THE 2017 GENERAL ELECTION

The televised debate between the leaders of five parties on Thursday evening was an interesting event, not detracted from by the absence of the Labour Party leader or the Tory Party leader. The leaders of the Liberal Democrats (Tim Farron), the Scottish National Party (Nicola Sturgeon), the Welsh nationalist, Plaid Cymru, leader (Leanne Wood), the Green Party leader (Caroline Lucas), and the leader of UKIP, Paul Nuttall, did attend.

The debate on most issues became Paul Nuttall against the rest, and he put up a spirited performance. The dividing line between the political correctness and patriotism was clear cut, although the policy of globalization was not properly challenged due to UKIP's flirtation with it and their commitment to free trade rather than balanced trade. This policy deficiency left Paul Nuttall without a robust response at times.

Regarding Brexit, Tim Farron staked out his position on wanting another referendum on the outcome of the Article 50 negotiations, and that voters should have the option to be allowed to vote to remain in the EU. All, apart from Paul Nuttall, were opposed to what they condemned as the Tory proposed 'Hard Brexit', if not 'Hard Extreme Brexit'.  Tim Farron claimed that the NHS needed immigration to fill its posts, and insisted that membership of the Single Market was necessary. Leanne Wood claimed that Wales would be damaged by 10% tariffs that she said would be imposed were Britain to leave the Single Market. Caroline Lucas was bold in her assertion that she was pro-immigration and wanted free movement. All of these pro-mass immigration arguments ignored the costs of that immigration. Paul Nuttall rightly pointed out that the scale of it was unsustainable. The allegation about supposed harm caused by tariffs ignored the fall in the value of sterling, which has the effect of cancelling out the 10% tariff, ignored the benefits of the tariffs being placed on EU imports, and the benefits of bringing Britain's trade with the EU back into balance.

Regarding the economy, Tim Farron had a simple policy: stay in the Single Market. Nicola Sturgeon agreed: 'don't damage the economy by pulling out of the Single Market'; she further alleged that the value of sterling had 'plummeted because of Brexit'. The idea that Brexit had not yet happened, or that sterling was, sooner or later, bound to fall given the scale of the trade deficit, was beyond the Remainers, as was the notion that the scale of the balance of trade deficit proved that membership of the Single Market had been a disaster for Britain.

Paul Nuttall advocated free trade and said that Britain should leave the Single Market to free itself to make free trade deals with countries across the world such as India and China. He did not see any problems with such a free trade mantra, nor with the need to bring Britain's trade with the EU back into balance (nor the major benefits that doing so would bring).

Interestingly, the issue of the Barnett Formula arose. Paul Nuttall has previously committed to creating an English Parliament. In the debate, Paul Nuttall said that UKIP would end the Barnett Formula (which transfers subsidies from England to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and pointed out the higher spending that Scotland was getting as a result of it. He believed that around £5billion could be saved (in fact, there is more at stake). Nicola Sturgeon objected to this – despite advocating Scottish independence – and Leanne Wood said that to cut the subsidy that Wales gets would be 'a disaster' (this is despite Wales doing badly out of the Barnett Formula).

The unbalanced constitutional settlement is a key issue. For example, during the debate Nicola Sturgeon was sounding forth about the overseas aid that 'we' give and how 'we' need more immigrants to staff the NHS. In fact, it is England that is funding overseas aid as the other countries of Britain cannot pay their own bills, and it is England that is the recipient of the mass immigration and the consequences of it, such as the desperate housing shortage.

At one point Paul Nuttall said that he would put more money into the NHS and social care by reducing overseas aid to 0.2% of GDP – the same as the USA donated under President Obama. This provoked howls of outrage from the other leaders, who accused that to reduce overseas aid would be taking money from some of the poorest people in the world. They were united in their belief that they English taxpayers' monies should be given away to those foreigners deemed to be worthy recipients. Nicola Sturgeon's largesse with English taxpayers' monies knew no bounds.

