No Equivocation

Some people like to trot out a particular piece of nonsense that goes “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” A political update of “One man’s meat is another man’s poison,” the intention is to highlight how someone who supports a paramilitary group will cast them as the heroic resistance, whilst those who oppose it will generally cast them as evil villains.

There’s certainly some truth in that, except it is more the case that some people will cast non-terrorists as terrorists in order to discredit them, whilst anyone who supports actual terrorists will attempt to deceive others (and probably themselves) by pretending that they aren’t.

The problem is, terrorism isn’t subjective. Yes, there is some subjectivity on where to draw the line between terrorism and legitimate conflict (is planting a bomb under a military officer’s car terrorism? How about blowing up a politician who directs the military campaign?), but terrorism itself – the direct, deliberate targeting of civilians – isn’t subjective. Terrorism is about actions, not about ideology or motivations. A terrorist is defined by their actions. Their motivation may put them in the same camp as freedom fighters, but their actions separate them from tolerable resistance. If a group engages in terror, they are terrorists, no ifs or buts.

Equally, just as motivation doesn’t justify or excuse evil actions, those actions don’t automatically mean that the same motivation is invalid or wrong when held by others whose actions aren’t evil. A claim should be tested on its own merits and not on the actions of some who hold or claim to hold it.

The actions of Hamas in recent days are unequivocably terrorism of the most evil and heinous sort. Whatever your thoughts and feelings about the Palestinian cause, there can be no justification for what Hamas has done, no excuses, no ambivalence. Anyone who fails to fully denounce their crimes, anyone who calls them militants or freedom fighters or a resistance instead of terrorists, anyone who equivocates with an “Oh, but…” or “What about…” is endorsing their crimes and shares their guilt. The rights and wrongs of the situation between Israel and Palestine can be discussed, but not without making it clear that such behaviour is beyond the pale and unconscionable.

Hamas are terrorists, no ifs or buts. There are many Palestinians seeking a peaceful and mutually just end to the conflict with Israel – they are not terrorists. Hamas are.

A Windrush Twist…

Back in 2018, I wrote a post on the Windrush scandal and how the authorities lied about the necessity of their coming to Britain. In the latest Big Issue, an article (referencing a BBC program) pointed out a fact that I’d previously been unaware of (as, indeed, had most people) that not only validated my general position – albeit letting the government of the time off the hook, a little, whilst making later justifications even more of a mockery – but, provided a whole new and horrible twist to the Windrush saga…

Apparently, the advertisement in a Jamaican newspaper inviting workers to come to Britain wasn’t placed by the British government. Rather, it was placed by the captain of the Windrush in order to make money by increasing the number of passengers. So, the exploitation began before they even set foot on the ship!

So, even the selling of tickets, was part of the same money-making attitude towards immigration, not really dissimilar to people smugglers today, save that it was, technically, legal. (The fact does rather make Windrush Day a peculiar commemoration, although I suppose ‘We were scammed, but made good anyway’ is a positive to take away…)

As the ongoing debates over the Windrush Scandal and illegal Channel crossings continue, it is clear we need to end the battle between those who see immigration as a bad thing and those who support it in opposition to those they deem racist, and recognise the way in which immigrants are used and abused. The immigrants are not the enemy, but taking a pro-unfettered immigration stance only supports the abusers. We need to properly manage immigration and prevent those with money and power from exploiting those who come here.

Not paid for views

Not being able to have coverage of football on the BBC was hardly the Lineker Crisis that the BBC declared in its coverage of its own debacle. Indeed, with some people who actually watch it declaring that the highlights were better without the inane commentary and most people going about their lives oblivious to the silence, it could hardly be said to be worthy of being called even a storm in a teacup. I don’t know if Gary and his sulking fellow presenters went unpaid for not appearing (as supposed freelancers, one might hope they don’t get paid if they don’t do the work), but if they weren’t paid, the situation could actually be called a money-saving success. But, knowing the BBC, they probably were paid…

There has been a lot of waffle about freedom of speech, whether BBC impartiality rules apply to Gary Lineker as he is, officially, a freelancer, and whether impartiality only applies to the specific field a presenter is active in, all of which ignore the key point: Anyone who works for the BBC, especially someone who is remunerated so well as he is, is funded by everyone who pays for a television licence, whether or not they wish to fund them.

