19 March 2025

Levelling Down

 Education Act – is it levelling down?

Lord Harris of Peckham (founder of the Harris Federation which runs over 50 academies) wrote in the Times “Failing schools are letting people down. We have to make sure we do not let our children down. The best way to address failing schools is to allow good academies to take over, and give them the freedoms that have made them successful." “Taking these away is madness."

In BBC's 'Today' programme (18th March 2025) Justin Webb quizzed Pat McFadden on the government's Education Act, currently going through parliament, challenging the government's negative attitude to Academies. It seemed to me that he was charging the government with spoiling successful schools. 

The words that seemed to elude him, the charge, was that of "levelling down". 

14 March 2025

The Girl on the Bus

 The Girl on the Bus

I celebrated my retirement from Newcastle University by buying a round-the-world plane ticket, and arranging to work for a year in a biochemisty laboratory in Taiwan. A kind friend, gave me a 'Travel Diary' in which to capture my thoughts and impressions; though she by no means understood why I was leaving her for a year.  I found it, the other day, gazed at the cover for a few moments, before opening and leafing through a few pages. I stopped at an entry titled "The Girl on the Bus" where a book-mark fell out. The words on the page evoked forgotten memories. 

It was three days before Christmas. Though I had been warned several times that Christmas and New Year were foreign concepts and very minor days in the Taiwanese calendar, nevertheless there was a hint of holiday in the air. And it was a Sunday. I decided to make a modest trip out of the city of Taipei, perhaps to the extreme north of the island. I took the mass-transit-railway to its westerly terminus at Tamsui. From there I could catch a bus to take me round the coast to Shi-men. I would have no idea when to get off the bus except by keeping an eye on my watch and assuming the bus was running to timetable; an hour and 10 minutes to Shi-men.

The ramshackle bus set off from Tamsui bus-station shortly before 11.30. I, an obvious foreigner in his early sixties, had a good window seat on the left side of the bus. A considerable number of people got on at the next stop, and a local girl in her mid-twenties came and sat by me. 

I looked out seaward at the passing view, with my chin in my hand. We swayed against each other occasionally but it did not seem to matter; we had room enough; it was only momentary. 

After 20 minutes the girl started to search for something in her bag, and eventually brought out a little bookmark, or 'favour', made out of a dried leaf-skeleton decorated with bright yellow straw flowers, green straw leaves and a tiny blue straw butterfly. This she offered to me. I have it still, twenty years on, as this bookmark in my travel diary.

I am sure that my face fully expressed my surprise, gratitude, and embarrassment. I had become accustomed, over the months, to conversing almost without words, using glances, gestures, and guesses. Imagine me, in a barbershop,  requesting a trim and declining a massage, a shave, and a facial, all in gestures. 

"It is Chinese" she said in cautious English. 

"Indeed, very Chinese!" I agreed, delighted at the opening thus created. We got to talking, occasionally, and carefully. I told her I was was going to 'Shi-men'. She thought I would arrive at about 12.35. She was going to San-zhi. 

"I am meeting someone", she confided. "I have a 'date' ",  

"Really?", I asked, rhetorically.  I am sure that from my face she could read my pleasure, and perhaps my surprise. Though not, perhaps, their cause. For it was her trusting directness that surprised and charmed me. I am sure my face must have beamed my happiness, and gratitude; but could she read there my best wishes for her future happiness in this exciting development?

13 March 2025

No NATO boots in Ukraine

To the Editor of The Guardian,
Dear Sir,

No NATO boots in Ukraine

     It seems clear that Russia regards the presence of NATO (or European Union) troops in Ukraine as unacceptable conditions for long term peace, whereas we (in the West) think it perfectly reasonable, and Ukraine thinks it is essential. All that is understandable. Rôles reversed, we would think the same. Indeed we DID think the same, when the Russians placed missiles on Cuba. We were very lucky to have had some adequately flexible diplomats around at that time. 

    So I believe that this point should be conceded. It would have to work both ways, of course. NO NATO TROOPS IN UKRAINE AND NO RUSSIAN TROOPS IN UKRAINE. That is the only way to understand a neutral buffer zone. 

