I’m So Bored With the USA: Heroes and Villains Revisited 

 

 

“I’m fit with the stuff
To ride in the rough
And sunny down snuff, I’m alright” 

 

 

Following on from “Appeasement”, this week saw an almost unprecedented meeting in Trump’s White House, attended by European leaders, and also the Ukrainian PM, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. 

 

The meeting was a follow-up to Trump’s meeting with the aggressor, Russia’s President Putin, and was supposed to agree a roadmap to peace, and guarantee future Ukrainian sovereignty. 

Whilst everyone, in their own way, wants the bloodshed to end, there is, from both sides, lines in the sand that cannot be crossed and are totally contradictory.  

Russia, the aggressor, has acted illegally and therefore cannot be seen to gain from their actions. However, from Russia’s perspective there are two salient points; they are, or at least appear to be slowly winning, and with an estimated 1m casualties, Putin cannot go home empty handed. 

Their overriding Russian demand is that Ukraine withdraws from The Donbas region (Donetsk and Luhansk). Currently, Russia holds roughly 88%, of Donbas, including the entirety of Luhansk and about three-quarters of Donetsk. 

For the Ukraine, Zelenskyy has consistently rejected giving up any territory under Kyiv’s control, making Donbas one of the defining fault lines of the peace talks. The idea is also deeply unpopular at home, C.75% oppose formally ceding any land to Russia, according to polling by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. 

In addition, Zelenskyy has made clear that Ukraine would reject any deal limiting the size of its armed forces, insisting that “a strong Ukrainian army” must be part of the country’s security guarantees. These proposals run counter to the conditions Putin has previously outlined as acceptable for ending the war. 

 

‘with an estimated 1m casualties, Putin cannot go home empty handed’

 

 

To support their own self-determination Zelenskyy is seeking security guarantees, which he described as “a key issue, a starting point towards ending the war” .  Trump has indicated that the US is ready to be a part of that guarantee. 

As western leaders discussed the form and structure of the guarantee, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov said European proposals to deploy troops in Ukraine after a settlement would amount to “foreign intervention,” which he called absolutely unacceptable for Russia 

I always find it reassuring with Trump that there is a healthy slug of self-interest and America first in his foreign policy activities. Here, he is seeking to find a way to establish economic opportunity for US industry, and access to Ukraine’s critical minerals as part of his rivalry with China. 

It should as no surprise then that, as part of this meeting, Zelenskyy indicated that the price of obtaining security guarantees from the US included a pledge to buy $90bn of US weapons, primarily aircraft and air defence systems. 

Interestingly, the US could also buy into Ukraine’s drone program, an area in which they have made significant strides since Russia invaded, the FT reported that the drone deal was worth $50bn. 

The importance of this deal to Trump becomes apparent when you consider the scepticism of analysts to his claims that his disruptive trade war is setting the stage for a manufacturing renaissance in the US. 

Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), said: “I think [Trump’s tariffs] will reduce the competitiveness of US manufacturing, and will reduce manufacturing employment. They’re raising the costs of production to US manufacturing companies, and that makes manufacturers less competitive”. 

The on-off uncertainty caused by Trump’s repeated changes of policy and tariffs also act as big deterrent. 

Ann E Harrison, an economics professor and former dean of the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, said: “For the policy to be successful, it has to be consistent over a long period. People need to believe it’s going to last. Some factories take five years to plan and build. You’re talking a long-term play. But Trump keeps changing his mind. Even over the last six months, we’ve had very little consistency”. 

 

‘Trump keeps changing his mind. Even over the last six months, we’ve had very little consistency’

 

Economists point to another question mark that is causing corporate executives to think twice about building factories in the US. In May, the US court of international trade ruled that Trump’s blanket tariffs are illegal – a decision that is under appeal. 

By comparison to Trump, the previous The Biden administration used deliberate industrial policies to boost several strategic industries, most notably semiconductors and electric vehicles, including a 100% tariff on EVs from China and 25% on lithium-ion EV batteries, as well as subsidies to buy EVs and build EV-related factories. The policies resulted in a surge in new factories to build semiconductors, electric vehicles and EV components. 

Also, there is the fact that Trump’s tariff rates on some countries and markets, such as 15% on the EU, Japan and South Korea, are too low to spur much investment, questioning why a company would build a major factory to circumvent such a duty. 

