Week 15 2014

Tendring Topics…..on line

Reviving the Poll Tax?

          It was the introduction of a Poll Tax, a government demand for an equal sum per head from every adult without consideration of ability to pay, that provoked the Peasants’ Revolt in the 14^th Century, a revolt that was put down only by the treachery and cruelty  characteristic of rulers in ‘the age of chivalry’.

It was the Poll Tax (the government preferred to call it the Community Charge) that in 1990 finally led to Mrs Thatcher’s downfall as Prime Minister.   She had long promised to get rid of the rating system – raising a proportion of local government finance from a local tax levied on households calculated on their home’s estimated rental value.  It wasn’t popular (no taxation system ever is!) and by the 1980s was out of date. It had been years since there had been a revaluation.   However, imperfect as it was, the rating system meant that there was at least a rough relationship between the amount on the ‘rate demand’ (that was an unfortunate word if there ever was one) and the wealth, or lack of it, of the ratepayer.

            Mrs Thatcher abolished the rates and, as had been promised in her party’s election manifesto, replaced it with the Poll Tax levied equally on every adult resident in every flat, bungalow, dwelling house, mansion, or palace in the local authority’s area.  The rate per head (per ‘poll’) was set by each local authority.  There were modifications.  The unemployed paid only 20 percent of the local poll tax for instance but generally speaking ‘the rich man in his castle’ paid exactly the same as ‘the poor man at his gate’ or in his tied cottage or squalid tenement.  ‘What could possibly be fairer?’ –  that’s what the rich man in his castle asked!

            As in the 14^th century there was fury among the have-nots. There were protests all over the country and, particularly in London, demonstrations that evolved into riots.  Mrs Thatcher faced a revolt from her colleagues in government. She resigned as Prime Minister and Party Leader and was replaced by John Major.  He abolished the Poll Tax and replaced it with ‘Council Tax’, very similar to the old ‘rates’ except that there were ‘bands’ according to the estimated value of the property; undeniably less unfair, though still very generous to those in really palatial homes.

            Now, Lord Warner, a Labour Peer and one time Health Minister in Tony Blair’s New Labour government is suggesting something very similar to the old discredited poll tax to fund the NHS which, he says, is facing financial collapse.

            He thinks it would be a good idea if every adult in the country paid £10.00 a month for their ‘membership of the NHS’ and their right to NHS services. He also suggests that adult patients should pay £20 a night for stays in hospital.  There are a number of exemptions including us pensioners!  I’d like to think that this is out of genuine concern for the old and not just because all politicians (including those who have safe seats in the Lords) are aware that it is us greybeards who actually bother to vote at elections.  We’re the ones who can decide election results. 

            Supporters of Lord Warner’s idea say that there’s a black hole of insolvency in the finances of the NHS – and how else is it to be filled?   I believe that this can be done, without reducing anyone into either homelessness or starvation, by using the income tax system.  Income tax is the one form of taxation that, by its very nature, can never reduce anyone to penury.  Thanks to the latest budget no-one whose taxable income is less than £15,000 a year has to pay it at all and even the highest rate taxpayers,  those with a taxable income of £150,000 a year or more, only have to pay in tax 45% of their income above that level.

            First of all I suggest that all state benefits – children’s allowances, disability allowances, job seekers’ allowances, attendance allowances, pensioners’ winter fuel allowances, free tv licences, NHS prescriptions and bus passes be added on to any other taxable income, and income tax at the appropriate rate charged.  The state retirement pension is taxable so why should other benefits be tax-free?    Those with an income below £15,000 a year (and there are plenty of those, both in and out of work) would be completely unaffected by this change.  The rest of us would have to pay a little extra.  I, for example would have to pay income tax at the standard rate on my winter fuel allowance, my attendance allowance (that I get because of my very limited mobility), my free tv licence and an estimate for the cost of my free prescriptions.  I wouldn’t have to pay it on the cost of my bus pass because my mobility is so limited that I can’t use one.  I think that that is all.

            I wouldn’t enjoy paying that extra tax, but it would only be a percentage of my total income and wouldn’t leave me either hungry or homeless.

            It may be that that reform alone would be sufficient to fill the ‘black hole’ in NHS finances.   If not, then an extra penny or two on income tax would certainly be unpopular – but not, I think, as unpopular as the imposition of a new ‘Poll Tax’ on every adult to fund the NHS.

