Trump Derangement Syndrome

It's been three years since Russia invaded Ukraine, seeking to take Kyev and reconquer it.

I was, late last year, rather pleased Trump beat Harris in the US elections. It demonstrated that voters wouldn't be treated as if what they think and feel don't matter.  With record numbers of black and Latino voters picking Trump over Harris, the identitarianism of the hard left was given short shrift.  Domestically, there was some promise that Trump could overhaul the US Federal Government in spending and regulatory terms, and the nihilistic critical constructivist culture that sought to right past wrongs through discrimination over merit. The hard left attempt to replace the identitarianism of the past with an identitarianism of the future, based on a hierarchy of oppressor vs. oppressed (within which Jews and poor white trailer park men are oppressors, and wealthy African American entrepreneurs are oppressed) might be broken down by the Trump Administration.

The biggest negative until this week was the economic illiteracy around tariffs.  It's so outrageously stupid the thinking around trade protectionism that it barely deserves a response.  If it were about leverage to open up markets and break the back of the protectionist rackets of the EU and India, it might be one thing, but it's a brainless attempt to "bring back jobs" regardless of the cost, and somehow raise revenue.  Of course some argue that the US Federal Government was once funded by tariffs with no income tax, but there is zero prospect of income tax being abolished, so it remains a measure to tax imports, hike up inflation, punish consumers and ensure the US is less and less competitive internationally.

However that's small fry compared to the moral turpitude around Ukraine.

Ukraine gained independent with the dissolution of the USSR, a point in history anyone with a belief in liberal democracy, individual rights and freedoms and belief in human self-determination would celebrate. Vladimir Putin didn't of course.

Ukraine inherited borders from the USSR, as did all of the former Soviet Republics. It made sense because there is no shortage of potential disputes around people split between sovereign states. Besides the Governments of Russia, the USA and UK agreed to support the territorial integrity of Ukraine (and Belarus and Kazakhstan) in exchange for the three former Soviet republics surrendering the Soviet nuclear arsenal based on their territory.  After all, there was genuine fear of nuclear proliferation.

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances signed in 1994 was an agreement that the parties would:

Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).

Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Not to use nuclear weapons against any non–nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

Russia broke this agreement in February 2014 by invading Ukraine, first to annex Crimea and again in early 2022. The United States broke this agreement by not guaranteeing Ukraine's borders.

Now Trump has decided to shred what remains of this.

Obama was the start, he ridiculed Mitt Romney warning of Russia being a looming threat. 

Then Obama did little to respond to Putin's invasion of Crimea. Biden's response to the invasion of the rest of Ukraine was more significant, but ultimately was weak. It wasn't to provide air cover, it wasn't to provide the weapons he could, it was to do enough to constrain what Putin could do, and now its over.

There is a line of US self-styled conservative thinking that ranging from loving to being sympathetic to Putin. Why? Because he's a strong man who "defends his country" against "Islam" and in favour of "Christian values". Values that seem to include rampant kleptocracy and Soviet style oppression of dissent.

Some are actual far-right fascists, who yearn for a strongman to jackboot his way through their country, poison and arrest opponents, shut down protests and enforce a traditional view of the role of women, an avowedly anti-homosexual position and embrace an expansionist shameless view of the power of their beloved nation state.  Others are contrarians, who see Putin pushing back against "globalism" (whatever that means), and regard the European Union to be more authoritarian and malign than a virtual one-party state run by a permanent President who runs his country as a mafia state. Of course there is plenty of room to criticise the European Union, but the intellectual vacuum that sees criticism of policy in Western Europe as justifying a war of aggression against Ukraine is eye-watering.

Likewise is seeing the flaws of Ukrainian liberal democracy as being morally equivalent to Russia's kleptocratic totalitarianism. An argument can readily be made to critique the approach of the Biden Administration, but to turn reality into an inversion as the Trump Administration is doing harks of the perversions of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.

The idea Ukraine started the war is deranged. Ukraine was not run by a Nazi, and Russians in Ukraine faced no existential threat from the Government. Indeed Russians in Russia face MORE threat from the jackbooted tyranny of the FSB than they do in Ukraine. We shouldn't forget of course that one of Russia's proxies before invading Ukraine proper did shoot down a civilian airliner murdering all of its passengers and crew.

The moral relativists in Washington DC have blanked out flight MH17, just a lot of Dutch people, Asians and Australians after all. 

The deluded concern about NATO expansion, as if NATO has ever threatened Russia and as if ANY country actually has an interest in invading it.  This is Russian nationalist hysteria.  See how Sweden and Finland have joined NATO and Russia barely blinked an eye.  Ultra-nationalists are prone to delusions about conspiracies to destroy their beloved people, and this is one.  The truth of NATO is that it remains because the Soviet Union's former empire doesn't want to go back to being a part of it, and Russia has not successfully deradicalised itself from its past eras of totalitarian irredentism.  Lithuania, Romania, Poland and even Ukraine purged themselves of their past under one of the world's most murderous and morally bankrupt regimes, but Russia is led by a man who misses that.

What Trump has done is invert the moral order.  At the very core of modern international law is the belief that the sovereign state is inviolate and it is a fundamental breach of the international order for one national army to invade the territory of another.  This has only happened because the USA and Europe refused to deter Russia invading its near neighbours, and the consequence are where we are.  However, it is entirely Russia's fault for being an aggressive imperialist invading force.

If the 21st century international order is that naked aggression by a nuclear power, on a much smaller, benign peaceful country, is to be shrugged about and rewarded by another nuclear power, with that other one seeking to do a deal to literally plunder the victim's property indefinitely, it isn't "order". It is a neo-feudalism of bullies, and the only defence against that is offence.  It is the acquisition of the greatest of weapons, nuclear, to deter anyone.  It makes the world a more dangerous place. 

Trump's position is also contradictory.  As Janet Daley said in the Daily Telegraph:

Trump and Vance claim that Putin is not a threat to the West, that his military operations in Ukraine are simply a defence against attacks by Zelensky’s illegitimate regime. This is wickedly fallacious as a factual account of events, and the conclusion that apparently follows is blatantly self-contradictory.

In the very same pronouncements in which they proclaim Vladimir Putin’s benign intentions, the Trump-Vance team excoriate European leaders for failing to increase their defence spending and properly arm themselves against threats to Nato. But if Russia is an innocent victim and Putin is not an aggressor, where does the danger to Europe come from?

Either Putin is a peace-loving, reasonable interlocutor with whom we (which is to say, Trump) can do business – in which case Europe need not worry about increasing its defences – or he is determined to reclaim as much of Eastern Europe as he can seize – in which case the complicity of the Trump government is shameful.

Which is it? Is Putin a blameless, misunderstood victim and we can all go back to blithely spending our peace dividend on lavish welfare systems, or is he a malign actor who is an active threat to Nato countries, which must rearm as quickly as possible at their own expense?

And how can this instruction to Nato members to rearm at any cost be consistent with Trump’s support for the Russian claim that it is Nato expansion that is the cause of the recent conflict? Surely a rapid rearming of Nato members would justify Putin’s paranoia.

It also makes the United States a fickle ally. This deranged set of contradictions has no coherence.  The likely outcome is that European countries will increase their military capability, which will upset Russia, and they could provide more military support to Ukraine as well.  The unwillingness to call out any of Russia's actions seems difficult to comprehend, unless it has underlying it, either a sympathy for Putin or an interest in simply surrendering and withdrawing out of fear - the fear that doing anything else will cost the US money or lives.

It is a new isolationism for the US, although this is not new for the country.

Furthermore is the bizarre demand that Ukraine pay the US for the cost of the support the US provided for it to defend itself.  It is an inversion of the demands of Germany after WW1, which was forced to pay reparations to the Allies for starting the war.  This of course turned Germans to be ultra-nationalists, to resist the economic and national shame.  The Nazis came from that.  

Should Israel or Egypt be worried? Both have received billions in military aid over decades from the US, but will Trump demand half of Israel's GDP be handed over to pay the US back for its support? If not, why not by this measure? Why should Ukraine be punished for taking what a previous Administration had granted it? Besides, given the US shows little interest in actually protecting Ukraine from a future Russian invasion, it is difficult to trust that the Trump Administration would actually do anything if Russia tried again.

It's simple now The US cannot be trusted to defend its allies, it cannot be trusted to even advocate for the basic rules of the international system.  It is no longer a bullwark for liberal democracies, when it judges Ukraine and ignores Russia.

What should happen is Trump should threaten Russia with tougher sanctions, with NATO membership for Ukraine, a no-fly zone and greater help unless Russia withdraws. It should be simple, because it is.  It could show the backbone of Ronald Reagan, of JFK, of Harry Truman. It could because Putin is a bluffing minnow.   

What looks like happening is that Ukraine will be dismembered, all because of a deranged fetishisation of a short thieving psychopath, and a moronic disregard for an international order that for, better and for worse, kept the peace by and large.

The only real hope is that this is a lot of bluster and rhetoric.  If it really is, it's quite some technique in diplomatic bombast and disruption.

Sadly I think it is a New New World Order, and it has no real coherent order at all.  What it means for those wanting peace and security, is that they will have to pay a lot more for it.

Yes New Zealand it means 2% of GDP on defence within five years, but it also means Japan, South Korea, European NATO, and many others are going to be spending a lot more. 

The peace dividend of the end of the Cold War is well and truly over.

Forget Goldsmith's media proposals

Since the Ministry of Culture and Heritage (MCH) (in itself a rather Soviet sounding name for a Ministry) took over broadcasting policy from what is now the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE), it has had a policy culture that is quite distinctly interventionist. It’s proposals for “modern media legislation” (one should always be suspicious of anyone claiming that their policy preferences are “modern”, which essentially means next to nothing) are worth reviewing because they reflect the lobbying of vested interests in the uneconomic media industry to try to compete with the media the public actually prefer.

I recall around 28 years ago being in a meeting in the then Ministry of Commerce (MBIE’s predecessor) where a manager had set up a PC to run the RealAudio streaming application to play live radio from around the world. He said at the time that this was the future and it would change broadcasting forever. He was right of course, and while some media have survived and been able to find niches (notably consolidation of commercial radio), others have struggled, such as newspapers and free to air television (the latter in part surviving in part due to politicians not seeking to take dividends from Television New Zealand).

Thirty to forty years ago, media for information (news) and media for entertainment were somewhat distinct. Newspapers were the prime authority for news, followed by news oriented radio and then television news broadcasts. It started to change when the Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand was split into TVNZ and RNZ, and TVNZ was given carte blanche to respond to competition, of which it had years to plan for, as TV3 got its licence to operate following a tortuous beauty contest. TV3 essentially revealed in public what it would be showing to viewers well in advance of launching, and TVNZ then made sure it could buy up loads of competing content to undermine it, and it succeeded. At the time TV news was dumbed down deliberately.  Local news was scrapped, and the focus was on the approach of local US TV news broadcasts, focusing on making the news “relevant” and “easy to digest”. A big emphasis was on stories that had dramatic video footage and were easy to understand (disasters, crime, celebrities, sports victories/losses and war footage). The idea being to present a “narrative” of “isn’t that awful” (mostly) or “fantastic”, and leaving complexities around events, particularly public policy and international relations aside. The dumbed down TVNZ news won, and today this remains.

Today people largely obtain news and entertainment online because most people can access the content they want in seconds on multiple devices. If news happens, it is reported through news websites and through social media. Moreover, entertainment largely comes from overseas, whether self-made content on social media, or large boxset productions from the rest of the Anglosphere.

Needless to say the great successes of the likes of Amazon Prime and Netflix have upset those who built careers upon the myth that culture has some nationalist basis for it – the local production industry. Most people no more care about watching programming that is local than they do about listening to local music. People like what they like, and that is not to say there isn’t local content that can be and is successful, but the judgment as to what is good and what is not, is entirely in the eyes and ears of the beholder. Note also that blogging, micro-blogging (X) and the like are all part of this. There are neither state nor indeed financial barriers to most people being able to write, record and publish whatever they like (within the bounds of criminal law). Whereas before people needed to set up a printed magazine or convince an editor to let them write for it, or go on an Access radio station (or buy a frequency from the 1990s onwards), now the barriers to publishing are very low indeed.

Protectionists, legacy medai and politicians with a bent for influencing the public don’t like it that much.

Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith has decided to release a discussion document with five proposals to "save local media". It reflects a very shallow approach to public policy in this space.

MCH’s five proposals are justified by the following statement:

New Zealand’s media and content production sectors are facing an uphill battle to remain viable in an increasingly globalised and continually evolving landscape.

Less local content is being commissioned and is no longer reaching local audiences on all platforms. Seeing and hearing our stories and voices has cultural and societal benefits

I’d suggest the uphill battle is simply due to the public not responding to what they produce.  The truth is there is a lot of local content, it just isn’t being commissioned by traditional broadcasters or the State subsidising outlets. I would wager that more NZers than ever before are writing, recording music or videos and publishing them than ever before. Sure much or indeed most of it is trivial and inconsequential, but what matters the most us that people ARE producing content, it just doesn’t meet the standards of public servants. However that last sentence is of course revealing of how empty these proposals are.

