Summer of 2022 in the UK

 Although the sun has been out and the sky has been blue for an unusually great amount of time in the UK this year, this is not to suggest that all is well (by British standards anyway). Humdrum tasks and day-to-day life are being undermined for virtually everyone (to varying extents) due to several issues. Strikes, not a prominent feature of British life for decades, have been unusually frequent and widespread this summer; access to water is increasingly being restricted; and the fairly obscure idea of "inflation" is manifesting itself in increased prices for various essentials. For most, these are inconveniences (fortunately, that is the case with me so far); for others, they are having a greater impact.

The strikes very much seem to be linked to the issue of inflation, as various trade unions (most noticeably, the railway unions) demand hefty pay increases in response to inflation. From speaking to people, there seems to be quite a lot of sympathy for them- not from me though. My view is that they are drawing the public into an issue, and punishing them, for something that isn't their fault. From my perspective, it is like the unions are squaring up to their bosses, as the public look on... then the public walk away with a black eye. This seems fundamentally wrong to me. When it comes to pay increases, I, like most British people, don't have a trade union to fight my corner for me- let alone have the ability to blackmail anyone with the threat of strikes. If I'm not happy with my working conditions or salary, I have to fight for myself- or look for another job. And, right now, with unemployment low and demand for workers high, employees are in a position of strength- without needing to strike and sabotage the daily lives of the public in the process. It's quite startling that part of unions' strategy is to calculate the most damage they can do to get their way; e.g., noting that many workers can now work from home, railway unions have shifted their strategy from strikes on weekdays only, to straddling weekdays and weekends, to harm a greater cross-section of people... What a terrible outlook to have! These workers aren't the only ones in the country unhappy with their wages; and, as a result of their actions, they do serious damage to people who rely on rail services. Included in this category are those businesses still recovering from the disruption of covid over recent years; it's almost as if the unions are privately thinking "the more businesses that fail because of us, the more likely we are to get our own way"... I think it's perfectly fine to make your case for higher wages- just leave the public out of it! In fact, I think it could be fairer all round if strikes were abolished and, in scenarios when unions would  hitherto call a strike, they instead summon their employers to court, each side makes their case, and a court decides who is most in the right and compels according action. Fortunately, the government (despite the awkward limbo it is currently in, as the country is now effectively between prime ministers) seems to be taking steps to prevent such situations from having the same impact in the future. We will see how this pans out...

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, our unusually hot weather in the UK has led to water shortages- and this is expected to be a more regular occurrence in the future. From what I've seen, the long-term plan to deal with this so far is to muddle through, and water companies hinting that the usage of hosepipes being restricted could be an annual feature of British summers. Rather than placing the onus on the British public, to restrict their water usage (while paying the same water bills), I get the impression that there are fairer and more effective measures that could be taken now, and in the future: water companies are notorious for wasting large amounts of water through leaks- this should fundamentally be addressed instead of wagging fingers at the public about their water usage; the UK is being unevenly affected by this- therefore, those parts of the country with larger water supplies could share with those in greater need during the most difficult times; more reservoirs could be built so that we are better prepared and self-sufficient for when the dry periods arrive; then, of course, there is that aid to many of the UK's issues: reducing demand by limiting immigration further.

Finally, there is inflation. This has been triggered by numerous factors largely out of the UK's control, namely the coronavirus and its repercussions, then combined with the war in Ukraine. This has been a key point in the debate between the candidates to be the next British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss (it has also been the key differentiator between them). While Truss advocates tax cuts to allow more of the British to keep more of their earnings to cope with increased costs, Sunak advocates sticking with high taxes to deal with the British national debt. On the face of it (and as Sunak has repeatedly said), Truss' approach of scrapping taxes would increase the amount of money sloshing around the UK, thereby making inflation even worse; on the other hand, high taxes and high cost of living will ultimately lead to the public spending less, and thus would hopefully slow inflation. At the same time, as Sunak highlights, the higher taxes can be used to reduce our national debt; the interest accumulated as a result of this debt being one of the largest government expenses- and sees ever-growing chucks of taxpayers' money being passed on to those we have borrowed money from. 

