The world establishment cries out for peace in Gaza. It is less keen on peace in Ukraine where more think Ukraine should fight on to try to wrestle some territory back from Russia.

President Trump wants  peace in both places. He is more determined by his own efforts to bring it about in Ukraine. In Gaza he is challenging the Arab states to draw up a plan that could work.

The outlines of the deal in Europe seems to be for Ukraine and Russia to accept much of the changed borders brought about by the Russian invasion. Ukraine would not be offered NATO membership now any US security guarantee. The European countries are split. France and the UK have offered peace keeping troops but need a US guarantee. President Putin has ruled out accepting such forces near his border.

If Presidents Trump and Putin do outline an Agreement based around current borders redrawn by war what should Ukraine do? European countries have no wish to join the war on Ukraine’s side. They might be able to step up financial and military aid a bit, but cannot this year replace the US military contribution.

Meanwhile what would a peace settlement look like in Gaza?

 

 

The government came to power saying it would put jn an industrial policy. So far it has been running an anti industry policy for the UK.

It is banning all new oil and gas drilling and development, running down this tax generating high pay industry faster.

It is toughening the complete phase out and closure of all factories making petrol and diesel cars.

It has failed to sure up some of the promised investments in electric vehicle manufacture, and not attracted new ones

It has promised lots of green jobs, whilst the wind turbines and solar panels are still imported

It decided to allow the closure of the UK’s last blast furnaces to make new steel

It allowed the closure of Grangemouth oil refinery

It launched a big tax attack on businesses with its National Insurance and iht increases

If it wants an industrial policy it needs to

Reverse its tax rises

Set a competitive Corporation tax rate like Ireland, which brings in more tax per head

Get energy prices down a lot by encouraging more gas power generation as baseload

Lifting the bans on oil, gas, ICE cars

Using its planned increase in defence spend to commission more orders from Uk based competitive production

 

 

The net zero enthusiasts tell us the costs of net zero will be low. They say a net cost of around 1% -2% of 2050 GDP. They decline to put an annual cash cost on the combination of investment and subsidies, wishing to net a lot of alleged gains from these true costs  and express it as percentage of an enlarged GDP they forecast for 25 years time.

There are other estimates. The OBR said the investment cost will be around will be £1312 bn with a net cost of £321 bn. Mr Hammond when Chancellor thought the costs would be £50 bn a year or £1.5 tn over 30 years.

Clearly the gross costs will be huge. 30 m motor vehicles to replace with battery cars. 30 m homes to have electric heating. Thousands of industrial plants to be replaced with new electric factories. A massive expansion of electrical generation. The replacement of all gas fired power stations. A Switch to syn fuels for aviation. A switch  of food production away from animal products.

This investment takes three forms. A small amount will be investment in extra capacity for growth, which we would need to do anyway. A bigger amount could  be replacement of existing investment when they are worn out. Again that adds no extra cost if the replacement is as good value as the original or it adds marginal cost where the replacement is dearer or less effective. Then there is the big spend on conversion and premature replacement which is all additional cost.

There are large extra revenue costs. The state will pick up large bills for the mounting redundancies as blast furnaces and Grangemouth   are closed to be followed by others. There are large subsidies to get people to buy EVs and heat pumps. Renewable generators get   favourable prices and terms.

There are obvious targets to save public money on this wildly expensive command. Stop the £20 bn on carbon capture and storage. It is all extra cost. Cut the over generous subsidies to renewables, running at several billions a year. Wait for battery cars or syn fuel cars to become cheaper and better before buying them.

The £1300 bn “investment” is only part investment. Part of it is a wasteful premature replacement of  perfectly good machines, vehicles and heating  systems. Making them  will simply  add to costs and world CO 2

Some of you said you did sometimes want to talk about opposition parties here. I pointed out this  site deals  primarily and daily with government deeds and words. I agreed I would run the occasional piece on an  Opposition party.

Reform under Nigel Farage won five seats in Parliament and  improved its poll ratings significantly  in recent months. It changed its constitution following criticisms of its structure. This week it has catapulted itself onto front pages by removing the whip from its second most effective critic of the government, Rupert Lowe. Last November the Deputy Leader Ben Habib resigned from the party and set up a Political Action Committee to judge and criticise Reform and the Conservatives .

Here is your chance to comment on how you would like Reform, its MP s and the PAC to proceed from here.

 

The government is keen to put prices up. It has hiked rail fares by double inflation, and Council tax. They have allowed large double figure percentage rises in water bills. They have pushed up energy prices three times since taking office, now an increase of over 15%.

They have increased the costs of employing people considerably with National Insurance rises in April. Businesses that can will pass  those cost rises onto customers.

If the Bank of England does not accommodate these rises with a looser money policy then the public sector rises will leave  too little spending power for other items and demand will drop. Businesses will find they cannot pass on all the cost rises and will have to employ fewer people  and reduce other costs.

 

President Trump likes tariffs. Most economists and commentators dislike them. The so called international rules based order included the World Trade Organisation aiming to reduce tariffs. The WTO however allowed emerging economies and China to play by different rules to the advanced countries. The WTO let countries impose high tariffs and use high subsidies for food and agriculture.

President Trump has a range of aims for tariffs.

His idea of reciprocal tariffs is a device to get tariffs down . Why not make countries imposing tariffs against your exports pay the same tariff on their exports? It might persuade them to agree to getting rid of the tariff.