What are “our stories”?  We all have stories, I could if I wanted to, write everyday stories and the 90% or so of the population with computers, tablets or mobile phones could do so, and in fact many do. Tens, hundreds and in some cases thousands read or listen to them.  What are the “cultural and economic benefits” of ignoring this in favour of what is essentially a protectionist industry wanting other people’s money taken from them by force, to prop them up because the public isn’t willing to pay for their content voluntarily?

The state hasn’t stepped in to save newspapers, nor book or magazine publishers, so why should it step in to save video and film producers?

So what are the proposals?

Proposal 1 : Ensuring accessibility of local media platforms

This proposal says everything about how out of touch MCH is. It is to force manufacturers of smart TVs (not tablets or laptops or phones) to carry apps of traditional NZ broadcasters. Notwithstanding that many people don’t consume most of their content on smart TVs (MCH isn’t stupid enough to force all laptops to have apps pre-installed), the idea this would make any meaningful difference is ludicrous.  Of course Australia has such a rule, but it has two large state taxpayer funded broadcasters, and a state-mandated oligopoly of free to air broadcasters (only three are allowed), so it has long been highly protectionist of the commercial TV industry, enriching its owners. A survey in Australia suggests a third of owners of Smart TVs don’t know how to download apps. Well I’d suggest the same applies to laptops and even mobile phones. Why don’t the broadcasters find ways to help people do it? Why must the state mandate manufacturers do it for our small market? What about radios being pre-programmed into local stations, or smart speakers having apps for RNZ, Newstalk ZB etc?

MCH stretches a real long-bow to suggest that not doing this might “undermine democracy”.

Given that local platforms host the vast majority of local content, decreased engagement means that audiences are missing out on important societal and cultural benefits. In turn, decreased audience engagement affects TV broadcaster revenue and brand value, reducing their ability to make local content and remain financially viable. If there were fewer local broadcasters/platforms in New Zealand, this would create specific consequences for plurality and therefore accountability in terms of the vital role local news and current affairs coverage (from a variety of sources) plays in a well-functioning democracy.

This is false, as the vast majority of local content is hosted on foreign platforms like Youtube, Instagram and X, it’s just that the traditional broadcasters and public servants don’t recognise the content produced outside their contracts and visibility. This is a claim that without forcing Smart TVs to have TV apps, it makes them less financially viable and would undermine the “vital role local news and current affairs coverage” plays in a well-functioning democracy. Hold on. You already own RNZ and make all taxpayers fund it.  There is next to no local news (not national news) on TV today.  You’d have to be awfully naïve to think forcing LG to put the TVNZ app on its TVs will save the death of TVNZ’s news (noting TVNZ already decided to withdraw from X, for nakedly political reasons – it doesn’t like its owner and being challenged on it constantly for its statist centre-left bias). 

Proposal 2: Increasing investment into and discoverability of local content

This is proposing to force streaming platforms and TV broadcasters to waste their own money on what MCH’s falsely calls “investment” into the local content MCH approves of.  This is a naked attempt by the failing, already subsidised local screen production industry to force successful businesses to prop them up. It is equivalent to forcing book publishers to publish books that hardly anyone wants to buy, or in forcing theatres to host shows hardly anyone wants to attend. 

The definition of ‘local content’ is intended to capture content that reflects New Zealand stories, places, voices, and faces. Relevant factors could include if the subject of the content is New Zealand or New Zealanders, if New Zealanders hold key roles in production and if it is filmed in New Zealand.

Every time you post videos of your family or friends doing something, it is local content, but that doesn’t count to the MCH. It shows MCH is beholden to the local production industry,and is fundamentally protectionist. This proposal should be thrown in the bin on merit alone, but it fails even further.

New Zealand’s CER agreement with Australia including commitments on audio-visual services which around 25 years ago saw New Zealand TV programmes being deemed to be “Australian” for the purposes of Australian TV stations complying with the country’s local content quota. It is entirely plausible that if this proposal proceeds, that the platforms could all simply pass on Australian content on the basis that CER grants free trade in audio-visual services and give Australian content “National Treatment”.  Furthermore, NZ’s commitments under the WTO Agreement on Trade in Services also include granting national treatment to foreign audio-visual service content, so that other countries could demand that the requirement for New Zealand content actually covers them as well. In short, according to New Zealand’s international trade agreements, the proposal could be meaningless. 

Proposal 3 : Increase captioning and audio description

Mandating this wont do anything to support local content at all, and will actually load more costs on production, which shows how utterly incoherent these proposals are. Weirdly MCH is concerned about the legal consequences of New Zealand not complying with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It’s clearly a sop to some lobbying, but given it runs completely contradictory to the earlier proposals (although there is obviously some merit to this for some people with disabilities), it makes little sense being here.

Proposal 4 : Modernising professional media regulation

In short, the proposal is to expand the scope of the increasingly irrelevant Broadcasting Standards Authority (a better proposal would be to scrap it) to “ensuring positive system-level outcomes”, whatever that means. It would apply to all “Professional Media” whatever that is other than “organisations that commission, produce, or directly pay for media content and distribute it as their primary business”. 

This is clarified further as:

• including New Zealand broadcasters and streaming platforms, global streaming platforms, online text-based media, newspapers, and magazines.

• not including online platforms that primarily host user-generated content or provide access to others’ content, such as social media (like Facebook and TikTok) and search engines (like Google).

Online text based media? Yet not platforms that host user-generated content? Where's the line between those?

This is unnecessary and intrusive. There was once arguably a role for the BSA when free to air TV was dominant and children in particular could be exposed to content unsuitable for them at certain times. However, this is now an anachronism. Parental neglect and naivety todays means many children get exposed to content that would never be seen on Pay TV let alone free to air TV, and the MCH wants to retain and expand the BSA. At best this is silly and futile, at worst there is something sinister and frightening about the call for a wider media regulator. Of course, the MCH didn’t consider abolishing the BSA.  It should be abolished and be simply replaced it with a basic code of practice as a condition of using radio frequencies.  Every other content that passes over the internet should not be subject to more regulation than any other.  

Proposal 5: Streamline Crown content funders

Also could be called merge state subsidisers of preferred content. It is essentially to merge the Film Commission and NZ On Air. I’d abolish them both, as they aren’t needed, there being no more reason for taxpayers to fund TV programmes and films they aren’t willing to pay for, than for them to fund books, haute couture fashion, posters or New Zealand made porn.  MCH didn’t consider this, because it thinks the content that most New Zealanders aren’t willing to pay for, let alone watch in numbers that are attractive to advertisers, is “inherently” some sort of public good. 