Compare JK Rowling. If you disagree with her views on transwomen, you can freely boycott the latest Harry Potter game without being forced to pay her wage if you buy some other game. Nor does a penny spent on a book written by someone else go to fund her royalties. Even when the BBC pays her for the rights to produce a Cormoran Strike episode, which does come from the licence fee regardless of the payer’s opinion, it’s a one-off and not a regular wage, and in doing so the BBC isn’t providing the basis for her celebrity to present her views.

What Gary Lineker receives from the BBC, despite his supposedly freelance status, is a regular, and vastly-inflated, wage and a presence not accorded to most old footballers, who generally fade from sight once they are no longer particularly proficient at kicking a ball about. To expect the licence-fee payers to fund him, whilst taking advantage of the platform to air his frequently ill-considered views, is offensive.

If the BBC wants to maintain the licence fee, then it and those it employs need to be as neutral as possible and if any of its employees doesn’t like that, they should quit and enjoy the freedom to present their uncensored views without relying on the licence-fee payers to fund them and the BBC to provide them with unwarranted fame and credibility.

Praise for carers

Anyone who has had anything to do with arranging care for elderly or ill relatives will know that the system can be something of a nightmare. It would be very easy to write a long post of complaint and criticism. But, what gets lost in the experience of poor organisation and news reports about cuts in funding, are the carers themselves, those people who take on a job for usually quite low wages that can, at times, be quite unpleasant.

Although you hear the occasional horror story and encounter the rare individual who is doing the job just for the money (why?!), almost every carer takes on the role because they, well, care. They are decent, caring people who want to make the lives of others better and we really need to recognise and applaud this. They can find themselves taking on unpleasant tasks and may be out at anti-social hours (as well as having to help out over the holidays), but they maintain a good humour and get things done with gentleness and professionalism. Without carers going into homes all over the country to help, millions of people would have a much, much worse quality of life.

So, I just want to say: Thank you!

Use Your Words!

Zhelensky has liked to portray himself in the mould of Churchill, but Churchill not only proclaimed that Britain would fight the Nazis on the beaches, but also expressed a hope for “Jaw-jaw, not war-war,” that is the quest for peace through words, rather than resorting to violence. Unfortunately, in Ukraine, there has been little attempt at, and even less success with, talking.

Perhaps the greatest stumbling block to the Russian-Ukrainean conflict is the lack of any nation with power and influence and no involvement in the conflict to step in and encourage both sides to stop fighting and start talking. It’s not that either side has refused to attend talks, although they’ve both sought to make the process as tortuous as possible, but neither has had an incentive to actually reach an agreement when the other might.

When it looked as if Russia might streamroller the country, Ukraine did make some tentative moves towards offering Putin concessions, but, certain he would swiftly win and then be able to take whatever he wanted, Putin wasn’t interested. With the invasion somewhat stalled, Putin has indicated, in his turn, that he might limit his claims, but, of course, with the hope they might be able to reverse the Russian gains, Ukraine is no longer interested in offering concessions. And, so the war continues…

The United Nations, which ought to be the premier body in this role, is, of course, incapable of doing much with Russia’s veto and too many nations that just don’t care. Perhaps with a stronger Secretary General, things might have been different, but probably not. It may be a talking shop,  but precious little comes of the talk itself, leaving it to individual countries to take on the mantle of neutral interlocutor.

The USA is often perceived as the ‘go-to’ power for negotiations, and has certainly injected itself into the talks, but as the key member of NATO, Russia’s primary rival, and Ukraine’s main backer, lacks any credibility in the role. Indeed, the USA played a role in discouraging Ukraine from seeking compromise with Russia in the Donbas down the years of the conflict there, leading to the current situation.

The United Kingdom might have stepped in, but falls into the same trap as America. Germany is another contender, but its dependence upon Russian oil has meant it has tried to keep as uninvolved as it can and would be unlikely to satisfy either party.

France had a chance here to renew its international role and certainly made a stab at it, but achieved nothing as its preferred approach seemed more about grandstanding and protecting EU interests than actually trying to resolve the crisis.

The only other countries that could fill the role are China and India, neither of which are likely keen to do so. Although India’s dependence on Russian oil and China’s desire for an ally against America doubtless have influenced their largely keeping quiet, probably the biggest reason for neither country to get involved, either as active supporters of Russia or honest brokers for peace, is the awkward fact that, whilst pro-Russian, they cannot actively support Russia’s support of the breakaway Donbas republics because it would run counter to their own territorial claims – India in Kashmir and China in Taiwan. The latter, in particular, is unworkable – China could hardly back a major power enforcing the indepence of breakaway republics, whilst complaining about the USA’s suppport for the breakaway republic of Taiwan. That might have made them a good broker, but it also complicates the situation for them, with any statement being seen in light of their own territorial claims, so that you can see why they chose to stay out of it.

