Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

This blog has always had misgivings about this and now repeats an important principle of statecraft. Never intervene in a civil war. The reasons for this are many. Wars begun never end as expected. If a people take to violence upon each other whatever the apparent suffering, it may well get worse if others join in, however good their intentions. Intervention by third parties provides a rallying cry for oppressors. In the end the best way to help is with humanitarian aid, mediation and reconstruction.

America knew this. It suffered one of the most savage civil wars in history. It is still the fact that more Americans have been killed by Americans than by all the country’s enemies combined. Whilst the battles raged, Britain and France agonised over whether to recognise the Confederacy, but managed to remain neutral. Yet the treatment meted out to the civilians of the South by Grant and Sherman was, according to Lord Palmerston, without precedent in warfare. Of all wars, civil wars are the most brutal. This is why Obama hesitated and Gates dismissed ‘loose talk’ of intervention in Libya. They had their national folk memories as well as more recent experience.

Cameron, who in the eyes of this blog has ruined his premiership and shown both naivete and lack of judgement, when rebuffed by the U.S. turned to an eager France. This was the silver lining of the moment, because it brought two natural allies together in an alternative diplomatic force to the reluctant U.S. France’s position was unambiguous. It recognised the insurgents and laid military plans. Then, joined by Britain, it engineered a compromise in the UN leading to the passage of UNSCR 1973 with fair-weather backing from the Arab League and with silent disapproval from Russia and Germany. It was ready to launch an immediate air strike on Gaddafi’s column advancing on Benghazi to deliver an assault without mercy, reducing it to a line of scrap and saving the rebel capital from a terrible retribution. At this point it would have been wise to take stock.

Britain, now back in its familiar role as the U.S’s junior partner was firing cruise missiles, launching air strikes and talking in terms that were outside the UN 1973, about targeting Gaddafi. In fact the Fox and Hague were hinting at it, but Gen Sir David Richards, the head of our military, was emphatic that such a plan would be illegal. Once again Britain is at business in the Middle East saying one thing and planning another, unaware, apparently, that in that and other theatres of the Muslim world it is, like the U.S. (which is self-aware) something of a busted flush.

Things are now going wrong. There is disagreement in NATO about what 1973 entitles them to do, the Rebels are a military shambles and the Gaddafi forces are not only remarkably resilient to air strikes, but are getting better in both tactics and implementation. As this post is in preparation the rebels, whose fortunes vary almost by the hour, are in headlong retreat and may be about to lose everything but Benghazi. Ideas that Gaddafi will pack his bags and walk into the hands of the international criminal court are simply ridiculous.

So now what? Arm the rebels?  That is manifestly against UNSCR 1970 and 1973, has been dismissed by the Secretary General of NATO and would do little good, because  not only are they untrained, but we do not even know exactly who they are or what they stand for and therefore into whose hands such armaments would finally go. France has gone back to its former position of distance from the U.S and Britain and talks of another resolution being required in the U.N.

This is exactly the kind of mission confusion which was warned about at the beginning. We no longer know where this is going. As the Tory MP Rory Stewart, who knows more about this whole theatre than any member of the government, has warned, bending the spirit of 1973 to make it mean something different and licence more than those who voted for it thought, would damage Britain’s credibility for more than twenty years ahead. 

Libya is now not just a crisis for its suffering  people, but it is en route to becoming a crisis for the British government. When Cameron took office this blog had hopes that he would turn out to be one of our best Prime Ministers. That opinion is now revised. He is at risk of becoming one of the worst.

The introduction of the cheaper and more restricted (the spin word is targeted) edition of EMA has once again opened up an alarming fissure in the ideal of free education for all and the ability to provide it. Michael Gove had waiting in his in tray two priorities when he took office. The first was to introduce rigour to the curriculum and restore responsibility to the teaching profession. The second was to get better value for every pound spent because of the state of the public finances.

The first is well under way. The Baccalaureate restores focus on the outcome with a discipline absent since the disappearance of the old Matric. At last a connection is made between youth unemployment and what youth has been taught. National prosperity in the future hinges on these outcomes. This is why it is  calamitous that fewer than half of all  students finish state secondary education with a pass in basic Maths and English. This inhibits them from acquiring skills and communicating ideas. It excludes them from science. It is also literally unforgivable that there are twice as many job vacancies for young engineers than there are young people qualified to fill them, so employers have to look and sometimes actually move their business, overseas. This is education failure on a critical scale.

Various measures are in hand to respond to this farcical situation, including more focused primary eduction, phasing out modular A levels and so on and Gove is to be congratulated on grasping the nettle, in defiance of the shrill cries of those dangerous academics, who are prisoners in their world of fads and fancies, in denial that there is a real world as well.

When it comes to the money, the report is less enthusiastic. The tuition fees saga has been one of the worst policy mishaps of the government thus far. The EMA changes have been judged of the same stripe. Nothing has done more to undermine voter confidence, that the words of politicians are ones upon which reliance may safely be placed.  The impact on the Lib Dems is almost terminal and recovery will be difficult. Clegg’s reputation is in tatters. Yet the Tories have not come out well. Whilst extolling the need to create an economy which does not rely on borrowing and requiring hardship and suffering from everybody to reduce the deficit, this schizophrenic government ensures that every educated person, not from a wealthy background, begins their working life in debt.

Mixed messages never convey what is required. Add to that, the tinkering with structures, conversions to Academies, Free Schools etc are interesting ideas, but now, when so much else has to be done, is not the time.  The Education Department begins to look like a muddle prone to U turns and gaffes. At the heart of it all is the fundamental belief of the post war social settlement which defined our country, that eduction, including higher education, should be free and available to all. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have, over the last thirty years, a good record here. Education is the future of the country. Michael Gove has a tremendous opportunity to make a difference. To make a real and worthwhile difference he will have to do better.

At the end of the day education has to be paid for out of taxation. To charge people, as in further education, money they do not have, so you lend it to them, is morally corrupt. To have to borrow the money to lend to them, is fiscally unsound. In combination the whole thing is economically flawed. Gove needs to talk to Osborne. There is confusion between tax rates and tax flow. The former are too high, the latter is too low. Notwithstanding that, the best way to pay for higher education is out of income tax. It offers a virtuous circle. The better your education the more you earn. The more you earn, the more tax you pay. There is no better way.

There are now three political hotspots involving the U.K government. The Cuts, Education and Libya. Each makes headlines and provides endless commentary from those for and those against. This blog believes that the arguments are now drifting from the core principles driving them, creating flaws in both the policies themselves and the arguments against them.

The next three posts will therefore examine each of these issues beneath the surface, in an attempt to offer a more robust foundation for debate.