What should be done instead?

Stop trying to save something that people don’t want. The Broadcasting Standards Authority should be wound down, and made into a private industry body like the Advertising Standards Authority. That means broadcasters can choose to belong to it, and restructure broadcasting licences to ensure some very basic standards of freedom of speech and protection against defamation and inciting violence.

NZ On Air should be wound down as well. It should be phased out, and if RNZ is to continue to be subsidised, it should be funded directly from the MCH. There is no need to continue to force taxpayers to fund specific content. The Film Commission similarly so. 

Privatise TVNZ. Start by offering shares to every citizen equally and let the public dispose of those shares if they wish.  Beyond a heritage function, for which it might be funded from taxes, it should be unshackled from the state. 

Shift media policy from MCH to MBIE.  Media is a business and deserves oversight by a Ministry that is business oriented, not one that is a taxpayer funded lobbyist for the industry of dress-up and make-believe.

There is a debate to be had as to whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for content they don't want to pay for or don't consume, that's where the focus should be. MCH assumes this is the majority or dominant view, and that is simply wrong. MCH has proven itself to be a poor custodian of the media sector and is beholden to the pleadings of those simply wanted their businesses to be propped up by subsidies either directly from taxpayers or from businesses that provide content people actually want to pay for.

Most of these proposals had their genesis under the Ardern/Hipkins Government as can be seen in the Briefing for the Incoming Minister (PDF). Make of that as you wish, but it demonstrates an ongoing philosophical belief in the role of a interventionist state in forcing others to pay for the production of content that MCH thinks is good for people.

You have until 23 March to submit on these proposals, go right ahead. 

Ignore the privatisation scaremongerers

I remember the time before what socialists call the “neo-liberal” era which “sold out” the country to “rampant capitalism”. Sure I was at school, at the time when people and businesses had to plan weeks ahead to get the Post Office to install a phone line (no mobile phones then, as the Post Office hadn’t deemed that to be appropriate until 1987, even though Australia had had a limited carphone mobile service from 1981 and the UK had launched mobile telephony in 1985).

It was an era when the 100% state owned Air NZ had to get Cabinet approval to buy new airliners, and was made to buy Rolls Royce engines for its Boeing 747s, because it was thought it might improve trade prospects more generally, even though the airline had the spares and the staff training for General Electric engines (and the Board had recommended such aircraft). Such is the ways of nationalised industries.

It was also an era when phones calls beyond your local calling area (which in Wellington did not include Kapiti) cost tens of cents a minute, so a ten minute call (remember no SMS or email) to Auckland might cost several dollars. Phone calls internationally cost dollars a minute, so twice a year my grandmother would talk to her sister in Scotland, for birthdays, for around 10 minutes. Those calls cost $30-$40, and it wasn’t because of technology, it was because the Post Office used money from phone calls to cross subsidise its unprofitable postal monopoly. Then there was the Post Office Savings Bank, a government bank that at a time of double digit inflation had children’s “savings” accounts paying 2% interest. Effectively a scheme for the state to steal savings from children, but hey it wasn’t privatised nor “foreign-owned” (strange how supposedly “anti-racist” socialists are so agitated about foreigners when they own businesses they use), so it was great - the socialists got kids' money to spend on "the People" (which is of course what they always say).

Wellingtonians 40 plus might remember the Wellington domestic terminal, later the Air NZ domestic terminal, which on a windy wet day would leak, with the lino floor flooded, being drafty with not enough seats for people waiting for flights. Until (foreign and local capitalist owned) Ansett NZ was allowed to fly domestically, all jet flights were boarded through steps in the wintery Wellington windy rain. The Government and Wellington City Council argued over decades about who should pay for a new one. They would also remember Wellington City Transport, which was 100% owned by the City Council and subsidised by ratepayers, so that on Sunday evenings hardly any buses ran at all, all of the routes terminated in the city centre (needed more buses and drivers for that, and the Tramways Union would hold the city to ransom if it didn’t get what it wanted). New buses required the Council to order them, and as a result the fleet would be on its last legs before new vehicles would get ordered. 30 year old diesel buses would be operating (the economic life of a diesel bus is around 15 years) and of course Wellington’s trolley bus infrastructure would be patched up for decades.

None of this is reflected on by Max Rashbrooke in the Spinoff. He wrote a piece last week that followed on from the rather awkward set of comments between David Seymour, Chris Luxon and Nicola Willis which indicated various interest in looking at further privatisation, but unfortunately Rashbrooke didn’t demonstrate a great deal of depth in thinking. Most of it was parroting the claims and slogans of former union economist Bill Rosenberg, and high level papers written overseas by leftwing researchers.  

I couldn't resist, it was so full of nonsense, it deserves a response:

- “Privatised TranzRail had an appalling safety record, its staff dying at work at eight times the national average. And while cutting maintenance to a level Rosenberg labelled “abysmal”” What was the safety record before privatisation, before SOE status, before corporatisation (before there was safety regulation of rail)? Rosenberg, a former CTU economist bases the maintenance level on “what”? Bear in mind that in 1984 Booz Allen reported on how the rail network had been over-maintained in places, but also how 

- “Fay Richwhite and their fellow owners took out at least $370m in profits from a firm for which they had paid just $328m”. Dividends over a 12 year period, but of course taxpayers have never taken a dividend from Kiwirail or NZRC, ever. Socialists need to decide if the state owning trading enterprises is to make money from them for “the People”, or for them to be moneypits for the “Public Good”, but that isn’t clear.  Truth is most are primarily commercial but they might want certain services delivered at taxpayer expense, but this doesn’t require entire operations to be operated Soviet style.

- “Helen Clark’s Labour government was then forced to repurchase the railways, creating KiwiRail as we now know it. The whole episode cost the state around $4bn, according to then business commentator Brian Gaynor”. Nobody was forced to repurchase it, in fact there were three transactions from buying the Auckland track for $81m (Treasury valued it at $20m), buying the network and then buying the whole business. If nothing had happened, it still would exist, it just would have seen a series of lines close that carry little traffic, and the state has poured much more into Kiwirail since.  For what end though?

- “Profits flowing offshore to wealthy interests rather than ordinary New Zealanders” What profits? Kiwirail has never generated a dividend, and besides “ordinary New Zealanders” wouldn’t get it, it would go to the Minister of Finance to wash in with other spending.

