A substantial proportion of people migrating to Europe are refugees. Europe has a duty to help them. Many of these refugees are escaping from regimes which arguably are the most cruel in history.
The Western powers have mistakenly intervened by force in the Middle East but the armed forces of the Western powers have not indulged in deliberate cruelty and barbarity and they have acted in general within the confines of the Geneva convention. It was never the intention of the USA, Britain or France that irregular forces should take over in Iraq, Syria or Libya but this is what has happened as a result of military and political intervention and the failure to make provision for the peace. The civilian populations of these countries are now being exposed to the most dreadful cruelty inflicted by guerilla forces and their political supporters in the power vacuum left by the Western Powers. withdrawn.
To alleviate the suffering of the civilians in Syria and Iraq, Western powers have been forced to act with more military force. President Obama probably would not have got involved in the Iraq war to unseat Saddam Hussein but his hand is now being forced to contemplate further military action rather than achieve a diplomatic solution which now seems almost impossible. Interfering in Syria to unseat President Assad has been another costly mistake.
Whilst there is no peace in the Middle East, the Levant and North Africa there will be refugees. The USA, Britain and France have played a substantial role in creating the chaos of war, albeit unintentionally, but without forethought the peace was not provided for. This is why the USA, Britain and France must take responsibility for the victims of war. We did this in the Second World War - a conflict which we did not start. In this era we had real leaders namely, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle - perhaps we need them back.
Tuesday, 25 August 2015
Wednesday, 12 August 2015
Jeremy Corbyn and The Labour Leadership Election
I am not a member of a political party and never intend to be. I also have no intention of paying £3 to vote for a Labour leadership candidate. This does not mean that I am not interested in politics or the outcome of the election.
There are some disturbing aspects to the commentary surrounding the contest. Most of this commentary is rather personal and directed at Jeremy Corbyn. It does not consist of critical examination of Mr Corbyn's policies which are being dismissed out of hand by most of the press and many Labour MPs and party supporters. Mr Corbyn is being subjected to some rather unfair criticism based on his personality and the exaggerated view that his policies are of the hard left and are unpalatable to the majority of the electorate.
Mr Corbyn does not look "telegenic" and for this reason alone he will probably never get elected as Prime Minister if he becomes leader of the Labour party. Why should looking good on television be a qualifying factor for being Prime Minister? Would it be impossible for a Winston Churchill or Clement Atlee to be elected in the modern era? These great former leaders would, sadly, stand no chance today. Such is the fickleness of the modern electorate.
Let's examine some of the criticism of his policies from within his own party. Mr Corbyn has proposed that quantitative easing should used to fund the building of hospitals and roads etc. The Shadow Chancellor described this as a hard left economic policy. This is humbug. The policy of using public funds to stimulate the economy by financing public works was proposed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1920's and 1930's to help revive the UK economy because of the The Great Depression. This policy is in no way related to Marxist economic theory. The policy proposes that economic growth is used to pay off government debt. John Maynard Keynes was a highly respected economist and he was a life long Liberal. Franklin D Roosevelt used similar policies to regenerate the American economy - he was no Marxist and he was not even left wing.
Today on the television a former adviser to Tony Blair averred that Mr Corbyn was not a suitable candidate for the Labour leadership because he advocated printing money- quantitative easing by another name - perhaps he forgot that the Gordon Brown and David Cameron governments have already printed £320 billion but they gave it to the Banking sector who invested it property and stocks and shares and quite possibly another asset bubble has been created. Most of this money was not invested in the real economy. Mr Corbyn is proposing that the £320 billion of public money might have been better spent on public works just as John Maynard Keynes proposed all those years ago.
Critics have suggested that Mr Corbyn's economic policies are rooted in the past: well so what? The neoclassical economic policies of the last 30 years or so are firmly rooted in the past. The 2008 economic crisis had all the hallmarks of the 1720 South Sea bubble.
My biggest criticism of Mr Corbyn is the fact that he has no policy to deal with the massive amount of private debt which could easily drag our economy back into depression. Private Individuals, Corporations and Banks have succeeded in building up debt to the same levels as before the 2008 crisis. I have written about this before; Britain has private debts of around 400% of GDP and this is more of a burden to our economy than government debt as it could lead us into another economic crisis. Mr Corbyn does not have a policy to alleviate private debt but unfortunately no other politician is proposing a solution either, so we are living in hope that interest rates are not forced up.