His penal tariffs on Mexico and Canada are designed to get them to stop the flow of harmful drugs and illegal migrants over their borders with the USA. They may well get them to tighten their borders.

There is the aim to use tariffs to onshore more investment in industrial capacity. It is a change of emphasis from President Biden’s expensive subsidies which distorted trade and may  well help onshore .

There is the aim of collecting more tax revenue. That is true, but its net effects may be less than the gross amount of additional tariff money if the policy reduces the growth rate or results in higher domestic prices squeezing real incomes.

Most commentary ignores the fact that the EU is a customs union with tariffs on 73 % of product lines that it imports. It imposes especially high tariffs on food and agriculture where the US is a leading   exporter.

Free trade is a good idea, but the WTO has never delivered it. The favourable terms for China has created huge Chinese trade surpluses.

I have longed argued against many UK net zero policies on two main grounds. In their own terms they are mad, as they increase world CO 2 forcing us to import and getting us to heat  homes and drive cars using electricity generated from gas. I have shown how you cannot make people buy battery cars and heat pumps and change their diets until the green companies can make products that perform better and are more affordable.

Let me add a third convincing argument. The UK cannot re arm and defend itself if it makes no steel, slashes its petrochemical industry , closes much of  its vehicle industry and imports most of its electronics. Modern wars consume huge quantities of ammunition, weapons, boats, planes and tanks. If you want to win such a war you need to build and protect factories to make big quantities of these necessities.

Some of you argue with the science, but these arguments should be easier to win with those who do see climate change as a threat. The UK is paying far too high a price to cut its 1% contribution to world CO 2 when the big producers, China, the USA, India and Russia keep increasing their output.The import model leaves  us unable to defend ourselves and adds to world CO 2.

I have never had problems with the NATO Treaty in the way I did with the EU Treaty because the NATO Treaty does not require a NATO member to do anything. There is no supranational court, fines and enforcement. It is a best endeavours voluntary agreement between its members. As we have seen the club fee is set at 2% of GDP spending on defence but lots of members have not implemented this. In the EU the UK was often forced to  enact laws and make payments it disagreed with under force of EU law.

The most famous Nato Article 5 says that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. All are requested to respond against the aggressor. There is no mandated minimum response for each, and a member may decline to join a war. When the Falkland Islands were illegally invaded by Argentina the US as the leader of NATO made clear she would not help us fight and win the war. Spain a NATO member was very hostile to us. The Nato Treaty did not cover the Falklands.

Less well known is the all important Article 3 which requires each NATO member to take strong steps to look after their own defence as the UK was expected to  do in the Falklands. This Article has not been well respected by some European members of NATO this century. Countries have let their militaries wither , relying on the prop of mutual aid.

The European end of NATO has seen plenty of action by generous numbers of senior officers meeting to co ordinate, wargame , intertwine supply systems and develop mutual dependence. There has been less concentration  on building larger and more effective national forces so European NATO has more ability to move large concentrations   of force quickly. Too much inter dependence can get in the way and slow things down. The EU now is also complicating things by introducing EU  led missions and EU joint procurements.

NATO was planned to handle continued US occupation  of Germany alongside the  UK, France and Russia post war, with the disarmament of Germany. It then defined its role to defend western Europe against the USSR with Germany as a member. Since the end of the cold war it has sought various missions in the Balkans.

If the US wishes to cut herself off from European conflicts there is nothing in the NATO Treaty to prevent  her. In 1914 and 1939 US opinion was strongly against intervening in European wars. The UK fought alone after the fall of France until the Japanese forced the US into the 2 nd WW.

History tells us the UK has to look to our own defences, geared to safeguarding our islands and ensuring greater self reliance in industrial and food production.

Time was when the UK/Great Britain had the most powerful navy in the  world. Policy dictated having a larger navy than any other pair of powerful nations. The UK sought to keep the peace, settle disputes  and uphold its own imperial interests with this global mobile power.The first great German war stretched the UK military with victory only coming after the late arrival of the Americans. It was mainly a land war needing the French army. The second world war was a joint win for the  UK, Russia and the USA. Post 1945  UK was badly damaged by the war. We had large debts to repay to the US who made us borrow and pay for war supplies.  Government granted independence to many countries and accepted at Suez it could not  dictate events against the wishes of the US. Since then we have accepted that the USA is the dominant power. It is her turn to police the peace, impose or assist settlements of disputes and pursue her global interests.

We have also accepted that we usually  side with the US against the communist/authoritarian bloc. We are the second biggest contributor to NATO, which has provided collective defence in Europe against Soviet/Russian expansion.We did not join the US in their ill judged war in Viet Nam.

As I have previously shown, the UK has suffered badly from land wars and invasion threats  from continental Europe. We have not had ambitions to conquer and occupy European lands for the last 500 years. Our sea moat has enabled us to see off the most  aggressive imperial threats from Spain, France and Germany since 1500. As the US  reconsiders its commitment to European defence the UK should not rush to replace the US in offering protection to continental countries. We should buttress the defences of these islands and  look outwards to the rest of the world to expand our trade and friendships.

The UK defence priorities should be anti missile,drone and aircraft systems combining surveillance with effective response. We need a bigger navy to defend our coasts and shipping lanes. We need much more industrial capacity as you cannot defend yourself in war depending on imports.