- “The maddest examples have come when monopolies – water, rail – have been sold to private firms, even though competition is the only thing that makes markets work” Rail isn’t a monopoly, and in NZ water hasn’t been privatised (and corporatisation was opposed by economists like Rosenberg in the 1990s, see the resistance of the Alliance to the creation of Watercare Services, and demonstrates the utter failure of the socialist model of democratic control of the provision of services.  

- “A private monopoly is the worst of both worlds: no competition-based incentives to improve, and no public-good ethos pushing the organisation to look out for citizens’ interests”. Do tell us about this public-good ethos, the one that saw the Post Office take weeks to install phone lines, that gouged consumers for toll calls, that saw rampant theft of freight on the railways as a monopoly government department (it had a statutory monopoly until 1983 on long haul freight), the Post Office Savings Bank that gave kids 2% interest on savings accounts when inflation was in double digits. Please!

- “in the UK, privatised railways have been such a disaster – massively increasing costs with no corresponding rise in quality”. If you think rail travel in the UK is no different in quality today compared to the era of British Rail you need help. By any measure, frequency, number of routes, reliability, speed and capacity, and indeed patronage (which has grown to record level turning round decades of patronage decline), it is a remarkable transformation. Yes subsidies have spiralled as well, but it’s overly simplistic to think the UK has a private rail system now, as Network Rail effectively renationalised the network over 20 years ago, and most services are franchised (with the franchisees either paying to operate services on routes that are commercially viable, or pay to operate those that are not). Furthermore, rail freight volumes have increased 80% since 1983, hardly a failure if a key goal is to shift more freight off of congested roads. Socialists (mainly the unions that can’t shut down the entire system with a strike anymore) say privatisation didn’t cause the rise in patronage, but if privatisation “harmed” services, wouldn’t people have just abandoned rail in favour of buses and driving? Well of course they didn’t.  The system has been highly flawed, that’s for sure, mainly because it is highly politicised and Train Operating Companies have been poorly incentivised to control costs (because their main client isn’t their customers but the state), but that’s an argument for less state control, not renationalisation.  As usual, it's much more complex than simple slogans

- "Even worse has been the privatisation of British water services, whereby firms have extracted tens of billions of pounds in shareholder dividends, hiked water fees and discharged large amounts of effluent into local waterways." Yet DIA’s own report on the Three Waters reforms noted the performance of English water companies exceeded that of any in New Zealand, and Scottish Water. A huge amount of investment has gone into renewing water infrastructure in England, in fact OfWat requires it, and regulates water user fees. New Zealand HAS the model the UK had before privatisation and it’s an abject failure. NZ has local democratic control of the water and waste water system, and it is falling apart in many centres. It doesn’t generate dividends, it charges people based on the value of their property, not what they use, and effluent gets discharged into waterways regularly.  We have socialist water and it doesn’t work. 

- "Privatised bus companies, the OECD concluded, are cheaper than public ones only because they cut wages." This is simply false. The OECD did not conclude that, the link is to a report on a roundtable discussion involving case studies in four countries, three in Europe, plus the USA (which has few privatised urban bus services). It is not an official report from the OECD. EVEN then it said that private operators can be more innovative than public ones. The idea you can compare the performance of the Yellow Bus Company in Auckland in the 90s (let alone the ARA), or Wellington City Transport in the 1980s to their equivalents today is extraordinary.  When bus services were moved into the contracting model, there were savings of around 15-20% which enabled more routes and frequencies to be offered, but it did stop the Tramways Union from being able to shut down an entire bus network when it didn’t get what it wanted.  

- "Even when three of them were fully state-owned, the “gentailers” that supply our electricity were able to operate rather like a cartel, generating excess profits and freezing out potential competitors." Wait what? So it ISN’T state ownership you oppose, it is running trading enterprises as “enterprises”. So you don’t want the state to make dividends from its businesses?  Well we did the socialist model before, for decades. It saw massive investment in generating capacity (politicians liked power stations then), but let the local distribution network fall apart (politicians don’t like charging people for what they use), a bit like water.  Were they operating as a cartel? Well shouldn’t the Commerce Commission be dealing with that, in which case, maybe this claim of it being a cartel (which is serious), is actually not true? Maybe if they were all fully private, they could be properly subject to scrutiny because politicians wouldn’t be worried about loss of dividends.  In fact there may be a case for structural separation of generation from retail, but that's about ownership.  Not a lot of coherence in the issue here is there?

- US healthcare – not voucher-based, admittedly, but the nearest thing the developed world has to a private health system – is a catastrophe. It’s not the nearest thing the developed world has to a private health system, as there are umpteen other examples. Nobody, literally nobody advocating for more market-oriented healthcare thinks the over-regulated, highly subsidised US model (Medicare and Medicaid are uncapped liabilities to US taxpayers) is a model for anyone to follow, but it doesn’t stop socialists from the Anglosphere blanking out Switzerland, France, Singapore or the Netherlands. Australia’s system is a mixed model, but that doesn’t fit the narrative.

After all of this selective agitprop (yes education vouchers “fail” but let’s not mention Sweden which to this day maintains one of the most open market education systems in the world, but that doesn’t fit either), we get the philosophy:

There is a basic philosophical issue: public services – health, education – are things people deserve as of right, as a basic entitlement of citizenship. They are not the equivalent of buying, say, another item of clothing, and treating them as mere consumer goods risks degrading their deep importance.

Hold on, most of this article focuses on railways, then water, and talks about electricity, then ends with health and education.  Is the claim that the state has to provide everything that is a “basic entitlement of citizenship”? Should the state own all housing? Should the farms be state owned and all food supplied by state shops (after all food is MORE important than health and education, because most can last months or years without health and education, nobody can last more than weeks without food)?  The sneering comment that “treating them as mere consumer goods” says a lot about attitudes, that when the public are allowed to choose it is “degrading”. Really?

If, as is often the case, privatisation means charging for something once paid out of taxes, it is likely to have a harmful effect on poorer households.  Why? Because poorer households use the most electricity, rail freight or water? Of course they don’t, but is the argument here that everything people need should be free at the point of use, but that half the population should pay taxes so the others don’t?  We can see what “free” water has done to demand for it, and the infrastructure. We see it with roads everyday where consumers aren’t exposed directly to the costs of what they use, with the result of queuing. Public health systems are all about queuing after all, socialists seem to think that is fair, as long as the workers get paid well, the workers not in those systems should be grateful “is isn’t ‘Merica”!

You see the problem is, the common people are stupid and ignorant, whereas public servants, producer unions (especially those run by people paid much more than the average wage) and politicians are enlightened, capable and benevolent…

People don’t generally know what healthcare they need; in education, research suggests “competition” between schools is often driven either by parents making calls based on external factors like uniforms, or by prejudiced views about keeping their kids away from certain other children.  