Inflation seems to be the worst issue of the above, as I have faith that the problems of strikes and water shortages will pass (for now at least) in the very near future. However, rather than sweeping these issues under the rug until next time, they should be addressed. I hope the next Prime Minister, and those responsible for Britain's current issues, will adopt the philosophy of fixing the roof when the sun is shining (or, in the case of water shortages, make the most of the rain before the sun shines too much again next time!).

Evaluation of Boris Johnson

 With Boris Johnson's time as UK Prime Minister due to end in the very near future, I wanted to share my thoughts on his tenure. Although the manner of the end of his term of office isn't a positive one, it's difficult to think of a time when a Prime Minister's term DID have a happy ending for the Prime Minister concerned. Whilst much emphasis has been placed on his apparent lack of honesty and inappropriate conduct; perhaps controversially, whilst I of course believe that Prime Ministers should behave appropriately, I personally didn't want him to resign, as it's my view that a Prime Minister should only step down if they have made mistakes in terms of policies/laws they have passed or decisions directly impacting the country. The two main motivations behind his resignation were, firstly, attendance of "parties" during the Covid lockdowns; and, secondly, for allowing a politician to remain in office despite being found to have behaved inappropriately. Whilst both acts deserve scrutiny and criticism, neither involve the direction of the country in my opinion, which are primarily what we should be concerned with with regards to our Prime Ministers. The impression I get is that his fundamental decisions as leader, and policies pursued (which are the most important aspects of a Prime Minister to me), were relatively popular, and I'm not convinced that most of the public have turned against his policies. 

My wish is therefore that Boris Johnson's successor hopefully maintains the same approach to flagship policies such as "Levelling Up", continues working on Brexit to make it as practical and beneficial to the UK as possible, and attempting to address issues with illegal migration via the English Channel. Based on my understanding (which has, admittedly, been learnt rather than directly seen or experienced), there have been clear disparities in wealth and opportunities across the UK for decades (perhaps the worst legacy of Margaret Thatcher's premiership, which I generally otherwise speak highly of) and "Levelling Up" not only expressed intent to address this, but also showed how this could actually be achieved: by encouraging investment and improving infrastructure. 

Given that Boris Johnson's policies do not appear to have been rejected by the public, I hope that his flagship policies are maintained until at least the next general election (and, potentially, reaffirmed in that election as well). As regards Boris Johnson personally, I feel that he generally got the balance right between seriously governing the country, and also sharing his trademark sense of humour. It is disappointing that he did behave inappropriately though, in a way that led to his downfall.

 Nevertheless, with those policies of his that can (and should) be maintained for the foreseeable future, and looking back on his actual handling of the coronavirus, Brexit, and the economy, he seems to me to have done a good (and difficult!) job. It is easy to criticise him (and many have extensively carried out this easy exercise), but I'm pleased that he has remained his positive, bullish self, and trumpeted his achievements in a way that is justifiable- and necessary, to try and counter the potentially overwhelming tidal wave of criticism he experiences from much of the establishment.

Vote for World Peace?

 At present, it feels like there is quite a lot of underlying tension in the world, often resulting from long-running territorial disputes. A few examples of this that spring to mind include recognition of Taiwanese independence, and the status of both Crimea and Kashmir. Apologies if this makes these issues too simplistic, but I feel like, if a referendum that was agreed by all sides to be free and fair was held, could this result then be used to draw a line under these issues and allow the world to move on? An example of this could be the Falkland Islands: ownership of the islands has been disputed for hundreds of years now between Great Britain and Argentina. However, a 2013 referendum on whether the Islands would remain a British Overseas territory (voted on by the people who lived there) resulted in over 99% of people voting to preserve the status quo. Regardless of the past, what should be top priority in territorial disputes is the will of the people who live there, here and now; and, in the Falkland Islands, they overwhelmingly rejected becoming an Argentine territory; a result which can, and should, be respected and accepted by all, as stated by the people living there and most affected by the issue.

