Jul 172011
 

Given the current situation in Eastern Africa, it is about time to come up with a few words about foreign aid … specifically the amount that each country contributes towards foreign aid. There is plenty of suspicion that some countries are not contributing their fair share – indeed some countries have promised aid and then failed to deliver.

There are those who criticise the uses to which foreign aid is put – and there may be valid criticisms there, but whilst your country is being stingy, you don’t really have the right to criticise. Stump up the money to at least the average, and then you may criticise away. Indeed some of the criticisms are in the end due to a lack of money – for example paying for emergency aid to keep starving people alive doesn’t solve any long term problems, but solving the long term problems takes money beyond that for emergency aid.

I’ll be using percentage of GDP as a metric of how stingy countries are when it comes to foreign aid. Some may criticise this metric, but it is the only sensible metric to use … and indeed someone has already looked at the percentage of GDP question and more or less come down on the side of saying that it’s probably the best metric available. See here.

When looking at the figures, it is worth bearing in mind that the UN has a target of getting the rich to contribute 0.7% of their GDP towards foreign aid. This is a target that was agreed by the rich countries way back in 1970, and has rarely been met. Stealing an image from another web page :-

Graph of foreign AID by GDP

I would rather have included just the second graph which is the important one, but the first allows me to make a point about absolute aid monetary values. It allows the US to hide it’s stinginess behind it’s absolute value of donations – it looks generous, but the true story is hidden behind the size of the US. For instance, you could more accurately compare (in absolute terms) the donations by the US with Europe as a whole – if you add up the value donated by the next three largest contributors (all in Europe), you get a value of approximately $39 billion – way more than the US, and the contributions from less wealthy European countries would make the US even more stingy.

I’m picking on the US here simply because it is one of the stingiest rich countries around, but very few countries reach or exceed the UN target of 0.7% of GDP. Only 5 out of 23 countries (22%) meet or exceed the UN target. Or in other words, 78% of the listed countries have not met a target they are obligated to have met by the mid-1970s!

And before anyone mentions that this is because of the current economic climate, bear in mind that foreign aid budgets have increased since the banking crisis – over time, the rich countries have accumulated a “debt” of some $4.1 trillion dollars representing the shortfall between what they have promised and what they actually give.

Or in other words it’s not “enough already”, but we have fallen a long way short of what we promised to do – except for a tiny minority (that 22% who exceed the target are all quite small countries). It may well be that some foreign aid is wasted, but that is a topic for another time – a time after the UK has reached the 0.7% target (it is currently 0.56% of GDP).

Jul 102011
 

Or “There’s Nothing Wrong With America That A Good Strong Dose Of Socialism Wouldn’t Cure”

This is of course written from the perspective of someone who isn’t that familiar with the US – I haven’t lived there since the 1970s, and I was a bit young to be making notes on the political situation (although I do remember the aftermath of the Watergate scandal). And I’m sure I’ll wander off course from the initial subject of “socialism”. Of course I do read about the crazy freak show that is American politics these days.

For some reason the word “socialism” seems to cause most Americans to blow up. It seems a bit like a trump card – accuse something of being socialist and you’ve won the argument against it, whatever the truth of the argument and whether there’s any scrap of truth in the notion that some policy may be socialist. Or whether a socialist policy has any virtue … some Americans would rather do things poorly than risk doing anything with a “socialist” label on it.

Anyone growing up in the US could be forgiven for thinking that “socialism” is some form of hideous dysfunction that causes an irrational desire to punish hard working people in the form of making them pay more than their share. Or something.

Funnily enough, the US does have socialist policies, but they are called something else – except when some troglodyte wants to destroy such policies. Think “Medicaid”. Or the US Postal Service.

Why does this word trigger such a violent response ? Well there’s a whole bunch of possible reasons …

Firstly there is a lot of confusion between “communism” and “socialism”. The first is a system of government that espouses socialist economic principles throughout the economy (amongst other things); the second is an economic system where the means of production are owned collectively – usually by the government. Of course socialism is really about a lot more than the pure dictionary definition – things like health care provision for all, pensions for the old, attempts at income distribution (to avoid the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor – which is a pretty big problem right now), etc.

And in reality a socialist regime is likely to socialise only a limited part of industry – the obvious example (for me) being Britain in the 1950s where railways, and coal industries were nationalised but most industries were left alone. In some ways that is a poor example given the history of the railways and the coal industry in Britain after nationalisation, but that overlooks the fact that the industries were nationalised partly because they were already in such a poor state.

Americans often hear “communist” when someone says “socialist”, and start to worry about communism … or to be more precise an authoritarian state labelling itself “communist” (although the Soviet Union was about as communist as my toenail clippings). The origins of this fear of communism are probably related to the establishment of the Soviet Union and more significantly, their establishment of Comintern with it’s mission of establishment of communist regimes everywhere. Through fair means or foul.

Now here’s where it starts to get interesting: In both the US and Britain between the two world wars, there was a considerable level of official interest and concern in the activities of communists and organisations such as Comintern. By chance, Britain’s “spook” community included someone who believed that whilst action could and should be taken against organisations such as Comintern, targeting legitimate politicians such as members of the Labour party was wrong. This may have helped influence the rather more enthusiastic head of MI5.

Whereas the equivalent in the US (Hoover as the head of the FBI) had no such influence allowing his anti-communist zeal to exceed the real danger and cross over into harassing innocents on the left of the political spectrum. This probably helped the anti-communists on the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities which whilst not quite as loony as McCarthy himself, did go far beyond what was acceptable and far beyond what the risk of communism entailed.

I have known people who were member of the old hard left all their lives – including those who insisted on keeping a portrait of Uncle Joe on the wall. None of those were unpatriotic – they may have wanted a socialist government; they may even have wanted a communist revolution. But none would have countenanced being ruled from Moscow.

You might say they were being deceived, and that Moscow was keeping control of an inner core of hard core supporters to take over a left-wing government and hand over control. But that was always an unrealistic option – it would take Russian tanks in the streets for such a government to keep control, which was more than a little unrealistic for the US.

Not that fighting the cold war was wrong. But the winners of the cold war were far more the people living under “communism” in the Soviet Union and satellite states, and the armaments companies. That is not to say that we did not benefit, but the benefits were less direct than is most obviously thought of. After all the threat of nuclear war was there not because the Soviet Union existed (after all they didn’t get nuclear weapons without us), but because we were facing them down.

But that is all in the past, and the automatic rejection by Americans of policies with the phrase “But that’s socialism” is now outdated. Indeed the correct reaction is “Yeah. So what ? It’s also right.”.

The right-wing in the freak show that is American politics today, is a bizarre and perplexing combination of Ayn Rand‘s seductive denial of society, and the fundamentalist christians. Indeed they seem to have combined the worst aspects of both, and rejected any redeeming qualities – the belief in an infectious imaginary friend but discarding christian charity (except to those “deserving” of charity), and the belief in individualism without the responsibilities of freedom – the responsibility to share in the care of the less fortunate.

Many Americans (and to be fair, plenty of others) hate paying taxes to pay for benefits for those less fortunate – direct benefits, educational benefits, health care benefits, etc. There is a belief that an individual’s income is for their benefit alone, and nobody has a right to take it away. Indeed that taxation is a form of theft by the government.

There is an element of truth to the theft argument, but it is very wrong to assume that an individual’s income is solely down to their abilities. There are too many contributing factors to an individual’s ability to earn – and those factors are commonly paid for by society as a whole. Such as police to keep order, armed forces to defend the country, education, etc.

Sure those services might be provided by private companies under some sort of “libertarian” utopia, but none of us are living under one of those right now.  And frankly, historical experience shows that private provision of what are normally regarded as government services has been less than successful – look at the history of fire fighting for example.

