How could a country that could not keep its own population in food, heat, light or shelter go to war on the other side of the world? And since when did anyone care what Nancy Pelosi said or did, anyway?
But in the midst of these crises, then the farcical conduct of the Conservative Leadership Election calls for injunctive action to halt it indefinitely. There is a Prime Minister, and he is the Leader of the Conservative Party. However bad he may be, and some of us tried to warn you that he would be, he is still better than either of the candidates to succeed him, or than the Leader of the Opposition.
If things continued, then we would tomorrow be one month away from a Prime Minister who had, as Foreign Secretary, criminally encouraged British citizens to go and fight in Ukraine, and who, as First Lord of the Treasury, intended to implement tax cuts for the affluent elderly while funding their sweeties out of borrowing, leading to astronomical interest rates to the benefit of savings account holders who had paid off their mortgages decades earlier. Mercifully, the security concerns expressed by GCHQ ought to make it a formality to persuade another arm of the Deep State to injunct the whole thing.
The war in Ukraine is not helping inflation, but inflation started before the recent Russian invasion, as we all remember perfectly well. Still, the point is well made that while a sovereign state with its own free floating, fiat currency had as much of that currency as it chose to issue to itself, with readily available fiscal and monetary means of controlling any inflationary effect, that currency was nevertheless able to purchase only such resources as were available.
Perhaps everyone who was suffering from the cost of living crisis should move to Ukraine, where the British Government would have no difficulty spending limitless amounts of money on us, with no questions asked, and with Opposition parties demanding only even more of the same? Yet there is no British strategic interest in any of this. We should recognise reality, and get down to freeing up the food and fuel supplies again, while we devoted ourselves to the long-term pursuit of energy independence and of greater self-sufficiency in food, the former a great deal easier than the latter.
Whether we like it or not, and we have no particular reason to care either way, Crimea has gone back to Russia. The parts of the Ukraine that the largely Ukrainian Soviet elite had put into the Ukrainian SSR in order to make its independence impossible are going to become Russian satellite states, although they are economically and culturally too Soviet for today's Russian Federation.
No additional state, including Sweden or Finland, is ever going to be allowed into NATO. A much more stable and coherent Ukraine will become constitutionally neutral, and all of this will require the denazification that no one any longer disputes is necessary to some extent, nor did anyone dispute that at all until very recently, although denazification is not being made a condition of potential EU membership, because it never is; being in the EU subjected us to the legislative will of many of the most terrifying people.
All of this was on the table before the Russian invasion. This war has been going on for eight years. But in the stage that the world has admitted to having noticed, it is now on the brink of turning out to have been completely avoidable even in its own terms. An enthusiast for it is the worst possible candidate to be Prime Minister. By contrast, Stephen Glover can dress it up in all the usual abuse to his heart's content, but his central point is that Jeremy Corbyn is right about Ukraine. Like Johnson, whatever Corbyn's failings, he was and is a better candidate for Prime Minister than Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer.
The media obsession with Corbyn is fascinating.ReplyDelete
He is still proving them wrong. He will be proving them wrong until the day he dies.Delete