            I am beginning to think that the big divide in our society is not between black and white, between atheists and believers, or even between rich and poor – but between those who believe that ‘fair taxation’ is achieved when everyone, wealthy and poor alike, has to pay the same amount (poll tax, VAT, customs payments and so on) to finance the purposes of central and local government, and those who believe that we should all pay the same percentage of our income   The strange thing is that those who are most opposed to taxation being based on an equal percentage of taxpayers’ income are those who are most insistent on percentage rather than flat rate pay increases!

‘We won’t play with you – so there!’ 

            That childish playground threat came to my mind when I learned from a tv news bulletin that, because of the Ukraine/Crimea crisis, NATO was ceasing all co-operation and ending all communication with its Russian equivalent.   I’d have thought that a time of crisis was just when it was important for the two sides to get together and each try to see the other’s viewpoint.  The Presidents of the USA and Russia have recently had an hour-long telephone chat and their foreign ministers have also met – sadly fruitlessly – but this is the time to try, try and try again!   It is not the time to draw apart, start to mobilise forces, and make vague threats.

            I had feared that, in suggesting that Russia’s claim to the Crimea might have some justification, I was a loan voice crying in the wilderness.  Agreement has come from unexpected areas. In an interview on tv, a right-wing American Republican Senator has affirmed from his visit to the Crimea last summer that most Crimeans were either ethnic Russians or wanted closer friendly ties with Russia.  He fears that NATO is dragging the USA into distant squabbles in which the USA has no interest.  I had thought that Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, was blinded by his Europhobia when he suggested that the EU was partly responsible for the riots in Kiev that had preceded Russia’s recovery of the Crimea. He had even found a kind word to say for Vladimir Putin, the current favourite bogyman of the press. However, a thoughtful email from a regular blog reader has made me wonder.  Here it is:

Crimea is a problem isn’t it?   I do think though there has not been much effort to see it from the Russian point of view. Putin sees the “enemy” – NATO – getting closer and closer – and in the end threatening to take over his main naval base.  The pattern is always the same; first of all the EU woos nations with promises of open markets, infrastructure investment, a stable currency etc.,  and then the NATO boys come in behind and sign them up to an organisation which was actually set up to confront the Soviet Union. So ‘annexation’ without a shot being fired has been a pattern of NATO for the last 2 decades.   As a result the Baltic States which border Russia and have large minority groups of Russian workers, become part of the enemy – in Putin’s eyes. Clearly he could see Ukraine going the same way, and I think he may have been right.  Even the EU trade deals will probably disadvantage Russia by cutting off its access to Ukrainian products.  He probably thinks Belarus might go the same way, leaving Russia isolated economically and militarily.   He comes over as “tough and dictatorial” but do you really imagine he could have secured his Naval bases in the Crimea by negotiation?

On top of that, the “democratic and legal high ground” is not all with the West. After all, the elected government of Ukraine was overthrow.  There has not yet been an election to confirm a new mandate, yet already deals with the EU are being signed. It looks very much as if when the Pro-Russian government came to power, the EU continued its discussions with an opposition that had no legitimacy. They thereby aided and abetted civil unrest. Now that Crimea is not part of Ukraine, remaining Ukrainians will probably vote to go West.  That might not have been the case while Crimea was still part of Ukraine.

  

The most important part of that email is right at the beginning.  No effort whatsoever has been made to see the Russian point of view.  Fortunately we do know how the USA would react under comparable circumstances.  In the Cuban missile crisis the then USSR wanted to put missile launchers on Cuba to protect it from the very credible threat of an invasion from the USA.  There had been such an attempt at the Bay of Pigs, that had been foiled.

            The siting of missiles capable of striking into the heart of the USA was sufficient for President John F. Kennedy to threaten the USSR with armed retaliation and the world with nuclear war.  Fortunately Nikita Khruschev, the Soviet President, was wise enough to communicate with John Kennedy, and to withdraw his missiles; but – no doubt as a result of that friendly chat between the two Presidents – there was no invasion of Cuba.

            ‘Treat others exactly as you yourself would wish to be treated’, is sound advice for Nations as well as individuals.   How many bloody conflicts might have been averted had governments followed that advice!

Late comment

I have this morning (7th April) heard on the tv news that there have been riots in several towns in the Eastern Ukraine.  The suggestion was made that Russian Agents had provoked them.  This just as likely (and just as unlikely) as the suggestion that British and/or American Agents provoked and encouraged the riots in Kiev and elsewhere in western Ukraine that led to the overthrow of the elected pro-Russian President.