The earliest (in modern history) fire brigades were introduced by insurance companies to protect the property of those who insured with them. Sure enough, they refused to save the property of anyone else, but fire is one of those things that does not protect property boundaries – by stopping the fire of your uninsured neighbour, your own property is protected to a greater extent than if you waited until your own property was on fire. So those private fire brigades were privatised and the brigades funded from the public purse.

It’s a rare and unusual person who complains about socialism when the fire brigade comes up, but isn’t this what it is ?

Socialism and socialist policies are not good in themselves; neither are they bad. The virtue of any policy is whether it would be effective … and more effective than what is currently in place. Not whether it is ‘socialist’, or whatever. The label is irrelevant.

Jul 072011
 

But is this merely a cynical move by a morally bankrupt management hierarchy to put a stop to the bad news in the hope it will not torpedo their plans to take over BSkyB ? Essentially News International has decided to blame the probably innocent journalists (who allegedly have all been employed after the phone hacking was routine) to avoid blame being placed squarely where it belongs – with the management who permitted such a lax regime at the old News of the World that illegal phone hacking, and potentially even corruption of police officers could carry on.

The odds are that the News of the World team will mostly get jobs in an enlarged Sun organisation which is supposedly going to shortly become a 7 day newspaper. But if any fail to find jobs, is it unreasonable to wish that News International could somehow be forced to pay their unemployment benefit ? After all, the journalists put together a profitable paper, and they have been thrown out of work because of what is in the end a failure of management.

It is clear that the old News of the World was responsible for phone hacking on an industrial scale involving hundreds of victims including not just the famous and infamous, but also ordinary members of the public caught up in tragic events – victims of crime or war. Plus it seems that payments were made to members of the police – not only illegal, but something illegal for so long nobody could claim they didn’t know it was illegal.

With any luck the individuals who were there listening into phone calls, commissioning such snooping, and passing brown paper bags to corrupt coppers will be found and prosecuted with the full weight of the law. But the managers who allowed such activities within their organisation also need to pay a price – they may not have known what was going in (if they were particularly dumb), but they are ultimately responsible for a regime in which such activities could take place.

Even if they did nothing more than profit from the results of the illegal journalism, they all deserve to go. Ever since the phone hacking scandal first burst on the scene 5 years ago, they have been claiming it was just the odd bad apple doing this. They at the very least, are responsible for sweeping the mess under the carpet and trying to conceal the magnitude of the crime.

There are people who are claiming that it was only a tiny cabal of journalists – perhaps 6 – who were up to this. Well we have heard all that before when News International were claiming it was just one journalist and one private investigator up to these criminal acts. Even if it was just six journalists, one thing has been neglected in all the noise about this – the other journalists, the newspaper, and News International all benefitted from the phone hacking that was going on.

Even if it was just a busy phone hacking journalist nodding the wink to another “more respectable” journalist in need of a story – perhaps “look into what celebrity X is up to”, they all benefited.

Our favourite hate figure Rebekah Brooks has commented that in a year’s time we will all know why it was necessary to shut the News of the World down – what other dirty little secrets have yet to see the light of day ? This isn’t something that is going to go away. She claims that it was “inconceivable” that she would know what was going on when Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked – which is completely unbelievable. An editor should know what is going on in her own newsroom – perhaps not who was being hacked, but that hacking was going on.

An editor who didn’t question the kind of information the phone hacking journalists were coming up with is either grossly incompetent, lying, or knew it was too good to be true and chose not to know so she could keep her hands “clean”.  Bear in mind that she admitted that News of the World was paying policeman for information in 2003!

You will often hear the pathetic excuse that journalists protect their sources even from their editor. Protecting sources is indeed important in serious investigative journalism, and an editor may well not want to know the name of a source, but will need to know the kind of source information comes from. If Rebekah (and other editors of the News of the World such as Andy Coulson)  didn’t query the kind of source behind certain stories, they could be accused of gross misconduct as editors.

And moving on, do we really imagine that it was only News of the World journalists subcontracting phone hacking out to dodgy private investigators ? At the very least some News of the World journalists went on to other papers and quite probably carried on the same old behaviour in other news rooms.