Without a viable broker, able to exert pressure on both sides to come to the negotiating table, whilst also being perceived as honest and fair in overseeing the talks, any chance of peace looks to be a long way off. Of course, many might consider the possibility of talks a terrible thing, believing that Ukraine should fight on until ultimate victory. Except that, no matter what the pundits like to say, it is far from certain Ukraine can reverse Russia’s gains, and extending the conflict for potentially months or even years means many more lives disrupted and destroyed, as well as the continuing ripples through the world economy and the potential for the war to spread and cause more death and destruction.

Temporary Decency…

The people of the UK have opened their hearts and their homes to those Ukrainians displaced by the war, not only giving both monetary and practical donations to help, but also offering up spare rooms to those arriving here as refugees. The government, too, has been swift to offer help, if slower to actually ensure that help is available.

This isn’t a bad thing, of course, but it does raise a question as to where all this generosity was before. Yes, there was help for Syrians, but I must have missed the mass movements to assist Yemenis and South Sudanis fleeing their conflicts, and the offer of asylum to Uighurs persecuted by China. There has been little interest in taking in the Afghanis fleeing a collapse that was due to Western ineptitude, and even those translators and embassy staff who worked for Britain and are endangered as a result have largely been left to try and make their own way with no guarantee of being allowed into the UK should they make it this far.

Then, we have the huge numbers of homeless people sleeping rough. Why did nobody offer them their spare room?

As much as the offers of homes and help to Ukrainian refugees is a testament to what is good about the British, it is also a reminder that, when it comes to unfashionable refugees and the home-grown needy, there has been a distinct lack of charity. Perhaps people will be inspired to continue offering assistance once the Ukrainian crisis is over, helping others who need help just as much. We can hope…

Mad, Bad and Dangerous?

If we are to take one thing away from Western media coverage of Putin and the invasion of Ukraine, it’s that Vladimir Putin is mad, bad and dangerous, a threat not just to one nation, but the entire world. Not that such a portrayal necessarily means much – it’s been standard practice since World War II to portray every enemy leader as a dangerous lunatic in the mould of Adolf Hitler. A portrayal that has, more often than not, led the West to blunder into awful messes as they ignore the nuance and complexities of the situations in which they interfere.

So, is Putin really mad, bad and dangerous? It’s easiest to take those in reverse order.

Dangerous

Well, this one is easy: Anyone leading a nation that has a large conventional military and a nuclear arsenal is definitely dangerous. Although it has to be considered that large militaries and nuclear arsenals are also possessed by China and America, and there are several more nuclear-equipped states, so Putin isn’t unique in that regard, although, compared to the regimes the West more usually prefers to come into direct confrontation with, Russia really is dangerous and ought to be approached with caution.

Bad

Is Putin bad? Well, that is a subjective question, but I think anyone who engages in warfare is certainly veering towards the unpleasant, even when justified. But, every negative quality that can be attributed to Putin can also be attributed to Western leaders…

Warmonger? Most American Presidents fit the mould. Using censorship?

The banning of RT and other Russian media means the UK and EU have engaged in censorship, too.

Propaganda? Ukraine and its allies have happily claimed Russia shelled a Holocaust memorial and a nuclear power station, when neither event actually happened as described; that’s propaganda.

Corruption? Let’s not look too closely at the hidden bank accounts and dodgy funding of Western politicians, eh?

So, bad, but not exceptionally so.

Mad

Right, here comes the big question: Is Putin mad?

If we believe Western media and politicians, then the answer is surely YES! Putin is depicted as suddenly ordering the invasion of Ukraine on a whim, of giving rambling speeches (President Biden, anyone?), and talking nonsense about Nazis. Apparently, nothing he does is rational. Ergo, he’s mad.

Except it’s not true. The invasion of Ukraine was no sudden action – the conflict in eastern Ukraine’s Donbass region has been going on for eight years and Putin’s decision to escalate was preceded by repeated warnings that he would feel forced to act if Ukraine continued to ignore its responsibilities under the Minsk Agreement and push for NATO and EU membership.