I think the situation is a very dangerous one and I hope, for the sake of all of us, that both Russia and NATO will refrain from interfering and from encouraging either side.  Certainly this is not the time for threats or promises of reprisals or other 'consequences'.

           

                                                                              

           

           

           

.

           

           

             

           

Week 14 2014

Tendring Topics………on line

Crimea – and after

            Has it occurred to you – as it certainly has to me – that the reaction of ‘Europe’ and of the USA to recent events in the Crimea has been out of all proportion to the events themselves?

            There has, for instance, been a general agreement that Russia’s claim to sovereignty of the Crimean peninsula has no validity whatsoever – and that Russia acted solely out of self-interest and in order to add a few thousand acres and some two million mostly unwilling Ukrainians to its enormous ‘empire’. This simply isn’t true.  Crimea was recognised as an integral territory of Russia, not of the province of Ukraine, during the time of the Romanov Tsars. After the revolution of 1917, the communist government of the Soviet Union continued to recognise the Crimea as being part of the Federal Republic of Russia, not of the Federal Republic of the Ukraine.  It was not until 1954 that Nikita Khruschev, then Soviet president, transferred its sovereignty to the Ukraine without any consultation with local people.  He presumably did this for administrative convenience – though the fact  that Mr Khruschev was himself half Ukrainian may have had something to do with it!

            A few weeks ago the Crimea’s pro-Russian faction, taking advantage (all right, using the pretext, if you prefer) of the ousting of a President who, whatever his faults, had been democratically elected, took control. Russian Forces entered Crimea and besieged the Ukrainian military and naval bases in the peninsula. They then organised a referendum which, although derided in both London and Washington, almost certainly reflected Crimean public opinion in producing a substantial majority in favour of becoming Russian rather than remaining Ukrainian citizens. Russia then ‘annexed’ the Crimea or, as they would probably prefer to put it, restored the situation that had existed prior to Khruschev’s arbitrary action in 1954. Eventually, the Ukrainian government in Kiev accepted the inevitable and ordered their besieged troops and naval personnel to return to Ukraine.  It seems too that the Russian and Ukrainian Foreign Ministers are now prepared to meet each other to discuss the situation.  I hope that they do so and reach a peaceful conclusion.

            All of the above was achieved with minimal bloodshed.   There were, in fact, far fewer casualties in the Crimea than in the demonstrations/riots in Kiev and other Ukrainian cities that had preceded the Russian action.

            Why on earth then did the EU, the UK and in particular, the USA make such a fuss about it; banning Russia from an international gathering in which they certainly had an interest and a contribution to make?  There have been limited ‘sanctions’ and threats of ‘further consequences’.  I notice that that in the field of space exploration and research, co-operation between Russia and the USA remains unchanged – possibly because Russia is now alone in being able to send material and personnel to and from the international space station! I can well understand the Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania being concerned, as they have considerable ethnic Russian minorities whose members feel they are treated as second-class citizens.  Will those states face a fate similar to that of Ukraine?  

Our government seeks to quell those anxieties by increasing arms supplies to enable those states to defend themselves against any Russian incursion.  It’s no doubt good for the British arms industry, but it might also have been wise to urge that all residents in those countries, of whatever ethnic origin, are treated equally, and the Russian language accorded equal status with the local Baltic tongue.  Several countries in the world have more than one official language; Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and of course, Wales, come instantly to mind.  The Baltic countries would be wise to join them.

 Why is the USA so concerned about the Crimea?   Geographically the USA and Ukraine could hardly be further apart. I can think of at least one US President in recent years who would have had difficulty in finding either Ukraine or the Crimean peninsula on a map of the world! Could it have been because a compliant west-oriented Ukraine would have joined the NATO alliance?  They might then have welcomed a NATO naval base on the Crimean peninsula. This would have given the US Navy a presence in the Black Sea that Russia would certainly have seen as threatening.

At last week’s public debate about our membership of the EU, between Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrat Party and Nigel Farage of UKIP, Mr Farage made the extraordinary suggestion that the European Union was responsible for the demonstrations in Kiev that led to the overthrow of Ukraine’s President and – indirectly – to Russia’s recovery of the Crimea.  That’s almost as daft an idea as that of the UKIP disciple who wrote to our local newspaper claiming that the EU was responsible for the recent flooding of the Somerset Levels!