Well just give them what you think they deserve, parents are incompetent clearly. The state should probably feed kids too (already started with that). Parents must make lots of bad calls too, so maybe the state should buy groceries, buy clothes, maybe run activities for the children to keep fit and socialise, maybe ensure they don’t have “prejudiced views”, maybe build a sense of community. Maybe we can call them Brigades, give them uniforms. Maybe they can help identify grownups who express “hateful and harmful” views. You can see where this attitude that parents know least can head, but it is exactly the arrogance of people who think because some parents make poor choices, none should be allowed to. 

I could go on, there is a misconstruing of how Telecom performed in the 1990s (which from a consumer point of view saw prices plummet across almost all services, essentially enabling people to communicate across the country and internationally affordably for the first time). 

The only interesting part of the article is the claim that if only the public could be “involved” in the decision-making of state owned organisations they could be more responsive.  This is quaint but delusional.  Most people have the time to work, look after their families and then spend quality time enjoying themselves. A small, but vocal minority get involved in activism and inevitably those who will shout the most and get involved the most will be those with spare time or motivation, either because of their political ideology or in many cases simply having time because they are retired or not working. The citing of the “successful German model” for electricity companies is laughable given some of the highest electricity prices for consumers in the EU. If that's success I'd stick with the status quo thank you very much.

It ends with this “We could also entrust frontline public servants with more responsibility, putting them in charge of locating efficiencies and potential innovations” Sure, because public servants are well known to be at the frontline of identifying the most efficient ways of doing things, and innovating with technology and service delivery, that’s why they have jobs they rarely can lose, and don’t get paid based on performance. It's naive at best.

I get that socialists hate private enterprise at worst or are highly sceptical of it. What I don’t get are the absolutely contorted contradictions of, on the one hand hating private enterprise making a lot of money from former state enterprises, and then not wanting the state to make money from them (but rather for taxpayers to subsidise them, for no clear aim other than to make sure people don’t pay for what they use).  I absolutely don’t understand how intelligent people who purport to be interested in public policy outcomes parrot agitprop slogans from trade unions.  What is the point of the state owning Kiwirail? Is it to get more freight on rail and off of roads? If so, is that the best way to do it?  None of this is clear.  What is the point of the state owning a power company? To make it cheaper for some consumers? To reduce emissions (which will make it more expensive for someone)?  Nobody knows.

Socialists have successfully scaremongered about privatisation in NZ for decades. This scaremongering stopped water getting reformed in the 1990s outside Auckland, and has stopped serious reform of ACC, and making the electricity market more competitive (by the state not having a stake in generation and retail). It’s largely banal slogans pushed by Marxists with a strong vibe of xenophobia, and it deserves to remain back in the 1990s with the Alliance.

POSTSCRIPT: By the way, I am not in favour of privatising prisons. The state has a core function to protect law and order, and to protect citizens from the initiation of violence by individuals and state.  Politicians and public servants should be held accountable for the success and failure of managing them, and with the monopoly of the legal power to incarcerate people being quite unique, passing that responsibility to a business - regardless of efficiency - dilutes that accountability.  

Charles Moore on the prospects of Trump in Foreign Policy

 From the Daily Telegraph:

One of Mr Trump’s clearest messages, amplified by his choice of J D Vance, is that he does not want to help Ukraine defeat Vladimir Putin’s invasion. His strategic “realism”, advanced by policy advisers such as Elbridge Colby, looks at these issues through the “lens of pragmatism” and decides that America cannot deal with the Russia and China problems at the same time. Since the US and China are “the two heavyweight boxers”, that is where all the action should be, they say.

If this were just a military division-of-labour argument, it would make some sense. Mr Trump has always been right that America cannot help defend Europe if Europe will not defend itself. But he goes much further than this.

He seems not to accept that China and Russia see very clearly the link between grabbing Taiwan and grabbing Ukraine and wish to use it to break Western, especially American, power. His faith in the capacity of “one telephone call”, made by him, to calm it all down is astonishing. Despite his pugnacious character, his role model seems to be Neville Chamberlain, not Winston Churchill.

Trumpian neo-isolationism thinks as if the Second World War had never happened. Even then – an era of much slower communications and far fewer human and commercial links than today – the Western allies recognised that it was impossible to see the war in Europe and the war in the Far East as separate entities, except in operational terms. The threat was global: victory had to be global, too.

Mr Trump’s failure to acknowledge the globalisation of war threatens not only the Ukraine he proposes to neglect but also the Taiwan he says that he wants to help. He criticises that tiny island, up against opponents about 1.5 billion strong, for not doing enough for its own defence. He also recently complained, “They did take about 100 per cent of our chip business” (semi-conductors, not fried potatoes).

Compare this transactional carelessness with China’s long-term, implacable intent, and you can predict the likely winner.

I come back to the God stuff with which I began. As a believer myself, I welcome the signs of renewed interest in Christianity among the Western young. It is an awakening against nihilism, and against Islamist fanaticism.

But – more in the United States than in Britain – it contains a strand so disgusted with the degeneracy of Western liberalism that it falls for a charlatan like Putin when he says that he is doing the Lord’s work against our godless decadence.

It was much to the credit of the Leave campaign in Britain that – except for a few Faragiste/Ukip outliers – it never fell into this pit that Putin had tried to dig for it. But the Trump team has. Its effects could disable the free world.   

and no, Biden hasn't been stellar either, but if the US thinks it is expensive keeping a global order it used to care about, intact, like it has since 1945, wait till it sees the new multipolar, multi-nuclear weapons (and other WMD) states world isolationism would bring to it.

Particularly when it is patently clear Russia is largely full of bluster and could easily be defeated if the will was there.

Pity the UK

Pity the UK today. I lived there for fourteen years, five years under the Blair/Brown hate-hate partnership (oh they loathed each other, but needed each other) and then watched as the Conservatives squandered multiple electoral mandates by, in most cases, doing little substantial to address the growing issues the country faced.

It seems most likely the UK will vote to give Labour a significant majority, in part because Keir Starmer seems benign and stable, and in large part because Starmer has either cauterised or silenced the lunatic communist/post-modernist rump that cheered on the friend of Hamas, Jeremy Corbyn (now purged from the party).  Starmer gains largely because the Conservatives have almost entirely failed to deliver on what voters wanted from them in 2019, but he is also gaining because of the implosion, at last, of Scottish socialist nationalism in the form of the corrupt SNP.  That band of Anglophobic Marxists, whose excuse for poor performance was always to blame the English, have finally tired Scots enough that they’ll swing back to Labour largely.