How many other newspapers are going to be closed down by the end of the investigation ?

Now onto the sorry story of the police corruption and the “investigations” that have taken place. The allegedly corrupt officers and the investigations that failed to find the blindingly obvious were both from the Metropolitan Police. One has to wonder if the earlier investigations into phone hacking were carried out by some of those corrupt officers. Maybe it was just incompetence.

However it has serious implications for the current police investigation into what went on – this is also being done by the Met. Which to many people will look a bit odd. Whilst I do not doubt that the current investigation will be carried out fully, it would be better by far if it were to be carried out by a force other than the Met. To avoid disturbing the current investigation, perhaps it could be as simple as bringing in a senior officer from outside the Met to head the investigation.

But most importantly of all, we have yet to give this scandal a good “gate” name in the traditional (at least ever since Watergate) fashion. I propose “hackgate” given the two appropriate meaning behind the word “hack”!

Jul 042011
 

According to the latest bit of news leaked from the investigation into the News of the World’s phone hacking scandal, it is alleged that a private investigator hacked into Milly Dowler’s phone and even deleted messages to make space for more messages. Whilst listening to the phone messages of celebrities is one thing – not a good thing, but sort of understandable – this is well beyond the pale.

Didn’t anyone at the News of the World stop and think for a moment ? Apparently not, which goes to show that everyone at the News of the World at the time must share responsibility in this sordid example of what happens when you give the gutter press a free hand. It’s time to take serious action on this :-

  1. Drive the News of the World out of business. Easily done – everyone should refuse to buy a single copy of the newspaper. Even if you like the gutter press, buy something else. And sneer at everyone who does buy a copy. And well done to Ford who have pulled ads from News of the World – lets see more of that!
  2. Get the investigation into this into the hands of a police force who don’t care and don’t need the co-operation of the London-based press. One of the Scottish forces would work quite well. And tell them there’s no need to be gentle.
  3. Prosecute, prosecute, prosecute. Those responsible should be in jail. This isn’t a freedom of the press issue – this is blatant interference in a serious police investigation.
Jun 302011
 

Disclaimer: I am a public sector worker who can expect a public sector pension. This may reflect my views on the issue. It also reflects the views of others who write about this issue but do they declare their interest?

Today many of the public sector unions were on strike in protest at government proposals to “reform” public sector pensions. This caused quite a bit of disruption to people trying to use various public sector services – especially as many schools were closed. The government is of course condemning those who went on strike – how dare they inconvenience the public by going on strike when the discussions are not even complete.

Well the government “negotiators” have already put their foot in it by implying that many things are not subject to negotiation – if all you’re left with is to negotiate what the measures are to be called, then you’re not negotiating at all. Plus anyone watching the news would be mistaken for thinking that these pension reforms are all about making public sector pensions affordable.

What the government fails to point out is that measures taken in the past – including unilaterally (i.e. without negotiating) changing the index linking to a lower rate – have already made the public sector pensions affordable. According to the latest calculated figures, the cost of public sector pensions peaked in 2009-2010 at 1.9% of GDP which is expected to fall to 1.4% of GDP. This is according to this BBC article (I’ve been very lazy and have not hunted down the original report).

As one BBC commentator pointed out, these measures are aimed not at making public sector pensions affordable but at making public sector pensions fairer in comparison to private sector pensions. So the government is lying; no surprise there!

But it isn’t fair for a low-paid private sector worker to be paying taxes that contribute towards a more generous public sector salary for those lucky enough to hang on to their public sector job! To be more clear, the public sector scheme should should not be excessively generous in comparison to private sector schemes.

One thing to point out is that pension schemes usually work by the employee making a hefty contribution out of his or her monthly salary and their employer also making a contribution each month. That is no different in the public sector!

So what we have here is a government determined to bring down public sector pensions to the level in the private sector rather than tackle the admittedly harder problem of bringing up the level of private sector pensions. Or in other words we have a government working to keep the average worker poor so the rich can get richer.

Just what you would expect a Tory government to do.