I have little doubt that those demonstrations and riots were what they purported to be – a genuinely popular protest against a President who, though democratically elected, had abused his office. However, those who love a conspiracy theory and are devotees of ‘cold war’ fiction could surely make a much more convincing case for the involvement of the CIA and its British counterparts in a successful effort to replace a Russian-oriented Ukrainian President with one more to NATO’s liking, than Nigel Farage’s attempt to blame it on the EU.

Further News

I have just heard (Saturday 29th March) that Presidents Obama and Putin have had an hour-long chat on the phone and have agreed that their Foreign Ministers' will meet to discuss the current situation and try to find a solution. Here are some ideas they might want to consider.

Russia should immediately cease its military manoeuvres and reduce materially its troop concentrations near the Ukrainian frontier and any other frontiers that seem threatened. In return, 'the west' should withdraw its sanctions, resume normal diplomatic and commercial relations with Russia and accept that Crimea is de facto and possibly temporarily, part of Russia.  In twelve months time hold another referendum among the people of the Crimea, asking  if they wish to remain within Russia or revert to being part of Ukraine.  This referendum to be managed and policed by the United Nations so that there could be no question of its being held 'under the shadow of the kalashnikov'.  All concerned would need to agree in advance to accept the referendum's verdict.

              Ukraine should then join neither NATO nor Russia in military alliance, and its future neutrality should be guaranteed by both.  This would not only be conducive to world peace but would also spare Ukraine maintaining armed forces on a scale that it can ill afford.
  

I wish that I really thought there was a possibility of anything as sensible as that emerging from the Foreign Ministers' talks!   It would be a bit tough on the armaments manufacturers (there’s nothing like a bit of international tension for pushing up the profits) Perhaps they could find out if there’s a demand for ‘plowshares and pruning hooks’ or their 21^st century equivalent!

Even later news

The Russian and USA Foreign Ministers have met - and, surprise, surprise - have not reached agreement.  The USA wants Russia to accept that its recovery/annexation of Crimea was illegal.  Russia wants Ukraine to be neutral (I'd endorse that) and to have a federal structure - presumably with East Ukraine as a federal state within Ukraine.

But what would happen if the Federal parliament of East Ukraine voted overwhelmingly to join Russia!  I've no idea - but I do know quite definitely that no possible outcome would be worth a war - not even a 'cold' one!

The real peril facing all humankind

          While humankind quarrels about who rules this that or the other piece of land, nature – oblivious to national frontiers, alliances, human rights and ultimate deterrents, and unconcerned with ethnicity or creed - inexorably proceeds with its own catastrophic plans for the future of  our planet and its inhabitants.

            Last year, the scientists of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the first part of their report on the impact that the changing climate will have on the world in the coming years.   It examined the atmospheric science and raised the panel’s level of certainty that climate change was being driven by human activity to an ‘almost certain’ level of 95 percent.  The second part, officially published today but well-leaked beforehand, translates that science into the physical impact likely to follow a further increase in greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide.

            Member states of the United Nations have agreed to take action to ensure that the global temperatures do not exceed two degrees above the pre-Industrial Revolution levels, the level described as causing ‘dangerous climate change’ by scientists.  Writing in the Church Times John Ware says that two degrees doesn’t seem much to ask, but  changes in climate currently being experienced are at a rate of 0.8 degrees.  Unless substantial action is taken in the next few years, that very modest two degrees target will not be met.

            The IPCC report points out that acidification of the world’s oceans is happening at a faster rate than at any time in the past 65 million years, a large number of species face an increased risk of extinction, and  climate change’s impact on food production is already visible in several regions.  Yields are expected to drop by as much as two percent during each decade from 2030.  Child malnutrition will be a key risk as not only food quantity but food quality will be affected. Small island-states will be at increasing risk from the rise in sea levels.

  The report predicts more rainfall in Northern Europe and that much of the infrastructure of North America will be vulnerable to extreme weather.  This is already happening with unprecedented floods in the UK, and unseasonal tornadoes, arctic conditions and snowfall in the USA.   Who can doubt that the heavy and continuous rain that caused the recent tragic mud-slide near Seattle in Washington State, was just one more local effect of climate change? It resulted in the destruction of a township and the loss of over 100 lives.

Coinciding with the publication of the IPCC report Christian Aid, always in the front line when catastrophes occur,  has published its own new report;   Taken by Storm: responding to the impacts of climate change.   This points out that this is not just a problem for future generations to solve. Death and destruction caused by climate change are affecting people here and now. World-wide communities are being forced  to change their way of life or to perish.