Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

QE in various forms is now very much part of the economic conversation, especially in connection with a fresh approach to financial issues by the new leadership of the Labour party. Dynamic Quantitative Easing remains under government, not bank, control and targets specific investment projects without borrowing, interest or repayments. It can reboot the economy, boost manufacturing and exports and enable sustained growth of real national wealth shared by all, rather than just asset inflation which is the downside of ordinary QE. If you want to find out more you can enjoy a lucid explanation of the original idea from the link below.

Download .99p  Paperback £2.99

The Prime Minister wants to bomb Syria. More precisely he wants to bomb IS in Syria. A persistent campaign is being waged to gain a majority for such action in the Commons. Sections of the press are driving public opinion towards supporting the Brits having a go. This bog is by no means a pacifist platform.

It is in fact temperamentally quite aggressive. It would happily restore the death penalty for certain types of murder and has no issues with shoot to kill. It believes in a strong defence to ward off attack. It will support offensive war subject to two conditions. The first is that such a war is part of an agreed strategic plan to ensure an end game which really does improve lives and security for everyone, including the enemy civilian population. The second is that our participation will positively affect the outcome. WWII, which I lived through, met those criteria. (Although WWI does not).

The problem with our bombing Syria is that it will make no practical difference. We are already supporting France and the US  with refuelling, surveillance and sea based missile and air cover. This is an important contribution. Adding our six fighter bombers to the air armada of the Americans, the Russians and the French as well as others will make no military difference whatever and to pretend it will treats us all as fools. It is about prestige and joining in to make us look good. To cleanse the moral bankruptcy of such a military posture will require a number of conditions to be met.

1 Russia and France have formally become allies against IS. De facto Iran is there with them. This is the single biggest game changer. The rest of the Western coalition must join them so that the whole campaign is properly coordinated

2 The fetish about Assad personally must end.  Of course he is a dictator with much blood on his hands, but he holds the Syrian state, what is left of it, together, and this intact core is the essential foundation block of whatever new political settlement can be agreed. Whether he stays or goes is then up to the Syrian people. He is actually much more popular in his country than we think and he has never organised any hostile acts against the West.

3 Every armed unit in Syria must turn on IS or be regarded as an IS ally. There cannot be some factions fighting the Assad regime whom we consider allies. We cannot have a war within a war.

4 A clear strategic plan with an order of battle is essential to demonstrate how IS is to be rendered harmless or destroyed and what is to become of the three dysfunctional countries of Iraq, Syria and Libya in the aftermath. Orderly non sectarian government to provide security and safety for their populations so that refugees can return and help the reconstruction programmes needed, is absolutely essential and a red line so wide it cannot be crossed.

5 Whoever commands the military element of the armed assault must demonstrate the value and type of contribution sought from Britain. It may be bombing, but it may be that other military assets are more useful.

6 The complete failure of the operations conducted in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, whatever glossy spin is put out by the apologists of these military and political disasters, must serve as a reality check for all those who are planning the next move and all those who are asked to vote for it.

Finally these vacuous declarations from Ministers about doing the right thing and keeping us safe must stop. In the short term any increase in our military contribution will increase the risk to our own people. Only if the action succeeds in its objective will we be safer. That is why it has to be thought through.

The reason Jeremy Corbyn has been elected by a landslide and the reason Labour activism is rejuvenated is because he has, in a parliamentary career of over thirty years, stuck to his principles and never trimmed his opinions to curry votes or gain popularity. When asked a question he answers from his heart; he tells you what he feels and why he feels it. He says what he wants, not what you want to hear. He has been elected Leader of the Opposition because he is a politician but also because he does not behave like one.

He has in the past been a leader of protest. But now he is a national leader and with that office comes the heavy yoke of responsibility. And with responsibility comes the demand of discipline to do what is in the national interest. This may not coincide with your personal preference or even your personal beliefs. But it is your duty to put the nation before yourself. So far Jeremy Corbyn has proved both refreshing and inspiring in many ways, but as yet he lacks the ability to square all aspects of that tension between preference and duty.

It is early days and he has time on his side. There is nothing wrong in opposing more token bombing in Syria, or questioning whether Trident is the right platform to protect this country’s security; it is valid to question whether political assassination of enemy leaders actually does more good than harm. But suggesting that when faced with crazed gunmen mowing down teenagers out clubbing, or shoppers in a supermarket or passers by in a street, the security forces should hold their fire, or try and aim for legs, is plainly ridiculous. It is certainly wrong to shoot unarmed petty criminals who are running away, but it would be no less than wicked to issue instructions which allowed the mowing down of innocents because security forces were unable to offer split second and decisive response.

Jeremy Corbyn needs to sit down with himself and have a serious conversation about these things. Soon the honeymoon period will be over. He can  be true to himself and a dependable national leader, but he needs to work out a formula for the credible combination of the two.

In the aftermath of the dreadful event there is much to be done. The injured have to be nursed, the bereaved consoled and supported, the emergency services thanked for undoubted acts of heroism and the investigating authorities have to pursue all leads to neutralise any remaining risk from other members of this terror unit. Also questions must now be asked.