And, going back, the problems in Donbass derive from the overthrow of the elected government with NATO connivance, whilst the wider Ukraine-Russia tensions derive from NATO’s refusal to stick to an agreement not to expand eastwards. NATO might want to argue that it was justified in its actions, but it cannot claim that Putin’s reaction do not derive from them. His response was entirely predictable.

That Putin might not trust NATO and its supporters in Ukraine and might be fearful of being ever more surrounded by NATO countries is not some paranoid delusion, but a reasonable reaction to a disregard for democracy and agreements on the part of the West. And, that his following through on his threats after his concerns and demands were just ignored, especially when his concerns over Ukraine’s NATO and EU membership could easily have been kicked into the long grass, as neither is likely to happen for several years, allowing for some defusing of tensions without actually caving into his demands, is concerning.

Even his talk of deNazification, construed as either wild lies or signs of madness, has a basis in reality. Ukraine does have a problem with neo-Nazis, or, at least, parts of it do. Neo-Nazis were active in the anti-Russian revolution of 2014 and a neo-Nazi militia, the Azov Battalion, actually became part of the Ukrainian military and played a large role in the fighting in the Donbass. A leading neo-Nazi figure has even been an advisor for the Ukrainian army and neo-Nazis have tried to make Kyiv a centre of white supremacism. We have even seen plentiful examples of racist discrimination during the chaos of civilians fleeing the war.

None of this is secret nor disputed and Putin’s characterisation of Ukraine as a ‘Nazi state’ makes sense. The real question is whether he has, mistakenly or deliberately, overstated the case (although there are many who would contend he hasn’t). The Jerusalem Post suggests that the Azov Battalion has significantly tackled neo-Nazism since being incorporated into the military and suggests that the fact it played such a large role in the fighting in Donbass might have skewed Russian perceptions of the Ukrainian military. Of course, the racism evident during the evacuation makes this questionable. But, either way, it’s not the case that Putin is talking nonsense.

Given that Putin has shown a willingness to talk and his concerns and demands have been rational, and his actions have been preceded by warnings of what would happen if things proceeded as they were, I would say that Putin isn’t mad, or no more than justifiably paranoid, and that his actions were rational based on his beliefs and intentions and should have been easily foreseen by the West.

So what went wrong?

That is the important question. Why did neither Ukraine nor NATO understand, even in the face of repeated NATO warnings, that a Russian invasion might actually happen?

Given the way in which the Ukrainian people interviewed by Western media have acted baffled by the absence of NATO assistance, it is clear that they believed that NATO had pledged to protect them. Was this just a lie or wishful thinking on behalf of the Ukrainian government? Given the way President Zelansky keeps demanding that NATO act, despite NATO being a defensive organisation of which Ukraine is not a member, makes me wonder if NATO, or elements within it, misled him into thinking NATO would back Ukraine should war break out: This would certainly explain why Ukraine ignored its commitments and upped the tensions with Russia in the lead-up to the invasion.

But, why didn’t NATO foresee the invasion? After all, it kept stating that a Russian invasion was likely. How could the intelligence services predict it and the politicians be surprised? Can anyone be that stupid? After all, Putin told them! Had spending years portraying Putin as a lunatic blinded them to the words he was speaking? Or, was the portrayal always deliberate, so that NATO could continue to antagonise Russia, yet portray itself as innocent? After all, despite all the claims that NATO isn’t deliberately encircling Russia or that it closing on its borders could conceivably be interpreted as a threat, we saw the British Defence Secretary in Latvia boasting that NATO’s forces were on the Russian border… Yep, that’s one way to reduce tensions over NATO forces being on Russia’s doorstep.

It’s hard to say for sure, but it frequently seems as if NATO is trying to up the tension with Russia. In the context of Ukraine, this is terrible, as it essentially means that innocent Ukrainians are dying for NATO’s ambitions and vanity, without NATO actually endangering itself. But, with the potential for the conflict to spread with one misstep, continuing to treat Putin as a lunatic who cannot be predicted could lead to disaster if NATO misses, or affects to miss, a warning.

Conclusion

Bad and dangerous? Yes. Mad? No. And, failing to grasp that risks disaster. Ironically, though, if NATO can wean itself from its obsession with tarring every enemy as insane, the fact that Putin is rational and pragmatic means that an agreement to restore peace is a real possibility. He doesn’t want to go to war with NATO and plunge the world into nuclear war – but, there’s a real risk that NATO might push him into a corner from which he sees no other way out.

How strange…

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is barely three days old and, already, they’ve suffered the wrath of the sporting world – they’ve had Formula One pull out and the Champions League Final has been moved, along with less-famous sports giving them the boot.