    (The "Cuban Missile Crisis" of 16-28 October 1962, was resolved on 28th October, by the Soviets dismantling their offensive weapons in Cuba, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a public declaration by the US agreeing not to invade Cuba again. The US also dismantled their missiles in Turkey. That crisis showed, de facto, that hostile missiles in Cuba were as unacceptable to the US as missiles in Turkey were to the USSR.  It similarly demonstrated that the US did not have the liberty to invade Cuba if the USSR did not have the liberty to protect Cuba. )

    It is axiomatic that our allies  are reasonable and can be trusted, while 'the enemy' is un-reasonable and un-trustworthy; such is the "the distorting lens of inevitable prejudice". 

    A logician can easily see what a politician and a citizen cannot: that our enemy will be liable to the same distortion and see the same asymmetry.

   (Ranyard West, in his last book ("International Law and Psychology", 1974) described a technique, which he called "inversion-substitution". He evolved it as a way of exposing the prejudices that inevitably cloud our judgements. He would take a piece of journalism that defended our actions abroad and attacked our enemy's, but would swap the names and the epithets of the adversaries, so that the value judgements were inverted. For example: "The {Russians} made a {generous} offer which the {cowardly} {Americans} spurned. ....."  The result is startling!  But salutary.)

Ian West,
BANBURY,





11 February 2025

Ukraine1

Kyiv and Ukraine: 1564-1795

    The word 'ukraine' means 'borderland' in proto-Slavic languages. It turns up as early as 1187 in a Kyivan Chronicle, in the sense of 'borderland'; so where the population of one polity thinned out to uninhabited Steppe and fronted another polity, they could each refer to their borderland or their 'ukraine'. 

    However, by early 1600s maps were appearing with the capitalised proper noun Ukraine. Thus "Vkraina" and "Kyovia" turn up together on the Radziwill map of 1613.  In mid seventeenth century, Guillaume Le Vasseur de Beauplan, a French cartographer working for the Polish army, published a map of "Ukrainska" in 1635 covering the area from the river Don in the east to the river Dniester in the west, and from Kyiv south to the Black (or Euxine) sea. His book Description d'Ukranie of 1651 was very widely read and republished in western Europe. 



Bohdan Khmelnytsky (1595 - 1657) 

(This section is the expansion of a paragraph in my post Kyiv3 it tells how, in an effort to free itself from Polish control, what we now think of as Ukraine passed into the control of Moscow.)

    Born c. 1595, Chigirin, Ukraine

    Died  1657, Chigirin. (Aug. 16, [New Style])

Khmelnytsky was the leader of the Zaporozhian Cossack  rebellion (1648–57) against Polish rule in Ukraine that ultimately led to the transfer of the Ukrainian lands east and south of the Dnieper River from Polish to Russian control. In summary: the revolt, with the taking of Kyiv and Lwów, was initially successful but, after repeatedly being let down by the Islamic Crimean Tartars, Khmelnytsky made a treaty with the Russians (1654).


Although Ukrainian born, Khmelnytsky had been educated in Poland and had served with Polish military forces against the Turks. He had become chief of a Cossacks regiment at Czyhryn (Poland), but quarreled with the Polish governor there and fled (December 1647) to the fortress of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, a semi-military community that had developed from runaway serfs, bandits, and traders who had settled along the Dnieper River (Zaporizhzhia="below the rapids"). There he organized a rebellion among the Zaporozhian Cossacks and, with the support of the (Islamic) Crimean Tatars, marched against the Poles in April 1648. His victorious advance into  Kyiv won him additional support from the dissatisfied peasants, townspeople, and clergy of Ukraine, who joined him in a mass uprising that enabled him to enter Poland proper and seize Lwów (now Lviv) in October 1648.


After winning more victories in 1649, Khmelnytsky made peace with the new Polish king, John Casimir, concluding the Compact of Zborów (Aug. 18, 1649); its terms permitted him to establish a virtually independent Cossack principality in Ukraine. 


That treaty, however, satisfied neither the Polish gentry nor Khmelnytsky’s followers. He therefore renewed the war in the spring of 1651 but was defeated at the Battle of Beresteczko in June 1651 and was compelled to accept a new, less advantageous, treaty. 