This is the third major terror attack in France this year. The second, the planned indiscriminate shooting of passengers on an express train failed because of the extraordinary intervention of  young American tourists with military training aided by an ex-pat Brit. Each time the perpetrators are known to the police and intelligence services, but somehow are not subject to any preventive action. Their details are recorded but it seems to end there. Clearly this will not do and a rapid rebooting of the security model in force is required.

Then we must turn to our modern generation of politicians who seem to imagine that it is possible to engage in armed warfare, mostly air strikes against a designated enemy, without any hit back being either possible or justified. This is muddled and dangerous thinking and very misleading to the public, who are also voters.

I come from the generation which remembers World War Two not as a military participant, but as a child civilian. I recall what it was like to be beneath falling bombs, caught out in the open exposed to strafing enemy fighters, being taught my times tables in the school cellar as the flying bombs, Hitler’s V weapons, stuttered and crashed down on the neighbourhood above, standing for morning prayers in an assembly room without windows and a floor covered in splintered glass and casually wondering as I left home in the morning for school, whether it would be there when I returned later in the day.

Everybody coped and remained steadfast and calm, because they knew it was war and they were a legitimate target. They knew also that whatever was done to us we would do in return. They destroyed our Coventry and killed nearly 500 hundred innocent civilians, we destroyed a good part of their Hamburg and killed nearly 50,000 of theirs. Moreover they knew, their politicians knew, their military knew, yes everyone knew that the price you paid for going to modern war was that you became a target in so doing, and you put your life and those of your loved ones on the line 24/7. But the price was judged worth paying because the war had a purpose, a plan, a strategy and an aim with a goal which could be achieved. The reward would be a better safer world. But now it is quite different.

None of the politicians who ordered these wars has ever been inside one. Nobody comes out and explains that the price you will pay for your country bombing a far away enemy with its modern jets, is the very real risk that you will be indiscriminately shot in a cafe by a fanatic seeking vengeance for that clear act of war. Nobody is able to explain with clarity why all these wars over the last few years have failed completely to bring any meaningful improvement, have caused massive civilian suffering, have lead millions to tramp across fields and die in seas just to get away, and why it is that when one enemy is vanquished another pops up.

If there is an overriding lesson of Paris it is that the solidarity expressed by millions of ordinary people around the world, should now be used to make their politicians come clean. People must be told how the war is to be prosecuted, what the aim is, what is the strategy and why no other way will work. Like dodgy car salesmen these politicians will not easily be believed because every war fought since 9/11 has been not only a failure, but has given rise to new enemies and new conflicts. If the objective, as we are constantly told is to keep us safe, why is Paris grieving from its greatest atrocity since the Nazis?

Meanwhile in the United Kingdom we can thank our lucky stars that we have probably the most advanced, dedicated and effective security organisation anywhere in the world. If they ask for more powers give them. In war it is not about privacy and personal freedom; it is about your life and the lives and limbs of those you love.

As the Paris death toll mounts as well as the list of the injured, it is impossible to overstate the sense of sadness and despair at such terrible loss of life, so much of it among the young. For the moment that is all that can or should be said be said by this blog, save for adding to the near universal expressions of support and sympathy for all those who have suffered loss of loved ones or injury to themselves.

DOWNLOAD OR PAPERBACK FROM .99P

Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy and right hand man, flew to Scotland on a mysterious peace mission in 1941, which has never been convincingly explained, to meet unidentified politicians who wanted to end the war. The truth has been covered up for generations because to reveal it would somehow undermine the honour and constitutional fabric of the United Kingdom. Who was plotting against Churchill? What were the peace terms on offer? What happened to Hess? Was he killed in the War? Was the prisoner in Spandau a double?
There are many questions to which in the modern day one man, Saul Benedict has all the answers, because his parents were players in the drama involving Churchill, Hitler, leading politicians and an important Royal. Saul is an author and declares his intention to write a book to reveal all, but he is shot dead, apparently accidentally by a poacher. But was it an accident? Rick Coleman an investigative journalist determines to find out and in doing so to uncover the mystery.
Taking place in the modern day but with flashback chapters which gradually unfold the hidden secrets, the novel is a fast moving and compelling read based on the family knowledge of the author whose parents had connections to both Hess and Hitler and to British Intelligence.  

                  Amazon UK           Amazon US

In the saga of stress and strain in the UK’s perception of Europe and what it wants it to be, there is at the heart of the matter a critical issue: the Euro. The Euro is the elephant in the room, because everybody breathes a sigh of relief that we did not join.  Yet if you leave aside emotion and sovereignty and all of that, most of our economic ills can be traced to the fact that we are not in the single currency. There is evidence that had we joined our economy would today have the strength of that of Germany. The reason for that analysis is the fact Germany’s greatest benefit from the Euro was the long term devaluation of its hard currency, making everything German competitive instead of expensive. The same would have applied to Britain.

The chronic problem with the UK economy, which never goes away, is that it is consumption based on mostly imported goods, financed by borrowing secured by inflating assets. Manufacturing, once the driver of the whole British Empire, now accounts for very little  in the UK economy; in the immediate post war years it was nearly 50%, now it hovers around 13%.  Manufacturing creates new wealth and provides well paid skilled jobs for a mass workforce. It turns deficits into surpluses at every level. It oils the economy with new money which does not have to be borrowed and it allows imports to be at least balanced by exports. The UK has the highest deficit as a percentage of GDP of any industrialised country and is significantly in deficit in its trade with the EU.

When it comes to high end cars and aerospace industries the UK is a world player, but in all the value items that are consumed every day in our economy, we not only do not make them for home consumption because imports are cheaper, we cannot make them to export because they are too expensive. Why?

Because the pound is valued too high to make exports viable and cheap imports make it impossible for home production to compete for the domestic market. If we had been using the Euro not only would we be operating on an even playing field, but the whole balance of our economy would have been different. We would have less debt, a lower trade deficit (probably a surplus), higher productivity and a properly balanced economy. But we chose to remain independent for which we have paid a very high price. Nobody ever thinks of that. Maybe they should. The reason given at the time was that we wanted to retain control of our interest rates. But the Bank Of England has left them a fraction of zero for seven years. Moreover we are now in the ridiculous position of sterling having risen to choke off our export recovery, yet being unable to reduce rates to bring sterling down because they are already at rock bottom.

Of course it is true that the governance arrangements for the Euro are a near fiasco, but had the UK been involved that would not have been allowed to happen. This blog is not lamenting that we did not join, but I am pointing out that not to do so may not have been as smart as we think. It may also be that be that being  in the EU but not in the Euro could be as pointless as buying a house and living in the tool shed. Either you believe in the notion of ever closer union and all the benefits that brings, including one currency and some federal governance to control it, or there is no real point in being there, because economically the EU gets more out of us than we do out of it. A single market cannot operate properly without a single currency. Not only are there trade imbalances, but there are migration imbalances. Benefits and wages from the UK sent home, buy a lot of extra Euros locally.

Nevertheless I am emotionally and by blood committed to the European family and as things stand I shall vote to stay in. But not because of the economic argument which is far from clear cut.  The critical weakness in the Leave campaign is its woolly response to what would happen if we do go. Yes of course we could prosper but not on a whim and a wave of the hand. Leave need to answer those questions. So far they have not done so convincingly. Until they do, the majority will opt to stay in, simply because, with all its muddles and imbalances, at least they know what they are in for.  To that extent Cameron’s much vaunted demands or whatever he calls them are irrelevant. They only tinker at the margins even if he gets them all.

The Establishment is rattled. Its gutter paper, the Sun, is running a headline that Corbyn did not bow when he laid his wreath at the Cenotaph when he plainly did. The General goes on a chat show and breaches Constitutional convention to attack the views of an elected politician on a hot political issue of contention. At every level and in every format their spinners work overtime to portray Corbyn as unpatriotic, disrespectful and dangerous. Why?

Because they have their tentacles everywhere and these sensitive feelers reveal that Corbyn is tuned in to the mood of the ordinary people and an increasing number of the well educated young. They see that Labour now has five times as many members as the Tory party. They see Corbyn as a real and present danger to the grossly unfair economic settlement from which they prosper. They have cottoned on to the fact that Corbyn is the greatest threat since Tony Blair to everything they stand for and profit from. Unlike Tony who gleefully became one of them, Corbyn is not for turning.

This Blog is, as things stand, in favour of our nuclear deterrent. What is bang out of order, whatever the motive, is for the Chief of the Defence Staff to criticise the opinions, whatever they are, of an elected politician who is also the elected Leader of the Opposition. To appear on a TV chat show and intervene in a political debate is a monumental breach of constitutional form which separates our armed forces from political power. It is a total and absolute no no.

General Sir Nicholas Horton must now resign. If he does not, Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, must fire him. If he will not, Cameron has a constitutional duty to fire them both.  It has nothing to do with nuclear deterrence. It is the way our country is governed. How dare the General not know that.

According to the Egyptian minister in charge of the investigation of the horrific Russian plane crash it is too early to tell what caused the crash, all options including a technical fault are still open and the noise abruptly ending the flight, recorded on one of the black boxes, needs to be analysed. He deplored speculation about the cause and a failure of leading powers to share intelligence with him.

Leaks from various aviation insiders with access to data associated with the investigation tell us that injuries sustained by victims at the back of the plane were blast injuries, whereas those at the front were consistent with violent decompression. They tell us that the aircraft burst apart and broke up at high altitude at the exact moment that military satellites picked up a heat flash, that data reveals the engines were functioning normally right up until the break up and auto pilot was engaged, and that a technical fault has been ruled out. The sound on the tape is assumed to be an explosion. IS militant communications celebrating the successful planting of a bomb have been intercepted.

We all understand that the blow to Egypt’s vital tourist industry will be severe when the terrorist attack is officially confirmed. We all understand that to get the exact particulars of the nature of the bomb, how it was detonated and by whom will take time, as well as the sequences involved in the disintegration of the plane. But by refusing to admit what is thus far well known and to cling to some nostrum of an impossible technical fault in the hope that this will put off the reckoning of why Egyptian airport security allowed it to happen, is to make matters worse not better.