Although referenda often don't have as decisive a result as the one in the Falkland Islands, it gives an example nevertheless. I would therefore like to think that similar votes could be held in Taiwan (on unification with the People's Republic of China; or continued independence); Crimea (on whether it forms part of Russia or Ukraine); or Kashmir (on whether it forms part of India of Pakistan) to draw a line under these issues that undermine global instability and international relations. Such votes could be overseen by all sides, including objective external powers, that could be agreed by all concerned parties, and the referendum results would hopefully allow peaceful progress to be made around the globe with issues that have hitherto threatened conflict and complicated global relationships.

Royal Round-up: 2021

 

The European countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco. 

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France. 

2021

After 73 years of marriage to Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Prince Philip (Duke of Edinburgh, born a prince of Greece) dies aged 99.

George, son and heir to the claim of Grand Duchess Maria of Russia to the former Russian throne, marries Italian Rebecca Bettarini in St Petersburg, Russia.

Princess Marie, consort of Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, dies aged 81.

Parties a high priority?

 For what feels like quite a long time now, the British media seems to have made an apparent Christmas party at No. 10 Downing Street, residence of the British Prime Minister, in 2020 the most important news story. You get this impression from the fact that it is regularly the first news story on TV news shows, and front page story of the newspapers. However, whilst it obviously does reflect badly on the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and any colleagues involved, and, if accurate, shows them to be hypocrites- should this really be the main news item? And this happened a year ago: if it was THAT important and ground-breaking, why wasn't it revealed at the time, rather than a year later? It seems that the timing was deliberately picked to prioritise dramatic affect over getting an important story in the public eye as soon as possible. 

Of course it's an important feature of a free country that the press can scrutinise the government and hold it to account, but surely it's overkill when it's the top news story every day. Rather than point scoring against the government, and focusing on a petty matter and foolish error of judgment, the media can quickly prioritise other matters of more national/international significance.

Is it me, or is Macron's France coming across as petty and petulant lately?

 Although Emmanuel Macron has been President of France for a number of years now, I haven't heard anything about him that has made me feel strongly about him, one way or the other- until autumn 2021. Anglo-French relations have been under the spotlight more recently, and appear to be at their worst for quite a while. Earlier in the autumn, Britain was negatively linked by France with the AUKUS agreement between the UK, Australia and USA over submarine support lent to Australia by the UK and USA, implicitly to boost their collective presence in the Asia-Pacific region to counter Chinese power there. As a consequence of this agreement, ongoing negotiations between Australia and France on submarines were brought to a halt, at France's expense. In retaliation, France criticised AUKUS and recalled its ambassadors to both Australia and the USA for a time (Britain avoided this, getting off lighter). Nevertheless, whilst AUKUS (an acronym reflecting a combination of the initials of the countries involved) worked in some ways to the detriment of France, it was all a consequence of the decisions of Australia as a sovereign state, which it is therefore perfectly entitled to do, on the basis of what is in their best national interest. Moreover, seeing as the three AUKUS countries are allies of France, any cooperation and consolidation among allies should be seen in a larger context as part of a greater good. France's negative response however instead seems to have shown the country in a bad light, and indicates an almost childish bitterness over being left out...

Then, playing out over a longer period have been specifically Anglo-French tensions over migrants crossing the English Channel from France to the UK. This route, involving migrants climbing aboard very small boats in greater numbers than they should, should not be encouraged as a way of settling into the UK: it puts migrants' lives in danger, and strains the resources of the UK and France. It seems that some cooperation was achieved, with French police taking action to prevent some migrants from crossing the English Channel; but the effectiveness of this appears to be very limited, with a majority still making it across, incentivising more people to follow in their footsteps, and implying that paying the equivalent of thousands of pounds is a price worth paying by migrants, as the ends justify the means if they successfully make it across the Channel. This issue affects both countries, and should involve constructive cooperation; however, this weekend, it appears that France has revoked an invitation to Britain's home secretary to visit and discuss this, to retaliate against a letter stating British aims for these talks being made public. Again, as with the AUKUS situation, this seems to portray France as prioritising petty ill-feeling over achieving solutions for the greater good.

