26 May 2020

Despite the fact that the UK government appears, like Gilbert’s Duke of Plaza-Toro*, to be leading from behind, I suppose that this fearful fog of indecision will eventually dissipate and some kind of hobbled phoenix will stumble out of the smoking ashes of the economy. In passing, I would like to bestow their share of responsibility on the political opposition, including the trade unions, who constantly urge caution and demand something called “safety” for all, in the calculated knowledge that the worse the economic consequences of lockdown, the worse for the government.  Can they really be that cynical? Oh yes. THE DAMAGE DONE But whether you believe that lockdown was a) catastrophically late or b) completely unnecessary, (and history may one day deliver a verdict but you won’t find it on Twitter this afternoon), a vast amount of economic damage has been done. And the longer paralysis continues, the worse it will be.  And given that the government is now a follower of international decisions rather than a decision maker itself, we must look at the US, Germany, France (!), Sweden and pretty much anywhere else you care to name to see how our future might look.   Donald Trump has an election to win in November. (Ladbrokes still has him as the marginal favourite, which seems surprising). Naturally, he is desperate to get America back to work and, as his son says, make it great again, again. Whether you think he is gambling with people’s lives or trying to save them from destitution actually doesn’t matter. What matters is what has already happened.  The US unemployment rate jumped from 3.5% in February to 4.4% in March to 14.7% in April. That’s 23 million Americans out of work. But it will be more than that. The total of initial unemployment claims is at nearly 39 million by the end of last week. That looks like an unemployment rate closer to 25%, an utterly unimaginable number.  If it turns out that “it’s the economy, stupid” then Trump’s Thanksgiving turkey is cooked unless there is a near-magical recovery. Whatever you think of Trump, and there is no need to say or even think it out loud, a...

21 Aug 2014

What do Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe and North Korea have in common? There may be several answers but one is that, along with 145 other nations, they are recipients of UK Official Development Assistance (ODA). In 2012, total UK aid was £8.766 billion or 0.56% of gross national income. According to the press, this may have risen to 0.70% in 2013, which is the target suggested by the UN for members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). In 2012 the average DAC member trailed well behind the 0.70% target at 0.30% (the US and Japan were both well below the average, the Scandinavian countries were well above). So, if the UK has hit 0.70%, it will be awarding itself a gold star. All UK politicians (with the exception of UKIP) seem to believe that ODA emits a moral glow, in which light they can disport themselves to effect. Doubtless they can’t help themselves and, though a fairly revolting sight, it beats fighting wars.   But I find myself wondering what sort of policy determines the choice of ODA recipients. In 2012, India topped the list with 7.9% of total bilateral aid. (NB bilateral aid is what we give directly – about half of our aid budget is multilateral which means that we donate to international organisations which then pass it on however and wherever they deem best).  India is one of the IMF’s official emerging nations. Is it the most deserving charitable destination in the world? Clearly, a better way to understand these figures is to look at ODA per head. On that basis, India falls to 67th (still in the top half) and above Burundi and Niger, two of the poorest countries of all, both with average annual per capita incomes of less than $1000. The top per capita recipient of UK ODA is barely believable. St Helena is a British Dependent Territory with a population of around 4500. In 2012 the UK gave bilateral aid of £106 million or c.£23,500 per head. Apparently we are building them an airport so that they can become a tourist destination. I have read in the press that the total cost of this airport (not yet...