Although it is patently obvious from the coverage of the BBC, ITV, Sky News and the Guardian that much of the media is chomping at the bit to see Labour elected, there is little real sign that Starmer can deliver much other than stability.  Public debt under the Conservatives went from 71% of GDP to 98%, and only a fraction of that increase came from action on Covid. There will be much talk of the end of “austerity” which was a myth, as the Conservatives raised spending on health, education and welfare, increased debt and more lately increased taxes. The state sector in the UK is at levels not seen since the 1940s – when Labour was in power bringing “democratic socialism” through large-scale nationalisation of much industry from coal to railways to bus services to steelworks, all preceding the decades of relative decline of Britain compared to its war damaged equivalents on the continent. 

To say the Conservatives have been disappointing is an understatement. The first five years saw David Cameron, a man who was far too guilty about his gilded upbringing that his focus was on atoning for the industrial revolution by slashing emissions and in pouring money down the endless maw of the state religion – aka the NHS. His main techniques for doing that were to kneecap electricity generation using fossil fuels whilst not enabling much new generation to be built at all – except for a highly subsidised nuclear power plant being built, still, by French and Communist Chinese companies.  There might have been more nuclear power plants, but his even more useless Deputy Prime Minister – Nick Clegg of the poorly named “Liberal Democrats” (for they are neither liberal nor democrats) didn’t want more nuclear power stations because, in 2010, he said they wouldn’t open until 2021 or 2022.  The Liberal Democrats did hogtie the Conservatives in their first term. One of Cameron’s most ludicrous moves was in stopping a third runway being built at Heathrow Airport, only to commission a report on options to address airport capacity in the UK, which after the following election recommended (like the two previous report on the issue) building a third runway at Heathrow. Bumbling Dave’s original promise was part of his kneejerk reactionary approach to climate change. However he was keen on building high-speed rail, so ran with Gordon Brown’s proposal to build a ridiculously expensive new railway from London to Birmingham and then onto Manchester and Leeds, because “climate change” and his other trendy term “levelling up” (code for trying to make the North as wealthy as London through state intervention).  Of course neither the third runway, nor any of the high speed rail line are open, because more fundamentally, Britain has a planning system designed to stop anything being built anywhere.  Houses, airports, businesses, railway lines, power stations, are all stopped because most politicians – Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens and yes Reform/UKIP – are NIMBYs, and don’t want anything built near anyone who whinges. 

So during that first term Cameron’s achievements were to significantly boost NHS spending, to raise state spending on foreign aid to 0.7% of GDP (to atone for Britain’s imperial past and to show him to not be “nasty”), and hold a referendum on Scottish independence, which was narrowly won by the “no” side. He did of course buy the pensioner vote with the “triple lock” on the UK’s state pension system, which promised it would rise each year by the highest of inflation, average earnings or 2.5%, an enormous wealth transfer from future generations to current pensioners. So after five years governing as a “wet” David Cameron successfully defeated the more hopelessly wet Ed Miliband in the 2015 election, and also cut the Liberal Democrats back to a rump and gained a majority in his own right. He also gained support from the EUsceptic wing of his party by promising a referendum on EU Membership and negotiated a weak “deal” to help convince voters to stay in the EU. Of course, getting a EUphilic Prime Minister to negotiate a deal to placate EUscepticism was doomed to fail, and so the 2016 EU referendum was a disaster for him.  The UK voted to leave the EU, in part because of xenophobia towards some EU migrants (mainly from the poorest countries in the east), but also being fed up with the attitude of the EU towards the UK. The UK was seen as needing rules generated from Brussels for “solidarity” and of course the EU’s economic policy was dominated by a highly protectionism dirigisme model. David Cameron found the vote too hard so just resigned like the gutless spin doctor that he is. So then the UK got Theresa May.

The UK’s second female Prime Minister was, however, very unlike the first. May was more wet that Cameron, was enamoured by a nanny state that embraced new rules and regulations on personal behaviour, and wanted more intervention in the economy and in society.  She didn’t support Brexit, which of course hardly helped in her negotiating a deal with Brussels, but her fatal mistake was her conceit in seeking an electoral mandate in 2017 because she thought she could destroy Labour with its newly elected Trotskyite terrorist sympathising leader Jeremy Corbyn.  In fact she destroyed her electoral majority, as Corbyn rode on a wave of moronic Marxist students and media commentators who embraced his highly principled stand for socialism, as he lifted multiple backbench MPs from the sewers where most of them resided, onto his front bench. This included luminaries like Diane Abbott who once said on TV she thought Chairman Mao did more good than harm.  The Conservatives lost seats and Labour gained 40% of the vote on a socialist platform. It was only because the Democratic Unionist Party (hardline Protestant unionists from Northern Ireland) were willing to grant the Conservatives confidence and supply that May was able to govern.  

May limped on for two years of ineffective government during which the UK suffered from horrendous Islamist terrorist attacks at Manchester Arena, Westminster Bridge and London Bridge, and she proved she couldn’t negotiate a Brexit agreement that would obtain either Parliamentary support or support from Brussels. She passed the banner to Boris Johnson, who proved, much like when he was Mayor, to be a loudmouth blowhard attention seeker, who is better placed to be a comic character and writer than a serious politician.  Johnson’s greatest achievement was in the 2019 seeing off Corbyn and his band of terrorist sympathising thugs, anti-semites and communists, and seeing an unprecedented level of Conservative support for “getting Brexit done”. The problem with Johnson is that his rhetoric wasn’t matched by action, not least because his relatively new wife was infected with the same guilt complex posh Tories have about their lives, so it saw him double down on climate change policy, and do next to nothing to address issues around economic productivity, the unsustainable health and welfare systems and the perpetual housing crisis, let alone increasing issues of urban crime in major cities. 

Johnson did deliver a Brexit deal that would have given the UK freedom to innovate, to liberalise regulation around much of the economy, but he squandered his chance. Brexit and support for Ukraine were his greatest achievements, but after all that, there is next to nothing. Yes, the pandemic didn’t help, but neither did his “I don’t give a damn about the truth” approach to the rules he instituted during the pandemic. There were ample opportunities to liberalise laws from shop trading (big shops still can’t open all day Sunday in most of the UK), to planning, to financial services, but no.  He could have greatly simplified taxes, lowering costs to businesses, but no.  He could have scrapped vanity projects like HS2, but no, because the man is a vanity project in himself.

