Britain, Economic, G7, Government, History, Human Rights, Politics, United Nations

Standing up to the global panjandrums

BRITAIN

IN Britain, it shouldn’t have gone unnoticed that the world’s great and good seem to have it in for us these days. Barely a week passes by without some grand panjandrum from a mighty global institution having a run-in with the way things are done on these shores.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is the latest to have a go. Last week its chief economist urged the UK Treasury to forego further tax cuts in its March Budget and pump-up public spending instead.

The IMF has form when comes to lecturing Britain – often getting it completely wrong in the process. The IMF has no particular expertise when it comes to Britain and often regurgitates the global consensus advocating high taxes and big government.

The IMF is also something of a slow learner. It consistently underestimates the performance of the UK economy yet remains stuck in a doomster type loop.

For example, just twelve months ago it forecast that the UK would be the only G7 economy (a group of the world’s major free-market economies) to suffer a recession, with a 0.6 per cent decline in GDP.

In the event the recessionary wooden spoon went to Germany, which is often the apple of its eye. The UK economy grew by only a smidgen last year, but, contrary to the IMF gloomsters, it did not decline.

However, the political damage had been done. When the IMF starts predicting that we’ll be the worst in class, a cacophony of vested interest groups among us with a permanent grievance against their country, start to shout loudly and gleefully about how this is yet further proof of what a basket case we’ve become.

Yet, when it transpires that the forecasts were wrong, they’ve already packed their bags and moved on to some other alleged weakness. They never pay a price or any form of penalty for running the country down on a false premise.

Of course, the IMF isn’t just wrong about Britain. It forecast the U.S. economy would grow by only 1.4 per cent last year when in fact it expanded by over 3 per cent. A significant difference.

It predicted its beloved eurozone would grow by 0.7 per cent when it barely managed 0.1 per cent. There is no doubt, though, that it has a particular penchant for being down on the UK.

Undaunted, the IMF is now forecasting that the UK will be the slowest growing G7 economy this year. That’s likely to prove once again to be a cheap stunt. A study of IMF predictions about British growth since 2016 found them to be wrong 80 per cent of the time – and always for being too pessimistic. The IMF has rarely been wrong for over-estimating the performance of the British economy. No surprise there.

Brexit has given added piquancy to the gloomy predictions.

The powerful elite of the IMF, World Bank, OECD, et al, have never forgiven the British people for blithely ignoring their advice not to vote to leave the European Union in 2016.

The current chief economist of the IMF, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, rushed into print two days after the referendum with a posse of other disgruntled economists to warn of all the dire consequences which lay in store for Britain. A year later, he was forced to admit none had materialised – but still thought our future prospects were grim.

Having found a comfortable berth in the IMF, the Frenchman is typical of the socialist-leaning types who now dominate the global power structures of the higher echelon. Previously, he was economic adviser to the failed French socialist government of Francois Hollande.

Yet he’s a veritable moderate compared to some of the people who produce reports about Britain that comes out of the United Nations. Its “special rapporteur on extreme poverty”, Olivier De Schutter, recently visited these shores to opine that poverty in the UK was “simply not acceptable” and insisted it violated international law. Welfare payments, he concluded, were “grossly insufficient”. You might think his time would’ve been better spent in Somalia or North Korea. The UN has a strange way of acting.

It is not clear exactly what qualifies this Belgian lawyer to pontificate on British welfare policy, but his remarks were nothing new when it comes to UN criticism of us. His predecessor accused the UK Government of implementing a policy of “systemic immiseration” when it came to the poor – this in a country which spends over £265 billion a year on welfare (over a third of all state spending). De Schutter claims it has got “worse” since those remarks were made.

To get the full flavour of his global Leftist mindset, we must consider what he said: “We should stop focussing on creating the macroeconomic conditions that will stimulate growth… and focus instead on providing support to low-income households… to create a much more inclusive economy rather than one that creates wealth for the elites and particularly for the shareholders of large corporations.”

And there it is in all its unalloyed, anti-growth, anti-capitalist glory. Put aside the fact that most shareholders these days are pension funds whose investments we all depend on for much of our retirement income. Just look carefully at what is being proposed: do not look to economic growth to help lift up the impoverished, look instead at greater redistribution of wealth from the better off to the poor (as if that isn’t already happening). The better-off in Britain already account for a huge chunk of tax revenues. The generous slicing of the cake has more than found its balance.

Force middle-income earners to pay even more tax in a no-growth economy and they’re likely to up sticks and head for friendlier climes, as Scotland is about to discover, undermining the very foundations of the tax base in the process.

These days there is no end of nonsense coming out of the UN about Britain. No more so than on human rights. Another rapporteur, dealing with such issues, recently complained about the “severe” sentences ordered on two Just Stop Oil protesters.