In the face of a growing threat from Poland and forsaken by his Tatar allies, Khmelnytsky asked the the tsar of Russia (Tsar Alexis) to incorporate Ukraine as an autonomous duchy under Russian protection. The Russians were reluctant to enter into such an agreement, and it was not until October 1653 that they approved the request and Tsar Alexis sent a delegation to the Cossacks.


Pereyaslav Agreement   Only after the Cossacks had suffered a further disastrous military defeat (December 1653) did they  receive the Muscovite delegation at Pereyaslav and formally submit to “the tsar’s hand.” Two months later (March 1654), the details of the union were negotiated in Moscow. The Cossacks were granted a large degree of autonomy (under a Cossack 'Hetman'), and they, as well as other social groups in Ukraine, retained all the rights and privileges they had enjoyed under Polish rule. But the unification of Ukraine with Russia was unacceptable to Poland. It launched the Russo-Polish war ("Thirteen Years’ War") which ended (1667, Truce of Andrusovo see below) with the division of Ukraine between Poland and Russia, along the Dniepro river, but with Kyiv allocated to Russia .  


Early in the Thirteen Years’ War, the Russians invaded Poland, but Khmelnytsky, not content with his pact with Alexis, entered into secret negotiations with Sweden, which was also at war with Poland. He was about to conclude a treaty with the Swedes, placing the Cossacks under Swedish rule, when he died (1657).


Khmelnytsky had sought autonomy for his Cossack followers but succeeded only in devastating their formerly flourishing Dnieper lands and in subjecting them to the rule of Moscow, which gained control of Ukraine east of the Dnieper and gradually curtailed their liberties, until in 1764, when Catherine II (the 'Great') of Russia abolished the 'Cossack Hetmanate'. (See my post Kyiv 4). 


The Truce of Andrusovo (1667) established a thirteen-and-a-half year truce, signed on 9 February [N.S.] 1667 between the Tsardom of Russia and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. That this war trailed on for 13.5 years shows that neither side was vastly more powerful. In 1610, Poland had invaded Russia, captured Moscow, and taken the Tsar (Vasili IV) back to Poland in a cage.  But this truce seems to have  tipped the balance from Poland to Russia.


[Based on several articles in Encyclopedia Britanica and Wikipedia]




01 February 2025

How bad is social inequality?

  How Bad is Social Inequality?

       Paul Johnson (director of  the 'Institute for Fiscal Studies') gave a talk at Clare College, Cambridge, on Thursday 2nd May 2024, titled:

 "Inequalities: what they are, why they matter, and how to address them". 

I was disappointed. I did not think he showed at all clearly why inequalities are bad. And he provided few ideas on how to sort them. 

He presented many inequalities; of income, education, wealth, health, inheritance, ethnicity, gender, geography. And he showed correlations; the unhealthy are poor, and the poor are unhealthy. But he was neither curious nor analytical about the causes of these inequalities, and their correlations. He seemed to assume a mechanism – the usual suspects; poor people are badly educated, are sick, die young and live in the north. It seemed to me insufficiently analytic; more like journalism than academia. And he scarcely touched on remedies.

It is not self-evident to me that inequality itself is a 'bad thing'. Some inequality could be called variety. Some people are tall, some short, some fast, others slow, some numerate others literate. 

Some inequality may be by choice. Some people may choose to live on a croft on Raasay, keep a cow and fish for lobsters. Some seek paid work, others may choose to remain unemployed in the north east of England, preferring that life to any alternative that they can imagine. After all, I do not want to make money on the Stock Market, nor by flying planes, nor by cutting people open. We should beware of making choices for other people. 

We are not all born equal. Inequality is inevitable. It can often seem 'unfair', and that unfairness can be painful to contemplate. Our idealism feels let down. Some people feel we have an inherent right to two legs, etc.; and that society has a duty to level up. I do not. But we do have an opportunity to correct the oversights of providence. Inequality can be mitigated, but not abolished. 

What, then, is positively bad for society about this God-given inequality, and how far should we go to lessen it? Does inequality simply indicate a wrong, or does it actually cause damage? Does it indicate cruelty; or actively breed indifference; or lead to bad government?

I believe that great disparity of wealth is bad for society in two different ways. The existence of very poor people dehumanises us. Their poverty hurts and rebukes us, unless we look away.  The very rich can also offend by causing envy in the less fortunate, as man is susceptible to envy. But envy alone is not enough reason to dispossess the rich. 

We are beginning to see how the very rich can cause positive harm. They can be hard to control. They can corrupt. Money confers power in so many ways. We are careful to give each adult an equal vote, but pay little attention to the fact that some voters can deploy a thousand or a million times the resource of the average voter. We are governed by the rich, as well as guided; we buy their newspapers, and watch their television channels. 

In particular, excessive wealth provides excessive means of making more wealth. Without explicit limits, the situation is mathematically explosive. Most people will use most of their resource most of the time. A billionaire will not; his wealth does not trickle down, significantly, to his hairdresser, or butler; it is salted away for his heirs. An inheritance tax (like the feudal 'fee') is essential. Unspent wealth should revert to the state. This has been said many times before. 

At a more mundane level, we should look for action points? Perhaps identify a metric that would indicate where state interference with the free market could be beneficially applied – for example we could monitor 'the increase in GCSE grades per GB£ spent, on the grounds that a pound spent in Ashington, Northumberland, would yield more marginal benefit than a pound spent in Haslemere, Surrey. Perhaps implement a focussed improvement of the transport infrastructure, e.g. in areas remote from London?

I was hoping Paul Johnson would have thought himself into such territory. He must be well informed on all aspects of taxation, and could, I am sure, make a significant contribution. I hope he can be encouraged to do so.

Sincerely, Ian West

(See also my post of 12 Mar 2012 –– "Taxing the Wealthy")

03 January 2025

The Failures of Macro-Economics

The Failures of Macro-Economics

    I wrote some 7 years ago about the Failures of Macro Economics (q.v.), concluding that both academic and journalist writers were insufficiently rigorous with themselves and each other; their words could be ignored; opinions in this quasi-science held more sway than data and rigorous logic.  
    Today, Timothy Taylor has raised a similar subject in his Conversable Economics blog. 
 
"When you listen to economists who have worked in or near government about their role in the mechanisms of policy-making, they are appropriately humble. They harbor (sic) few illusions that a quick lecture ....... will convert politicians to their point of view.  They are aware that political figures will grab an economic argument if it tends to support their pre-existing views, and ignore the argument otherwise."

     I immediately wonder if the power of the academic analysis is being correctly or incorrectly assessed by the politician. And if, in some cases, the politicians are ignoring sound advice, how can they be punished? It is often months, sometimes years, after policy steps are taken that their effects are known. 

     Taylor quoted George Stigler, who wryly wrote (1976) that:

"economists exert a minor and scarcely detectable influence on the societies in which they live."

    Taylor also quoted a perceptive and far reaching remark of Milton Friedman (1980): 

“The only person who can truly persuade you is yourself. You must turn the issues over in your mind at leisure, consider the many arguments, let them simmer, and after a long time turn your preferences into convictions.”    

     This, of course, is the academic; for the politician does not have the time, nor the right type of mind, to reflect in this way. He reacts to events with a knee-jerk response; afferents and efferents, but no frontal-lobe involvement. It may be necessary to lay before the politician the entire argument, right down to the calculated results on the GDP and the voters' response. 

    All, or a significant majority, of academic opinion must agree. Not that the majority is in all cases correct –– a point that my colleague Peter Mitchell enjoyed pointing out, after he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1978. 

    It may also be crucial that this entire argument be laid before the voters, for it to have significant effect on the political mind. The academic economist must 'raise his game'.

13 December 2024

Old-School

"Old-School Musicians in Merida"

    I was impressed by the almost-Christ-like sacrifice represented by the political career of Felipe Carrillo Puerto, the only governor of the state of Merida able to speak the Mayan language. He who, while still a young man, had been imprisoned for encouraging the native Mayans to break down fences erected by rapacious land-owners; fences that prevented the peasants from accessing their own ancestral lands. He who, in 1922 at the age of 47, was elected overwhelmingly as governor of the state.

     Carrillo Puerto proclaimed the "first socialist government in the Americas". During his 20 months as governor he initiated land reform, confiscating large estates and returning land to the native Maya. He promoted new farming techniques, granted women political rights, began family planning programs, fought against alcoholism, and fought for the conservation and restoration of pre-Columbian Mayan archaeological sites. In the first year of his administration, 417 public schools were opened; and he founded the Universidad Nacional del Sureste.
      In early 1924 he, with 3 of his brothers and eight of his friends, was lined up and shot by political enemies. 
      My friend was trying to remember a love song said to have been written for Carillio Puerte when he fell in love with a young woman visitor from the United States. In 1922, the 33-year-old American  journalist Alma Reed (whose marriage to Reed had been annulled) was invited to Mexico by President Álvaro Obregón as an honoured guest. In February 1923, her party was welcomed to Yucatan by the strikingly handsome governor; described in her autobiography as "a man of exceptional magnetism and rare physical beauty. He was attired in a crisp white linen suit and, in his over six-foot height, towered head and shoulders above the assistants and petitioners who crowded around him". To a colleague who asked how she found him, she replied unhesitatingly «He's my idea of a Greek God!» The attraction seems to have been mutual. At the end of the year, Reed returned to the States to prepare for marriage, never to see Carrillo Puerto again. 
    The song addresses her as "La Peregrina” ('The Pilgrim'), by which name she is now immortalised. Composed, in the 4 verse Trova style, the tune by Ricardo Palmerín (a Yucateco composer), the words by Luis Rosado Vega (a Yucateco poet). Though it is not a great song, it was known by all and sung by many, even to this day.  
     On Friday, at 7pm, we returned to the little plaza where, the previous night, we had heard the singing and dancing of La Serenata. No audience now, but three microphones on the stage; and one elderly guitarist in a severe black suit, like an undertaker's, who confessed to knowing the 100-year-old song. He said if we returned at 8pm he and his colleagues would open their ‘spot’ with “La Peregrina”.
     When we returned at 8, it turned out the owner of the bar had changed his mind and was going to ask a younger group to play. We were disappointed, as of course were the musicians. After a word with his colleagues, who had appeared from nowhere, they agreed to play the song, just for us. They lined up; leader in the middle, lead-guitarist on our right, he with the big fat acoustic  bass guitar on our left. And they sang the song; just for us. My friend gave the leader 200 pesos, though that hardly reflected our joy at hearing the song, acoustically, from three guitars and three singers who, between them would be carrying at least two hundred years of memories and tradition.
      There was a suggestion that the Gringo journalist was a US spy. But I think it would be wrong to doubt the honesty and good faith of Alma Reed; she spent many subsequent years in Mexico, and was a great supporter of the politically motivated muralist painter, Orozco.


     After hearing ‘our love song’ sung so beautifully and authentically, just for us, we made our short way back, past the patient horses and their gaily decorated fiacres, to our hotel. Long after midnight I could still hear the repetitive thumping and out-of-tune wailing from the youngsters and their loudspeakers in our little plaza. 

     Perhaps we should call in on the restaurant tomorrow and tell the owner how delighted we were to hear the ‘old school’ musicians singing a true Yucateca song without amplification in the square on Friday night.


PEREGRINA

(Tune: Ricardo Palmerín; words: Luis Rosado Vega)

Peregrina de ojos claros y divinos

y mejillas encendidas de arrebol,

mujercita de los labios purpurinos

y radiante cabellera como el sol.


Peregrina que dejaste tus lugares,

los abetos y la nieve y la nieve virginal

y veniste a refugiarte en mis palmares

bajo el cielo de mi tierra, de mi tierra tropical.


Las canoras avecillas de mis prados,

por cantarte dan sus trinos si te ven

y las flores de nectarios perfumados,

te acarician en los labios, en los labios y en la sien.


Cuando dejes mis palmeras y mi tierra,

Peregrina del semblante encantador:

No te olvides, no te olvides de mi tierra,

no te olvides, no te olvides de mi amor.

(For others of my posts about Mexico, put the keyword Mexico in the search box.)