Susan Helper, an economist at Case Western Reserve University who worked on industrial policy in the Biden and Obama administrations, said: “A [semiconductor fabrication] plant, that’s a billion dollars. You need to get a payback and that takes several years. If the tariffs are 145% [as Trump once imposed on China], that’s attractive for building a plant. But if they fall back to 15%, then it’s really hard to get a return on your investment.” 

Built into several of Trump’s trade deals are specific investment commitments; E.G., with the EU includes a $600bn investment pledge; with Japan, a $550bn investment pledge; and with South Korea, $350bn.  

Many economists question whether these countries can force corporations to make a specific investment in the US. Indeed, a European Commission spokesperson said the bloc had expressed “aggregate intentions” that are “in no way” binding. 

Back in blighty its illegal immigrants to the fore, after the high court granted an interim injunction ruling blocking people seeking refuge from being housed in an Essex hotel. The government can now expect many other legal challenges from other council leaders , with Home Office lawyers warning the court that the decision could “substantially impact” the government’s ability to house asylum seekers in hotels across the UK. 

 

‘the decision could “substantially impact” the government’s ability to house asylum seekers in hotels across the UK’

 

 

Corina Gander, the Conservative leader of the borough of Broxbourne council, said the high court’s decision had set a “massive precedent” and added: “It’s just given us this massive boost and precedent that we can do something now.” 

The government has a statutory duty to house asylum seekers while their cases are considered. Labour has promised to end the use of hotels by 2029 by cutting small boat crossings and building new government-owned accommodation. 

Enver Solomon, the Refugee Council’s chief executive, said: “The use of hotels is completely unsustainable – and this ruling shows that the government’s plan to wait until 2029 to end their use is not viable.” 

Not surprisingly, rent-a-quote Farage, the leader of Reform UK, hailed the high courts’ decision  as a victory and said he hoped it “provides inspiration to others across the country”. 

The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, suggested those housed at the hotel “need to be moved out of the area immediately”, while the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, said “residents should never have had to fight their own government just to feel safe in their own town”. 

The reaction of the Tories fascinates me, as, prior to 2020 using hotel to accommodate asylum seekers barely, yet, by 2023 there were more than 55,000 in hotels. Clearly, both Kemi and Chris have forgotten that the Tories were then in government!? Today the number has dropped to about 30,000. 

Again this highlights our shortcomings; according to Oxford University’s Migration Observatory the number of asylum seekers we see is are not exceptional when compared with those of other European countries. Despite this we rely on costly hotel accommodation far more heavily than other countries. 

The problem first arose under Tony Blair’s government when they decided to make asylum seekers reliant on state support. Until mid-2002, asylum seekers could take up jobs if they had to wait more than six months for an initial decision on their asylum claim, which the press criticised for taking away other people’s jobs. 

In many other European countries, people seeking asylum are still allowed to work after a waiting period. 

Initially, accommodation was largely provided by local councils’ housing departments, until politicians took a second decision to privatise the accommodation in the late 2000s,  

However, the big step was taken by coalition government of Cameron Clegg who, in 2012, as part of the coalition’s wider austerity drive, asylum accommodation was outsourced to the same profit-driven contractors that now run many of our public services. By the end of the decade, it was becoming increasingly common to house asylum seekers in “contingency accommodation” such as short-term lets and hotels. 

The third decision, taken by the governments of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, was during the first Covid lockdown in 2020, when asylum seekers were placed into the then empty hotels caused by the pandemic. This coincided with a rise in the number of people crossing the Channel by small boat, as opposed to stowing away in lorries as they had largely done previously.  

Having caused their own problem, and facing considerable public hostility, the Conservative government then encouraged hostility towards small boat journeys, describing them as an “invasion”. Instead of moving asylum seekers out of hotels and into more suitable accommodation when the pandemic subsided, it kept them there while it built prison-like encampments as an alternative. This, along with the Rwanda scheme was stillborn, and the backlog of asylum applications to grow. 

 

‘For the Tories to gloat over this is a travesty, the problem was of their making’

 

 

For the Tories to gloat over this is a travesty, the problem was of their making. Another example of the failure of austerity, which has been made worse by the promise a quick fix or finding a convenient scapegoat.  

Usually, you leave the best to last, but today I have left the shit to last, literally…. 

A report by the Freshwater Biological Association (“FBA”), which developed the testing project with Lancaster University, found that bathing water quality across most of Windermere is poor, indicating high levels of sewage pollution. 

High levels of bacteria found in human faeces – Escherichia coli (E coli) and intestinal enterococci (IE) – indicating sewage pollution, were found to be highest in the summer months, when Windermere is used heavily by holidaymakers for swimming and watersports. 