They were imprisoned for scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge and causing traffic chaos for 40 hours. The UN saw this as an attack on the “right to freedom of expression”. It might want to look more closely at those currently languishing in the gulags and forced labour camps of Russia and China if it wants to see a real denial of human rights.

But no, its rapporteur doubled down, claiming new legislation in 2023 was a “direct attack” on public protest. I guess we’re just imagining the pro-Palestinian protests that have been commandeering central London almost every Saturday since the horrifying Hamas attack on Israel in early October.

But perhaps the greatest recent absurdity was the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) claiming that Government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was wrong because Rwanda was “not a safe country”. Fair enough, you might think. Like many people in this country, I’m not a great fan of the Rwanda scheme either. But the UNHCR has recently been relocating vulnerable migrants from war-torn Libya to Rwanda itself.

This didn’t stop the High Commissioner from accusing Britain of a “general disregard for human rights”. This of a country in which, even if your asylum claim has been knocked back multiple times, it is well nigh impossible to be deported.

Despite the global elite never forgiving us for Brexit, the more the Left consolidates its grip on powerful world bodies, the more we are likely to hear this sort of nonsense about Britain.

There’s one other factor at work too.

We live in an age of identity politics in which the sins of the past, from slavery to colonialism, need to be atoned for. As a country complicit in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, which also presided over the largest empire the world has ever seen, Britain is in the crosshairs of the new global elite’s agenda.

It doesn’t matter that we were also the first to abolish the slave trade or that so many citizens of the old empire now want to come and live on these shores. We have sinned and we must be made to pay, through reparations and being cast down in ignominy.

There is only one remedy: to stand up for ourselves.

We know our past mistakes, but we also know the great contribution we have made to world progress. We don’t need lectures from the global great and good.

Standard
Economic, Government, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United Nations

An interventionist approach by Russia in Ukraine is highly dangerous…

Map of Ukraine highlighting Crimea and the strategic importance of Sevastopol on the south-west coast with ease of access to the Black Sea.

Map of Ukraine highlighting Crimea and the strategic importance of Sevastopol on the south-west coast with ease of access to the Black Sea.

Intro: As Vladimir Putin sabre-rattles over Ukraine, the situation is getting murkier

The appearance of armed men at airports in Crimea is a dangerous development in Ukraine’s messy and murky ‘revolution’. They have no insignia to say who they are, but their behaviour is one of a disciplined troop. It is fair to assume they are Russian. They are refusing to talk or elaborate on why they are there. Russia has its Black Sea fleet’s major naval base at the Crimean port of Sevastopol, and two air bases at the airports where the soldiers have appeared. Slightly more than half of the Crimean population identify themselves as being Russian, either by origin or allegiance. Reporters on the ground have even suggested that Russian envoys have been handing out Russian passports to those who want them.

Ominously, manoeuvrings are pointing in only one direction – that Russian president Vladimir Putin, who has deployed his tanks on Ukraine’s borders, has in fact moved some of his troops over the border. The Russian constitution allows for its armed forces to operate outside of Russia ‘in defence of Russian citizens.’ Seizing control of airfields could be a preparatory tactic before invading Crimea, or it might be a prelude in removing ‘Russians’ altogether.

To make matters worse, deposed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich has resurfaced in Russia, following days on the run after his forced dethronement. Mr Yanukovich has declared that he wants to ‘fight for the Ukraine’ against what he has termed lawlessness and terror. He frequently refers to his usurpers as ‘neo-fascists’.

Russian intervention can only be seen as a highly dangerous move. Mr Putin must know that in this bitterly divided country such an incursion could lead to a bloody conflagration and a darkness comparable to that of the Cold War descending on East-West relations. Moscow will also understand that Mr Yanukovich is under investigation by western banking authorities for plundering his country’s wealth for personal gain. Yet, amid the turmoil, Russian preparations may also include an attempt to restore the discredited regime of Mr Yanukovich. The West should expect to hear a plethora of alibis and excuses as to why Russia is adopting an interventionist stance.

Sensibly, the new Ukrainian authorities under the country’s interim leadership have not risen to the bait. Whilst they do not yet have much authority over a large part of the country, they will be acutely aware that any escalation in belligerence could be the catalyst and excuse Mr Putin is looking for.

Diplomacy is still an option. Ukraine’s most pressing problem is that it is financially destitute. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) can provide loans for the purpose of restructuring an ailing economy, but so can Mr Putin. Most western leaders, too, appear to be willing to pay for a peaceful settlement, with Britain saying it will issue ‘blank signed cheques’ in helping Ukraine find its feet.

Geopolitically, understanding what Mr Putin wants will be a priority and key factor before any advances can be made. Whether that is complete tutelage over Ukrainian affairs or just considerable influence over a country that shares much of its history and culture with Russia, both of which will be an anathema to the protesting crowds in Kiev, a permanent settlement is still some way off. Convincing Mr Putin to keep his tanks away has to be the West’s prime objective.

Standard