There has been speculation that France, under President Macron's leadership, has been particularly prickly of late because Macron is standing for re-election next year, and wants to come across as a strong leader when handling international issues. However, I don't know how the French generally feel about Macron and his handling of the abovementioned issues, but I think I would personally be embarrassed by the petulant image he has presented through his comments and actions. 

The relationship between Britain and France is a long one of mutual importance, with valuable trade and military ties, as well as cultural ones. In spite of Brexit, Britain's relationship with other European countries (particularly those in the European Union) will always be important and, as a leading country of both the EU and NATO, France is particularly important to the UK. For a long time there seem to have been three key sets of international relationships for the UK: with Europe, with the USA, and with former empire/current Commonwealth countries. In Europe, France is bound to be one of the most important relationships the UK will focus on- potentially the most important. I therefore look forward to a time when Anglo-French relations are a lot more positive and constructive, recognising what a positive impact this relationship can have in Europe and beyond; and hopefully petty bickering can become a thing of the past that we look back on and laugh at, rather than endure to everyone's detriment. It is often said that Macron is keen to undermine Britain in response to Brexit; but pettiness is surely never going to encourage the British to regret leaving the EU (in fact, the opposite). Moreover, just as Brexit was divisive in the UK, and "remainers" here have had to accept the result and make the best of it, I would hope that pro-remain politicians around the world would similarly accept that Brexit has happened and look to recreate relationships for the greatest mutual benefit possible. Causing disruption between the UK and EU, seemingly out of spite, surely doesn't send the message that the EU is an organisation to admire, and that countries should aspire to join?

Afghanistan: The West's Departure and Taliban's Return

 A major feature of the news in the UK currently (and I suspect across much of the world) is the departure of troops from the US and other allied countries from Afghanistan, and coincident success of the Taliban retaking control of the country. Most opinions and comments I see expressed on the matter say how this is a defeat for the West, and that the West are deserting the Afghan people. Although I'm no expert on this, this seems very unfair to me. 

The USA and their allies invaded Afghanistan shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and have remained there since. The initial objective, which was achieved, was the removal of the Taliban from power, and since then support has been provided for a democratic government. This has manifested itself in the aid, investment and military support that has poured into the country from the US and allied countries, with the hope that this would enable the democratic Afghan government to stand on its own two feet. To achieve this goal, many lives and large funds have been contributed over the past two decades by the Western powers. This demonstrates a remarkable contribution from the United States and other nations in terms of time, money and sacrifices for the betterment of Afghanistan. 

As these forces now withdraw, the Taliban has made swift progress in undermining the Afghan government and seizing control from them. To me, this says more about the Afghan government than those other countries hitherto providing it with support. Surely the United States and others have contributed more than enough over the years, and enough time has passed to enable a new Afghan regime to gain a sufficient foothold to function independently? Otherwise- how long? Should outside governments remain indefinitely? Two decades seems a long time to prop up a regime before allowing it to function alone...

Unfortunately however, it appears that loyalties amongst Afghan police and government troops are directed more at families and tribes than an Afghan nation, so morale is low and the risk of corruption is high. From what I have read, despite the significant overseas investment in equipment and training for Afghan forces, this seems to explain  why the Taliban has been able to get control of so much of the country so quickly.

To put it very basically, I can't help but think of the saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". Despite how much time, money and effort has been contributed over the past twenty years, if those given the responsibility of the country (the Afghan government and security forces) are unwilling and/or unable to uphold their regime, that is down to them and not the countries that have already contributed so much to enable them to do it for themselves. From what I understand if, as expected, the Taliban take full control of Afghanistan, it will impose a regime considered appalling to most (though, in terms of treatment of women, extremism of attitude to religion, lack of democracy, and harshness of their penal system, there seem to be many areas of common ground with existing (or recent) rule in Iran and Saudi Arabia), and it would be a great shame (it can't really be expressed in words, particularly by an outsider like myself)- but I don't think it is right to put all blame on to Western governments and to regard this as a Western failure.