Only 14% of England’s rivers and lakes meet good ecological standards. 

Simon Johnson, the executive director of the FBA said: “The evidence is clear and must lead to decisive action to improve water quality. We must all work together to transform the future of Windermere and deliver a cleaner, healthier and safer water body for all life to thrive.” 

The water company in question, United Utilities, had fought a legal battle to block public access to data on treated sewage it is discharging into Windermere, but admitted defeat in January this year. 

In November 2024, The Observer revealed how seven United Utilities sewage plants and pumping stations in the Lake District were alleged to have illegally spilled sewage on 501 days from 2018 to 2023. 

It included a pumping station estimated in a BBC report to have pumped 140m litres of waste into Windermere in three years. 

 

‘Only 14% of England’s rivers and lakes meet good ecological standards’

 

The government has now banned the company from paying its bosses bonuses for the year 2024-25. In the previous year, the business paid out a £1.4m bonus from their holding company rather than by the regulated subsidiaries. This is the same sleight-of-hand used by Yorkshire Water to get around government bonus restrictions, something covered in “Big Business is Very Wise”. 

 

Lots of villains, but I can’t find any heroes!  

 

“Oceans, rivers, lakes and streams 

Have all been touched by man

The poison floating out to sea

Now threatens life on land” 

 

Heroes and villains

 

The talks about talks about talks about ceasing the war in Ukraine, appear to be going nowhere as Russia continues to make impossible demands. That is of course, assuming King Donald doesn’t cave in, give them what they want and force Ukraine into accepting its fate.

Within their support for Ukraine, America is ensuring that it is the main beneficiary, all part of the great revitalisation of US manufacturing envisaged by King Donald.

Personally, I like vision, without Hollywood would have gotten nowhere, I am, however, less certain about the viability of any of Trump’s visions.

Domestically, the news has been dominated by asylum seekers and keeping them in hotels. The self-righteous indignation of the Tories to this has been most entertaining. Chris Philp, the shadow something or other, and surely the dimmest person ever to be elected, is incandescent about the cost of his own party’s policy.

The news coverage has been great, the pro-asylum demonstrators all boho, straight-out of Monsoon, replete with long, unkempt beards, whilst the angry, anti-brigade appear to have just come home from an Oasis gig, all J D Sports, red-faced, shaven heads and no necks, bedecked in St. George flags.      

There is nothing wrong with patriotism, after all many of those flag bearers fought bravely for their team and country on the terraces. There is a pride that tips over into nationalism. From there it’s only a short-hop to racism.

Of course, nothing would be complete without some well -meaning, but sadly misguided fools, in this instance we have the Wythall Flaggers, who have erected numerous St George’s flags in the Worcestershire village to parade its patriotism. Please, spare me!!!

The question is, is this laudable patriotism or a nod to the hard-right, anti-migrant politics that is fast becoming mainstream? Is it inclusive or exclusive? The Flaggers say: “We have members of the community of all ethnicities and religions stopping by and praising what we are doing so please don’t call this racist.”

Unfortunately, the flaggers are more likely to become the acceptable face of nationalism, as practised by the likes of Tommy Robinson.

Speaking of Tommy, apparently his mother loved him, he shared online a video of  a black man and his brother playing in the park with his white granddaughters.

This has been ceased upon by the far-right, and Olajuwon Ayeni, a musician from Redcar, has been racially abused and falsely labelled a paedophile in the week since the family video was stolen from the TikTok account of his wife, Natalie, whom he married five years ago.

On Tuesday, the couple’s local MP, Anna Turley, was forced to write a letter providing a reference of good character for Ayeni when he was suspended by his management after the online disinformation.

As of yesterday, Robinson had not removed the video despite numerous replies debunking it and calling for him to delete it.

When researching this, I came across this from April 1990; the late Norman Tebbit proposed a cultural test, the “Tebbit test”, suggesting that immigrants who support their native countries rather than England in cricket are not significantly integrated into the UK.

Patriot, nationalist, or racist? You decide. But remember with racism it isn’t where you start it’s the simple fact that you do, which is the danger.

Lyrically, it’s Beach Boys week. We start with “Heroes and Villains”, and we finish with 1971s prophetic “Don’t Go Near the Water”. Clearly they knew something we didn’t.

Enjoyment can be a diversion, hopefully this is.

Philip.

 

@coldwarsteve

 

 

 
 

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: