Argentinian President Javier Milei: The winds of change

 

Argentina: The Winds of Change

President Javier Milei finds himself talking about the "Winds of Change" and winds there are many when it comes to the South Atlantic on the way to Antarctica.

What did not happen in 1982 under a Military Junta could happen under a democratically elected President. Britain was not in the best position in 1982, but Britain is in a much worse position in 2026 and we still have not seen the numbers that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, former Secretary for Defense John Healey, is going to provide. It will not be nice. Mr Healey might have even less monies for Defense than the monies he was offered by Rachel Reeves and the reason he resigned his post as Secretary for Defense. What is essential or not essential in terms of training is a debatable subject. Argentina just announced that it will be new military installations that will give Argentina better access to Falkland Islands, and Falkland Islands are not the only islands under British control in the South Atlantic. In 1982, Britain was not caught up with a conflict in Europe for which it is not well prepared. President Trump has been found laughing about British military power and he might not offer Britain any support should there be a conflict, once again, in the South Atlantic.

I would say that for Britain things are much worse than they ever were in 1982. Equipment that Britain had and that made the difference in a conflict that happened more than 40 years ago has not been updated nor replaced.

Argentina does not need military forces on mainland Argentina for internal puposes or as a precaution because of strained relationships with Chile at the time when the invasion happened. President Allende did support Margaret Thatcher and Chilean support in 1982 was for Britain a sine qua non. President Kast, shares President Milei´s ideology and so that President Trump that is visibly involved in developing American influence in Latin America.

So things have changed exponentially and not in a favourable way for Britain.

The USA, and not just those who support President Trump, have good reasons to support Argentina. As members of the American Administration stated very openly, Europe is no longer a priority. China is. So countries that are closer to the USA, where China has been playing an ever greater role, are also a priority. With Venezuela "under control", Panama controls the passage between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, which is a crossing of fundamental strategic importance for the USA - a passage that was built by the USA.

So where is Britain in all this? What is happening with the geopolitical agenda? What is happening with trade? Britain has a limited presence in Antarctica, but so do other countries. Undoubtedly, British Islands in the South Atlantic are relevant as a gate to Antarctica. For Argentina, it is obviously a bonus. It is about asserting Argentinian influence. This is for Argentina a James Monroe Moment. Just imagine what it would mean for the Argentinian peoples and for President Milei himself. Imagine what it would mean to be seen as the Argentinian President that "recovered the South Atlantic Islands".

So we keep following developments. This could be the ultimate slap on the face of Britain. So President Trump is using it. "You did not help me with Iran. I would not help you in the South Atlantic."

In Brazil, President Lula da Silva is campaigning for a presidential election in which the son of the now former President Bolsonaro is standing, but with or without a Bolsonaro as Brazilian President, the winds of change are not blowing in favour of Britain. 

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham: calming the markets....?

 

The Guardian, the London newspaper talks about Prime Minister Andy Burnham trying to calm bond market, as more and more investors are getting rid of bonds of public debt. It must be said that it is not just Britain that might be losing its capacity to borrow billions of US Dollars (althougn bonds might be valued in Pounds) to paid a public debt that amounts to trillions US Dollars.

Any budget must be based on reliable data, but nowadays data has a habit of changing even before any budget is formulated. So by the time the Chancellor of the Exchequer John Healey (former Secretary for Defense) rises in the House of Commons to deliver the so called Autumn Budget all numbers in it might be totally outdated. Without the capacity to borrow more then taxing more and budget cuts could be the only way left to adjust public expenditure. Both options are deeply unpopular because they both go for one word: Austerity.

For a Labour Prime Minister having to start by imposing new taxes and cutting budgets because there is no money to go around is not what was promised during the first short campaign for an election that never happened. When the amount of monies available is significantly reduced, the impact of increasing defense expenditure makes cuts in other areas of the public administration even more painful. As Paul Samuelson, the American Economist stated, it is butter or cannons. You cannot have them both in equal measure. Something has to go. Will it be welfare payments? Whatever the previous Prime Minister did that was considered to be done against Labour values will be nothing compared with the limitations the new Prime Minister will have to impose.

Suddenly, recent electoral successes in Makerfield and Manchester will feel like a pyhrric victory. The joy and celebratons might turn into a funeral. More taxes will certainly means less buying power in the pockets of already suffering taxpayers. Budget cuts will mean more unemployment. But in actual fact both measures can accelerate the rise of unemployment. If you raise taxes, you cut private investment and consumption. Taxes will be higher but the amount of monies collected will be reduced due to less economic activity. Keir Starmer´s exit from Parliament will help him distance himself from then nightmare that is coming and Andy Burnham´s time as Prime Minister could be cut short.

Right after Andy Burnham was appointed, there were rumours that he would go to the country, that he intended to have his own Parliamentary majority, even by losing many of the seats that Labour managed to win in 2024. Going to the country, having a General Election preceded by a whole bunch of bad news does not look, sound and feel like a good idea. Labour MPs that did not want Keir Starmer as Leader and Prime Minister made the choice to remain under Keir Starmer not to risk losing their seats.

When Andy Burnham threw his hat on the right they could have rocket the boat and go for internal elections in the Labour Party. Instead, they chose to have Andy Burnham appointed without any contest. The idea was pure and simple. No contest to challenge Andy Burnham would show the Labour Party as something that the Labour Party is not: a united Party. When the new budget is presented in the House of Commons, factional rivalries will reappear. 

Having a majority in Parliament might look like a blessing, but having too many MPs might be inconvenient. A majority that cannot be controlled becomes a liability.

At a distance, Labour MPs that are no longer Cabinet Members could have been disappointed, hurt because they were no longer at the forefront of the Labour government. Now, many of them like Rachel Reeves might be congratulating themselves because they do not have to face the mess the new government will have to deal with. She was being forced to calculate and recalculate budgets before they were even presented in Parliament. Now the man who complained and even resigned as Secretary for Defense because he was not getting enough money for defense will have to face reality. Now, it is John Healey´s time to face the music.

Sue Gray did not last long as Chief of Staff under Keir Starmer. She said that she felt that she was being spied on, that her private conversations were being recorded and leaked to the mass media. Has the political environment inside the Labour government changed overnight? As pressure mounts, one can expect that internal tensions will rise. As the expression goes "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer". 

 

  

Mentally dysfunctional British Politicians and the advent of war in Europe

 

Mentally dysfunctional British politicians and the advent of war

Listening to British politicians one realizes that they live in their own world, totally detached from reality.

Simple logic does not seem to work in their brains. If there is war between A and B and you side with B sending weapons to kill and destroy A, what do you think that it is going to happen?

The disconnect is dangerous and it seems that there is the belief that "it will never happen to us".

Hermann Goering promised Adolf Hitler that "no German cities will be bombed". Things were rather different. In fact, it even started by accident. One evening a German crew got lost over Britain and unable to return to base with a bomber full of bombs they decided to drop the bombs and go back to base. The only problem was that navigating in the dark they had been unable to determine their own location and did not know that they were flying over London. Britain reacted and a bombing sortie was carried out in retatiation for what was believed to have been an intentional attacks against London. Until then, Adolf Hitler had rejected the idea of any attack against British cities and the Luftwaffe was focusing only on military installations. In reponse to the British retaliation to what had been an accident, German bombing missions were carried out against London and other British cities.

A bully Prime Minister trusts that nothing will happen to UK because of a gang called NATO, that Britain can continue attacking the Russian Federation and there were will be no lethal consequences for Britain. He coud be badly mistaken. Britain could be used as an example for other NATO members. A lethal attack against Britain would send a clear message to other NATO members telling them "if you move a finger, we will bomb you too". The reality is that most NATO members amount to zeroes when it comes to defensive and offensive power. NATO is very much the spirit of the gang. How do you tackle a gang? You target the leaders of the gang and Britain has positioned itself as the leader of a gang.

Herr Merz would do well looking at the photographs of German cities taken in 1945 and then tell the German people "Do not worry. There is going to be war, but nothing will happen to German cities". To make it more authentic he could even utter the same words Hermann Goering used to reassure Adolf Hitler.

Labour Party: Factional struggle Starmer/Corbyn

 

The fact that Jeremy Corbyn is no longer Labour Party Leader doesn't the problem of factions within the Labour Party go away. Curiously enough, the problem becamse a lot worse with the creation of the London Assembly, Devolution and the existence of City Mayors.

Keir Starmer was a star member of Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet up to the point when an investigation into Anti-Semitism within the Labour Party started. 

Keir Starmer, married to a Rabbi's daugher and with children raised in the Jewish tradition became the obvious contender to conter Anti-Semitism within the Labour Party and it was also pretty obvious that Jeremy Corbyn who had invested much of his political career supporting the Palestinian movement was a self-made target.

Sadiq Khan thought that becoming Mayor of London would give him the public exposure necessary to rise within the ranks of the Labour Party, but his association with Muslims involved in terrorism doesn't help. Andy Burham as Mayor of Greater Manchester is presently involved in a struggle battling with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and has relatively a higher profile, adding to the fact that he is not part of London's circles. Andy Burham can claim has he is more relevant because he cannot possibly be associated with London's Labor Party nor with developments involving Anti-Semitism.

The Kinnock brand was damaged when the heir of Neil Kinnock was chastised for having criticized the policies of Israel in Palestine and this happens at a time when the Labour Party leadership is trying to distance itself of any possible charges involving Anti-Semitism or bias against Israel.

Putting aside personalities, divisions within the Labour Party have not gone away and cannot be attributed merely to personality feuds and under Lockdown the chances of organising a popular resistance movement are very limited. This means that this is a window of opportunity for Keir Starmer to counter divisions that could bring him down before the next General Election. Having said that, the fact that Keir Starmer is going after the man that he very publicly supported does not fare well for the Labour Party.

Being accused by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is no minor issue: The charges are:

- Political interference in Anti-Semitism complaints

- Failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints

- harassment, including the use of anti-Semitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of anti-Semitism were fake of smears

If the office of Jeremey Corbyn was involved, there is no way to separate Jeremy Corbyn from the charges being made. The first stage was to depose Jeremy Corbyn. The second stage is to put Jeremy Corbyn on notice. We could end up hearing about expulsion from the Labour Party, but this could prove to be a step too far. Jeremy Corbyn was supported by Labour Party activists against the will of the Parliament Labour Party that was wacked in the recent General Election where heartland Labour seats were lost to the Conservative Party. If factional differences lead to a break up of the Labour Party, any hopes of electoral success will go up in smoke.

Keir Starmer himself is under siege. Andy Burham has not been involved in the struggle between Keir Starmer and Jeremy Corbyn. Therefore, Andy Burnham appears to be the obvious challenger.