It is untrue that aid flows to the poorest people in the world. In 2014, 60% of Britain's £12.6billion overseas aid budget went to agencies such as the World Bank, the UN and the EU. In October 2012, the amount spent on consultants leapt by 45%. The 'poverty barons' in receipt of monies included PriceWaterhouseCoopers, £4million in October 2012, and Adam Smith International, £5.8million, as well as foreign consultants such as ABT Associates which received £2.1million. The Big Six accountancy firms have also been major recipients of foreign aid.

Transparency International has highlighted that Britain sends overseas aid to virtually all those countries with serious corruption. The Commons International Development Committee has complained that in Pakistan corruption is rife and that wealthy Pakistanis pay little tax (less than 1% of Pakistanis pay tax), and yet Pakistan is the largest recipient of British overseas aid.

Overseas aid is not only costly and damaging to Britain, but also to the recipient countries. It constitutes an outflow of monies from Britain, has a corrupting influence, and it does not lift the recipient countries out of poverty. For example, both Afghanistan and Nigeria have each received more aid than the USA spent on reconstructing Europe after WWII under the Marshall Plan. Yet both countries are corrupt and remain poor. Nigeria receives aid despite substantial oil wealth and despite having its own space programme. Since 1960, more than $1trillion has been given to sub-Saharan Africa, while GDP in the region has fallen. Those poor countries getting high levels of aid are no more likely to take off, economically, than those receiving little if any aid.

The issue of overseas aid and the harm done by it is dealt with in The Ponzi Class: Ponzi Economics, Globalization and Class Oppression in the 21st Century by Michael William (available from Amazon, Kindle or direct from CreateSpace), in the Chapter on Ponzi Economics.

Paul Nuttall was correct to say that charity begins at home. Overseas aid is not charity, it is a Ponzi class status symbol, allowing a whole host of worthies to show off their self-appointed righteousness. They are not compassionate; they are snobs. If they want to give money away, then let them give their own money away rather than somebody else's.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

'The rapid succession of monarchs had arisen and fallen in the provinces of Gaul [the Gallic Empire was in rebellion against the Roman Empire which at the time, 272 AD, was teetering on the brink of collapse due to barbarian and Persian invasions]. The rigid virtues of Posthumus served only to hasten his destruction. After suppressing a competitor who had assumed the purple at Mentz, he refused to gratify his troops with the plunder of the rebellious city; and in the seventh year of his reign, became victim of their disappointed avarice. The death of Victorinus, his friend and associate, was occasioned by a less worthy cause. The shining accomplishments of that prince were stained by a licentious passion, which he indulged in acts of violence, with too little regard to the laws of society, or even to those of love. He was slain at Cologne, by a conspiracy of jealous husbands, whose revenge would have appeared more justifiable had they spared the innocence of his son. After the murder of so many valiant princes, it is somewhat remarkable that a female for a long time controlled the fierce legions of Gaul, and still more singular that she was the mother of the unfortunate Victorinus. The arts and treasures of Victoria enabled her successively to place Marius and Tetricus on the throne, and to reign with a manly vigour under the name of those dependent emperors. Money of copper, of silver, and of gold, was coined in her name, she assumed the titles of Augusta and Mother of Camps; her power ended only with her life; but her life was perhaps shortened by the ingratitude of Tetricus.

         When, at the instigation of his ambitious patroness, Tetricus assumed the ensigns of royalty, he was governor of the peaceful province of Aquitaine, an employment suited to his character and education. He reigned four or five years over Gaul, Spain, and Britain, the slave and sovereign of a licentious army, whom he dreaded, and by whom he was despised. The valour and fortune of Aurelian [the Roman Emperor] at length opened the prospect of deliverance. He ventured to disclose his melancholy situation, and conjured the emperor to hasten to the relief of his unhappy rival. Had this secret correspondence reached the ears of the soldiers, it would most probably have cost Tetricus his life; nor could he resign the sceptre of the West without committing an act of treason against himself. He affected the appearances of a civil war, led his forces into the field against Aurelian, posted them in the most disadvantageous manner, betrayed his own counsels to the enemy, and with a few chosen friends deserted in the beginning of the action. The rebel legions, though disordered and dismayed by the unexpected treachery of their chief, defended themselves with desperate valour, till they were cut in pieces almost to a man, in this bloody and memorable battle, which was fought near Châlons in Champagne.'

Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire