Forum Topics

UK boycott of Israeli settlements

Today Ed Miliband is expected to announce a 'reset' in Britain's relations with Israel with a boycott of trade with settlements on the West Bank. The purpose is to promote the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank as part of a two state solution to the conflict.Can such a policy be effectively implemented? The answer is, with difficulty. While British firms might be banned from selling to the settlements, in practice it is impossible to distinguish between goods  coming from the West Bank from those produced in Israel.Will this policy deter Israel from further expansion into the West Bank? Absolutely not. The settlements will simply find other suppliers and other markets. Will it deter settler violence? Hardly. The religious fanatics who attack Palestinian villages will probably be emboldened, believing that the whole world is against the Jewish people.Will there be consequences for Britain as a result of this policy? Almost certainly. Israel will retaliate, possibly by banning imports of British goods or restricting the sale of pharmaceuticals to Britain or by refusing to cooperate with the security services on Islamist threats to Britain. There will also be consequences for Britain's trade with America as the Trump administration strongly opposes such action.Then why do it? And why do it now given that there will shortly be an election in Israel at which Netanyahu might be lose power? The answer is that Labour are essentially a performative party who have no grasp of practical policies but simply engage in virtue signalling, advertising their commitment to various ideals. And I would not exclude from their motives a wish to outflank the Greens, who are likely to attract the vote of those who support the Palestinian cause.Then

Steven Rose ● 58d121 Comments ● 14d

Proposals for massive increases in Council Tax

I don't think this issue has been raised here before (if I've missed it, my apologies). The 100% increase for Wandsworth is very worrying, and now Hammersmith and Fulham are proposing a 150% hike. Increases on this scale are of great concern, and I can't help thinking that there is a fairer way of implementing them (I'm considering this quite apart from the decision of the government that has led to these increases as that's a wider issue).In the 1970s it became clear that the distribution of spending in the NHS was wildly out of kilter, which led to the setting up of the Resource Allocation Working Party (RAWP) in 1975. RAWP confirmed the disparities and suggested a new formula, using (amongst other things) the use of standardised mortality rates as a proxy measure. Obviously the regions gaining on the formula were pleased and those losing, less so, and to alleviate the possible changes it was agreed that to go immediately to the new formula would be a disaster. So, as I recall (I was working at DHSS at the time, though not on health spending) it was agreed that the formula would be introduced gradually, with well-provided regions’ spending remaining static and extra resources over time allocated to the less well-provided, which helped to reduce the pain of the reallocation.Sorry about the history lesson, but it is useful in suggesting that the pain of changes in council tax would be considerably reduced by a similar process to that used in implementing RAWP rather than doing it in one go.

Richard Carter ● 32d20 Comments ● 17d