Bereft of effective leadership!

Posted by on

“I am opposed to the UK government’s key policy (Brexit), but then so, until recently, was she (Theresa May). There’s a job that doesn’t need doing and, increasingly, it feels like she is just the person not to do it.” (David Mitchell, Guardian Weekly, April 13)

Meanwhile, a friend pointed out that the ineffectiveness of the Labour opposition is rational, if hardly patriotic or responsible. Who in their right mind would want to take on the Brexit negotiations? The last thing the opposition wants is a General Election that they could possibly win. Would you welcome this poisoned chalice, especially since many Labour voters are reportedly changing their mind and are now Remainers?

The other side of the coin is this: What are national politicians for unless they aim to help run the country as pragmatic leaders? Looking back years to dreams of pure Socialism, unsullied by reality, is doing favours to no one. There is currently no Her Majesty’s Opposition”. Epicurus advised against going into politics, and you can understand why. But he never said there should be no effective government!

Immigration again: victims of domestic and gang violence

Posted by on

In recent months, there has been a surge in the number of immigrants trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. Immigrant rights advocates say that is because they’re fleeing extreme violence in their home countries — violence that shows no signs of abating.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has broad powers over the nation’s immigration courts, has now imposed new limits on who can get asylum in the United States. “Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems — even all serious problems — that people face every day all over the world,” he is reported as saying. In his decision, Sessions argues the asylum system is intended to protect not victims of violent crime but people fleeing from persecution, like religious minorities or political dissidents. Immigrant rights advocates, on the other hand, fear the lives of asylum-seekers will be in danger when they are returned to their countries of origin.

Sessions and other immigration hard-liners say that it has become too easy to claim asylum in the United States — and that migrants know this and game the system. Immigrant advocates, however, say Sessions is taking away an essential lifeline for victims of domestic abuse and gang violence and turning his back on an American legacy of protecting the most vulnerable, particularly those women who are persecuted by their husbands and ignored by their own governments. (edited version of an article by Joel Rose, NPR News, June 11 2018).

It is legitimate to try to winnow out the cheaters and gangsters. Having said that, the US would almost grind to a halt (only a slight exaggeration) if there were no immigrants willing to serve tables, pick fruit, tidy gardens, clear gutters and paint houses. Why? Because white Americans are not prepared to take those poor-paying jobs, and the white birthrate doesn’t in any case provide a big enough workforce to meet demand. I agree that bringing over grandparents and extended family members is (arguably) a stretch.

It is instructive to note that the Greeks in the days of Epicurus had slaves to do the work similar to that of modern immigrants. But these slaves could look forward to eventual freedom. This wasn’t the slavery of the ante-bellum South. Epicurus himself is noted for treating them with human kindness and respect, welcoming them as equals into his garden.

In short, we need immigrants; let them be.

Are you being a “fascist” if you want to curb immigration?

Posted by on

“Here’s some advice to my fellow liberals: If you want to defend liberal democracy in this age of “noisy populist movements”, stop condemning people who disagree with you about immigration. In both America and Europe, liberal commentators tend to treat every call for immigration curbs as a xenophobic assault on democracy.

“Yet the conflation of liberal values with an enthusiastically pro-immigration stance “mistakes a policy preference for a first principle”. Wide-open borders are not a prerequisite of a democratic society in the way that, say, a free press or judicial independence are. “Populist” proposals to restrict immigration here and in Europe are “actually quite popular”.

“Many on the Left not only refuse to acknowledge this, but behave as if the very concept of borders is immoral. Activists “egg on” so-called sanctuary cities to defy federal immigration laws, and call for policies that would “eliminate any meaningful distinctions between citizens and non-citizens”. As long as liberals refuse to make any concessions on immigration, and portray “every move to strengthen borders or discourage further migratory waves” as one more step in the march to fascism, “the only people who benefit will be fascists”. (James Kirchick, New York Post, March 24 2018)

What should be the attitude of Epicureans to migration? I reach for one of the obvious principles: moderation. Given a wide enough door you get a large influx, including grannies, aunts and uncles, who may need financial and housing support. The new immigrants keep their own language and culture en masse, making integration difficult. We are all tribal to some extent, and it is natural and human for the indigenous folk to resent the change in their culture and way of life, not to mention the diversion of resources (especially housing). It is not “fascist”.

My personal attitude is that we should accept refugees from violence and war, but for, say , five years or until the conflict ends. These people should be helped, but then return to rebuild their countries. Then, we should welcome those with badly needed education and skills (since we are not good, on either side of the Atlantic, at producing them ourselves). But illegal immigration is illegal immigration, and I think it is reasonable to ask illegals to wait in line and enter through the official system, making their case as they go.

I am a legal immigrant to the United States and I went through (the long, clumsy, bureaucratic) system with increasing dismay, but stuck at it and eventually became a dual citizen. What I did others can do. Moderation.

Helping the less well-off

Posted by on

What can be done to stem the populist anger felt by people who feel adrift in the modern economy? Across the world politicians have been seizing on the same remedy: raise the minimum wage. Businesses and economists have long claimed this would cost jobs: yet that’s not what happened when Germany introduced a minimum wage of €8.50 in 2015, to help those who’d “slipped through the cracks of its otherwise strong economy”. A new study by the EU agency Eurofound has shown that wage inequality in Germany fell in 2015 by more than in any other EU country, as did wage disparities between rich and poor regions, yet with no damage to job prospects.