Mr Corbyn's political opponents in the Labour party do not have any policies as far as I can see that are different to the Conservative party. So what happens if the neoclassical economic policies of the Tories and New Labour fail again? What is the alternative proposal? Without Corbyn there will be no alternative. We need him to shave off his beard and make himself look 20 years younger and go around waving copies of "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money". He is not of the hard left; he is a hard Liberal and that is why his policies are not really that dangerous.
A good dose of Keynesian medicine might repair the economic damage caused by 30 years of monetarism and private debt excess. Corbyn has never espoused Marxist economics and this is why the attacks upon him have to be personal to succeed. Corbyn's policies are needed to demonstrate that there is an alternative path, even if the man himself will never be elected to lead the way.
There are some disturbing aspects to the commentary surrounding the contest. Most of this commentary is rather personal and directed at Jeremy Corbyn. It does not consist of critical examination of Mr Corbyn's policies which are being dismissed out of hand by most of the press and many Labour MPs and party supporters. Mr Corbyn is being subjected to some rather unfair criticism based on his personality and the exaggerated view that his policies are of the hard left and are unpalatable to the majority of the electorate.
Mr Corbyn does not look "telegenic" and for this reason alone he will probably never get elected as Prime Minister if he becomes leader of the Labour party. Why should looking good on television be a qualifying factor for being Prime Minister? Would it be impossible for a Winston Churchill or Clement Atlee to be elected in the modern era? These great former leaders would, sadly, stand no chance today. Such is the fickleness of the modern electorate.
Let's examine some of the criticism of his policies from within his own party. Mr Corbyn has proposed that quantitative easing should used to fund the building of hospitals and roads etc. The Shadow Chancellor described this as a hard left economic policy. This is humbug. The policy of using public funds to stimulate the economy by financing public works was proposed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1920's and 1930's to help revive the UK economy because of the The Great Depression. This policy is in no way related to Marxist economic theory. The policy proposes that economic growth is used to pay off government debt. John Maynard Keynes was a highly respected economist and he was a life long Liberal. Franklin D Roosevelt used similar policies to regenerate the American economy - he was no Marxist and he was not even left wing.
Today on the television a former adviser to Tony Blair averred that Mr Corbyn was not a suitable candidate for the Labour leadership because he advocated printing money- quantitative easing by another name - perhaps he forgot that the Gordon Brown and David Cameron governments have already printed £320 billion but they gave it to the Banking sector who invested it property and stocks and shares and quite possibly another asset bubble has been created. Most of this money was not invested in the real economy. Mr Corbyn is proposing that the £320 billion of public money might have been better spent on public works just as John Maynard Keynes proposed all those years ago.
Critics have suggested that Mr Corbyn's economic policies are rooted in the past: well so what? The neoclassical economic policies of the last 30 years or so are firmly rooted in the past. The 2008 economic crisis had all the hallmarks of the 1720 South Sea bubble.
My biggest criticism of Mr Corbyn is the fact that he has no policy to deal with the massive amount of private debt which could easily drag our economy back into depression. Private Individuals, Corporations and Banks have succeeded in building up debt to the same levels as before the 2008 crisis. I have written about this before; Britain has private debts of around 400% of GDP and this is more of a burden to our economy than government debt as it could lead us into another economic crisis. Mr Corbyn does not have a policy to alleviate private debt but unfortunately no other politician is proposing a solution either, so we are living in hope that interest rates are not forced up.
Mr Corbyn's political opponents in the Labour party do not have any policies as far as I can see that are different to the Conservative party. So what happens if the neoclassical economic policies of the Tories and New Labour fail again? What is the alternative proposal? Without Corbyn there will be no alternative. We need him to shave off his beard and make himself look 20 years younger and go around waving copies of "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money". He is not of the hard left; he is a hard Liberal and that is why his policies are not really that dangerous.
A good dose of Keynesian medicine might repair the economic damage caused by 30 years of monetarism and private debt excess. Corbyn has never espoused Marxist economics and this is why the attacks upon him have to be personal to succeed. Corbyn's policies are needed to demonstrate that there is an alternative path, even if the man himself will never be elected to lead the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
