would only make worse.

We now moreover face the urgent imperative of acting on the climate and environmental crisis.

Given private sector reluctance, what the UK economy needs is a serious injection of public investment, which can in turn leverage private finance attracted by the expectation of higher demand.

Such investment needs to be directed into the large-scale and rapid decarbonisation of energy, transport, housing, industry and farming; the support of innovation- and-export oriented businesses; and public services.

It is clear that this will require an active and green industrial strategy, aimed at improving productivity and spreading investment across the country. Experience elsewhere (not least in Germany) suggests a National Investment Bank would greatly help . . .

As the IMF has acknowledged, when interest payments are low and investment raises economic growth, public debt is sustainable. At the same time, we need a serious attempt to raise wages and productivity. A higher minimum wage can help do this, alongside tighter regulation of the worst practices in the gig economy. Bringing workers onto company boards and giving them a stake in their companies, as most European countries do in some form, will also help. The UK’s outlier rate of corporation tax can clearly be raised, not least for the highly profitable digital companies.

As economists, and people who work in various fields of economic policy, we have looked closely at the economic prospectuses of the political parties. It seems clear to us that the Labour Party has not only understood the deep problems we face, but has devised serious proposals for dealing with them. We believe it deserves to form the next government.

 

 

 

o

Will Corbyn/Labour’s industrial strategy guarantee fair production costs for perishable food – or rely on the global market?

“It is simply not right that any worker should have to sell their product for less than it costs them to produce them, and this is acutely felt by dairy farmers.”

Countryfile, reviewing Jeremy Corbyn’s “Rural Renewal” report, continued to quote: “A combination of a small number of very large milk processers operating as suppliers to retailers, supermarkets operating a ‘price war’ forcing down the cost of milk, and milk co-ops losing their power has resulted in thousands of dairy farmers finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, let alone make a profit.”

Corbyn said “we will work with all parties to ensure that customers are offered a price they can afford for their milk, but not at the expense of farmers whose very livelihoods depend on it. This will include investigating regulating supermarkets to prevent below cost selling.”

Factories don’t sell their products at a loss, but those producing perishable food are often required to do so. It’s so easy to put pressure on those producing perishable food: fresh milk, fruit and vegetables, who have to sell quickly – in effect holding them to ransom.

Seven years ago Telegraph View pointed out that some supermarkets pay less for milk than it costs to produce. Nothing has changed! Prices sometimes drop to the 1990s level but all other costs have risen steeply.

Confidence in successive governments continues to fall as the country has become increasingly dependent on imported food – which now even includes tomatoes from Morocco and eggs and poultry from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

A Fairtrade Policy Director noted that ‘The unpleasant and aggressive tough love lobby’ which has cut social and healthcare, education and public transport doesn’t spare family farmers

Corbyn on a Cumbrian farm, pledging to do “everything necessary” to stop no-deal Brexit carnage for famrers

No thoughts of love – or natural justice – appeared in the Oxford Farming Conference address of Liz Truss, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who blamed the ‘difficult world market’ for low milk prices and focussed on farming’s ‘huge export potential’, rejoicing that ‘we now grow chillies which we export to Pakistan and Mexico’.

Barbara Crowther (right), by far the best Fairtrade Foundation Director of Policy & Public Affairs (2009-2017), said “There is a very unpleasant and aggressive tough love lobby out there who simply do not understand the importance of locally sourced food and the underlying food security issues which are only going to get worse as the global population grows”. She asked “Could we make our Mark work on milk?”. This link to that (now unwelcome?) reference has been removed.

It’s a fair question and is something that has been looked at, and discussed many times – not least as part of a ‘Local and Fair’ conference a few years ago, bringing Fairtrade and Cumbrian farmers groups together to discuss the issues they hold in common, co-ordinated by Joe Human (see Barbara in video at that conference).

MP Anne McIntosh (below, who chaired the parliamentary Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee, for several years, urged the Government to intervene, after it was reported that 60 dairy farmers went out of business in one month alone. EFRA wanted the Groceries Code which covers suppliers to the big supermarkets and retailers, to be extended to include dairy farmers – but soon afterwards, the estimable Ms McIntosh was deselected. Now in the Lords she is campaigning for the farming interests threatened by Brexit

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/anne-mcintosh-trade-eu-vital-our-farmers-62385

The Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers insists that all supermarkets could pay dairy farmers a price for milk that would meet the cost of production without increasing the price charged to the consumer: they would just need to accept a slightly lower profit on the milk they sell.

Placing the issue third after Angora goats and use of level crossings, the BBC, in a video link no longer working, gave priority to the destructive comments of the establishment economist, Sean Rickard.

Apparently unaware of economic interdependence – the knock-on effect to other industries and the rural economy – Sean Rickard tells farmers that if they can’t manage under these conditions, ‘they should give up making milk and live off the subsidy’.

In fact, as Clitheroe dairy farmer Kathleen Calvert often points out, the whole rural economy is affected as farmers lose income. Each working dairy farm returns a huge amount of money back into the wider economy, supporting many other regional businesses, and therefore helping to provide jobs for many. Each dairy farm that ceases to trade has a knock-on effect on the surrounding community and the economy, due to a loss of income to many other businesses. From press release, link no longer works. Instead see a briefer reference in Lancashire Life.

The key message “We are losing hold of a vital skills base at an alarming rate as dedicated dairy farming families are no longer financially able or prepared to work at a continual loss. We believe that many milk buyers gamble with the continuity and security of the UK milk supply by keeping much of the profit further up the market chain. Despite varying business structures and the importance of food production, most farm gate prices are now lower than production costs. This has a knock on effect on a wide range of other businesses and livelihoods of countless people involved, ultimately leading to pressure on incomes”.

Dairy farmers are compelled to pay a levy to DairyCo/AHDB, a body set up by government, which, consultant Ian Potter (above right) notes, has received – and spent – more than £1 million extra as a result of the increase in production. He asks: “But on what? Cynics say it spends the money on encouraging more production because that generates more levy money for it…and so on!” He continues: “In my opinion we now need a campaign to promote the buying of British dairy products using British milk . . . I have heard one Tesco farmer would prefer to give his levy to Tesco if he could to help it promote British milk. That makes sense to me if DairyCo won’t!”

Meanwhile food imports rise and government ministers advise hardworking farmers to place their ‘commodities’ on the global market so that unproductive internet bound speculators can ‘make a killing’ – nowadays more often crouched over their computer screens.

 

 

 

o