So now Germany is set to raise the minimum by a further 4%. It has been a similar story here in Britain: a higher minimum wage introduced in 2016 has led to a 10% increase for those on the lowest wage rung: yet employment rates are at record highs. But it’s no panacea, and not just because raising the minimum beyond a certain level can backfire. The enduring problem is that even if better paid, most of those on the bottom rung never climb up to the next. Until we solve that one, people at the bottom will continue to feel adrift and angry.
(Sarah O’Connor, Financial Times)

The fact is that those on a minimum wage spend all they get and save little or nothing. This translates into higher sales for basic goods everywhere and a stronger economy. Germany seems to be a good example. The corollary is that if you have a huge giveaway to the rich most of the proceeds are either saved or spent on luxuries. If you want to prime an economy you should boost the income of the poorest people and watch as it is all spent immediately on necessities. I am no economist, but this is common sense. Not, however, to politicians dependent on election funds from the rich.

One of the most noticeable things on both sides of the Atlantic is that, as retail businesses disappear at the hands of online commerce, the empty spaces left on the high street or shopping mall are often taken by small fast food businesses or cheap restaurants. This is because they are relatively cheap to set up, require small-ish capital outlays and it is easy to find workers. But their owners can be the most resistant to paying higher minimum wages. We who shop online are making uncomfortable beds for ourselves.

Why Jeremy Corbyn should resign.

Posted by on

Last week I posted about why the centre-left is in decline. Today, I wanted to talk about a party that has bucked the trend. Since Jeremy Corbyn succeeded Ed Miliband as the British Labour Party leader following its defeat in the 2015 general election, he has done what hardly anyone thought possible- substantially increase the proportion of people voting for a centre-left party. Contrary to expectations, the 2017 general election went surprisingly well for Labour, who received 40% of the vote. Not only that, Labour went from having just over 100 000 members when Corbyn took over to having 550 000 today. Corbyn survived a leadership contest against the hapless Owen Smith, and now has unchallenged authority within the party. And while much of that success was undoubtedly due to an ineffective and lacklustre Conservative campaign, Corbyn nevertheless deserves credit for bringing his partly within touching distance of power.

I’ve spoken before about the British Left’s anti-Semitism problem, before it became the salient issue it is now. I stand my ground in my analysis: that Corbyn has isn’t anti-Semitic himself, but far too tolerant of those who are, partly because some anti-Semites are fellow Palestinian nationalists. But Corbyn’s recent handling of the scandal, including his refusal to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism, is shameful. He ought to resign before Labour wrongly gets a reputation as a racist party, not helped of course by a largely hostile press.

However, Corbyn’s approach to the anti-Semitism row isn’t the only reason why he should resign. The Conservative minority government is one of the weakest in living memory. On every major issue, it is bitterly divided. Brexit- the biggest event Britain has experienced since WW2- is being negotiated by the most incompetent and foolish people imaginable. Post-recession wage stagnation is the worst of any developed country expect Greece. London and its hinterlands are facing a severe housing crisis, which has reduced disposable incomes, home ownership rates and increased homelessness. Child poverty has increased as a result of changes to the welfare system and is forecast to increase further. Britain is in a dire state, as the currency markets have made that clear by the Pound’s continued decline.

But the Corbyn-led Labour Party has failed to capitalise on any of this. It hasn’t produced a coherent alternative to the government’s Brexit plans, preferring to criticise the Conservatives opportunistically and inconsistently. It has no post-Brexit vision. Its members are pro-EU and favour a second referendum, yet the leadership lacks the courage and the conviction to argue for one. It talks a good talk on welfare, yet in practice, they propose to keep the vast majority of the welfare cuts in place. Labour has some popular policies, like railways re-nationalisation. But without the willingness to pull those policies together in a compelling, workable alternative plan, as well as the political nous to address scandals, they mean little.

Corbyn should resign because Britain desperately needs a strong opposition and comprehensive alternative to this shambolic Tory government. Corbyn became Labour leader because he was seen as different. In recent months he has failed to distinguish himself- on Brexit, austerity, and an overall commitment to a liberal society. He should be replaced by someone who can properly articulate a social democratic future. My personal preference would be the MP for Tottenham, David Lammy. On scandals faced by the Conservatives, such as the Grenfell Tower blaze or the deportation of British citizens who came to Britain in the 50s, he has held them to account with more eloquence and passion than anyone else. He shares Corbyn’s belief in the necessity of state infrastructure investments and well-funded social insurance programmes. But he lacks the current leader’s Euroscepticism, which has alienated Labour’s youthful base and made an honest, consistent Brexit policy impossible. More importantly, he isn’t associated with the sins of the old Left: the unconditional support for Palestinian nationalists, Irish nationalists, Iran, and South American autocrats like Chavez and Castro. No one can charge Lammy with wanting to take Britain back to the 1970s. But even if it isn’t Lammy, Labour needs to change. Complacency in the aftermath of the 2017 surprise could be the party’s undoing. It needs to be credible at all times. And under Corbyn, that simply won’t happen.