Johnson gave way to Liz Truss (third female Prime Minister) whose fatal mistake was not in her intentions, but in her and her Chancellor’s inability to judge the markets’ reaction to massive tax cuts that aren’t accompanied by spending cuts.  That sheer stupidity was naïve, and has set back the cause of free market liberalism in the UK for many years. She was inept as a leader, and had to go, but having Rishi Sunak as PM (first PM of Indian descent) was a step back to the days of David Cameron and the wets. Sunak has raised taxes, promised compulsory national service and although has a handful of Ministers with much promise (notably Kemi Badenoch, who carries the mantle for serious free market liberalism), it’s just a long line of disappointment.

So the Conservatives need to go, they are not entitled to rule, and those who join them because they want to tell others what to do, need to be purged.  The only shining light of the Conservative Government is in education, where free schools have opened up enormous opportunities for tens of thousands of school students to have education that their parents wanted, rather than what local authorities wanted. It will be very difficult to Labour to curtail that, except by stopping further expansion.  However, beyond that, and leaving the EU, there is little to be proud of.

Labour is on the frontline of Critical Constructivism, or what too many call “wokism”. So there is absolutely no hope of any progress under Starmer. The much more revolting Liberal Democrats, who are essentially middle class curtain twitching Greens, are even worse. There’s nothing liberal about them, they are NIMBYs on steroids who hate free markets and love the bureaucratic collectivism of the EU.  

What about Nigel Farage and Reform? There is some inherent appeal in a party that does appear to have some semblance of a belief in less government, and resisting critical constructivism, but Farage is a spiv. Until recently he was taking money for hire for people wanting a short video of him wishing a relative or friend Happy Birthday or any other sort of greeting. He’s now embracing being chief vandal of the Conservative Party, but it is difficult to determine what, if any, principles this media star embraces. It does seem like he is likely to actually win a seat in Parliament after his 8th try.  We will see what Reform contributes to the House of Commons.

Regardless of the outcome, it is obvious that nothing will be done in the UK to address the biggest problems facing the country.

Health policy is almost impossible to efficiently address because the NHS is a national religion. No other developed country lionises a bureaucracy like the UK does for one of the world’s largest civilian bureaucratic employers. To criticise “our NHS” is almost like questioning Islam in Tehran, and makes politicians on left and right blubber and foam at the mouth, before uttering incoherent bile that “we don’t want to be like America”, as if the world has two health systems to choose from. Labour will pour more money down the maw that is the health-professional dominated and run NHS, and in five years’ time people will still be complaining about it, and still will resist a real alternative – like a European style universal health insurance scheme (which Nigel Farage has surprisingly endorsed). Spending on the NHS has risen as a proportion of GDP from 7.5% to 8.2% in the last 14 years, but of course it is never enough.

Likewise, housing is impossible to address because of the Town and Country Planning Act which nationalised decisions on the use of land to local authorities, all of which are dominated by NIMBYs from across the spectrum.  Whether it be building up or out, most councils don’t like housing being built, unless they get to specify it, and impose conditions like “40% affordable”, which makes it difficult to built housing for a mid-market that wont pay to cross-subsidise below cost building, or banning car parks (because cars are bad as they create congestion, but only two councils have ever implemented congestion pricing because none of them actually want to make driving easier).  Labour wont fix housing because it wont take housing out of the hands of NIMBY councils.

Similarly, electricity prices in particular are a concern, but Labour’s answer is to create a state-owned retailer, rather than address the real issue which is the lack of generation built in the past twenty years. This follows a single-minded obsession with lowering emissions to atone for the industrial revolution, whilst (similar to housing) the UK makes it impossible to build substantial new power stations, such as nuclear (notwithstanding the corporatist hand-out from taxpayers to the French state owned power company EDF and Chinese state owned power company CGN to build the massively overpriced Hinkley Point C nuclear plant).  Gordon Brown, then David Cameron continued to wage war on emissions without being honest about the impact it would have on consumers’ energy bills, and Keir Starmer is placating his far-left wing by claiming it’s all just capitalism ripping people off (so a bit of state socialism would fix it).

Many Brits are concerned about illegal migration, with the large numbers of small boats, mostly young men who pay people smugglers to take them from Africa, the Middle East and Asia, seeking employment, housing and to access the generosity of the welfare state.  Few are genuine refugees, and besides they are travelling by boat from safe countries such as France and Belgium, precisely because they see fewer opportunities for employment and see the UK as more generous than the largely contributory based welfare states on the continent. While a few Brits are racist and opposed to immigration per se, most are simply concerned about people entering en masse with relatively little control over the numbers or what happens to them (as those caught are detained at taxpayer expense for months whilst they are processed).  The Rwanda solution (flying those deemed not refugees to Rwanda) has proven unworkable, as the UK Government seeks to avoid breaking international law around the treatment of refugees. The fundamental problem is that the law did not anticipate a whole industry of economic migrants seeking to enter welfare states.  

The Conservatives could either have spent a fortune on border protection, to turn back boats, detain economic migrants and process them, or converted the UK’s welfare state, including health, education and housing into a contributory system like much of the continent. However, neither were done nor will be done. The UK will continue to attract tens of thousands of young undocumented economic migrants eager to work on low wages at best, or engage in organised crime at worst.  

However, most of all the UK will do nothing to address its productivity sclerosis.  Whether it be energy, or airport runways, or roads (virtually all local authorities are averse to reducing traffic congestion), or regulations on land use, or taxation, or reducing barriers to competition, there is no real interest in the major political parties in doing anything about this (except for a rump in the Conservatives). No one will deal with the PONZI scheme of the state pension, no one will make the welfare and education system more supportive of incentivising training and work, rather than dependency and low value “degrees” from “universities” that are little more than glorified former polytechs. In the meantime, the Starmer Government wont confront at all the seething anti-semitism and Islamism that has been seen most clearly in the protests supporting Hamas in Gaza, but also has been bubbling for many years seen in pockets of terrorism from time to time.  Critical constructivism has no time for installing a sense of being “British” as something to bring people together, even though the outgoing Conservatives have exemplified a country that embraces migrants and women as leaders, noting that the next likely leader of the Conservatives is Kemi Badenoch, a woman of Nigerian ancestry who completely reject critical constructivism and socialism. That is how far the UK has come. 

It's fundamentally tragic, and of course the First Past the Post system magnifies victories and losses when they are so overwhelming. The only hope I have for the UK is that the Conservatives are the party of Opposition, and not superseded by the Illiberal Demagogues in sheer numbers. For all of that, the people who should hold their heads in shame for the loss of the Conservatives are Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and their many colleagues who thought that being in government was about managing the status quo, and fiddling, rather than using mandates to transform the country.  

I’m glad I’m out, but I'm sad that so much has been squandered by people who didn't deserve power.