Now, this has happened with amazing speed (if we ignore the years of conflict in Donbas…) because Russia has attacked a rival state with a comparable military in a conventional war. For all the condemnation, Russia, so far, has aimed its attacks at military targets (yes, some have gone off target, but that happens regularly with Western weaponry, too) and has refrained from carpet bombing cities or murdering civilians.

And, the sporting world acted.

Then, we have Saudi Arabia and the UAE carrying out years of military strikes on an inferior military force resulting in a major humanitarian crisis and what did the sporting world do?

They allowed both Saudi Arabia and the UAE to stage Grand Prix races…

Okay, but what about the Uyghur? China committing genocide against an unarmed civilian population, surely that brought a stern rebuke? Er, no, they got to host the Olympics…

Something is very wrong here if a conventional war can provoke such a swift response and the genocide of civilians results in nothing. It’s not even as if it’s some sort of either/or situation where you can only punish one country at a time. If the sporting world feels so strongly about the invasion of Ukraine, they can still penalise Russia whilst also penalising states doing even worse things. But, they don’t.

Why?

Is it the hypocrisy of Ukraine being a European state and the others not? Is it because the other examples are Muslims? Is it because more people hate Russia than China and Saudi Arabia? Did Russia just fail to bribe the West as much?

Idiot See, Idiot Do

Perhaps the most striking thing about the current BoJo crisis – more so than whether coworkers singing Happy Birthday counts as a party or not – was the way a section of society grabbed onto the first suggestions, back in December, that there may have been a party in Downing Street during lockdown to declare “If Boris can break the law, so can I!”

Bear in mind, this wasn’t after several apparent breaches of lockdown rules had been revealed and the Prime Minister was known to have been, at least tangentially, involved with a couple. This was back when there was a vague, “something probably happened, we don’t know what exactly, we don’t know if any rules were breached, and we don’t know if the Prime Minister was even in the vicinity at the time, let alone involved.” So, not even the ‘maybe he did’ we have now.

But, that didn’t matter. Idiots see, idiots do – especially when they already wanted to do it in the first place…

So, we had one man on the BBC news demanding that his fine for hosting a law-breaking party should be quashed because of Boris. Does anyone imagine that’s how the law works? Not that Boris, if found guilty, ought to be fined, too?

Then, there was a woman interviewed at the London New Year celebrations by the BBC who explained that she had never attended them before but, inspired by Boris, had decided to break that habit and turn up during a pandemic, because… well, there didn’t seem to be any good reason… Naturally, neither she nor her fellow revellers were wearing masks or bothering to maintain a distance. But, who cares? Boris broke the law, so it’s all okay and COVID isn’t contagious anymore.

Now, there’s no doubt that Downing Street, whether guilty of breaking the actual law or not, showed a distinct hypocrisy towards the COVID rules. But, as galling as a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude can be, that doesn’t mean rushing out to ape bad decisions is a good idea. Unfortunately, it seems there are plenty of idiots who think that it is.

Drivers? Oh, Drivers! A Looming Crisis…

In Britain, there are currently two crises. One, the claim that supermarket shelves are empty, is largely a mirage or lie spread by Remainers; the other, that petrol pumps are running dry, is real, but due primarily to panic-buying caused by doom-mongering reports. Yet, although neither is ‘real’, they both reflect a very-real crisis that is brewing, and has been for years, due to a decline in the number of HGV drivers. With fewer drivers, it is becoming difficult to ensure deliveries will arrive and, though the supermarket shelves may not be empty today and the pumps are mostly only dry because they have been drained by idiots, we could soon see both empty in the near future.

But, why?

It’s Brexit, innit?

It is no coincidence that the tales of empty shelves and the reports that petrol pumps would run dry were mostly spread by the BBC and, online, by Remainers. As well as taking delight in an imagined ‘we told you so’ situation, blaming the lack on Brexit was potent propaganda for those who would like to undo the referendum result. After all, if Brexit has left us in a mess, surely we should petition the EU to let us back in?

Except, of course, that the lack of HGV drivers has very little to do with Brexit.

There is no one reason for the lack of drivers, so, just as Brexit cannot be claimed as the sole cause, Brexit cannot be entirely exonerated from playing a role. However, especially given that the problem has been growing for years, most of which were whilst the UK was in the EU, Brexit cannot be the primary cause. Indeed, the lack is one that affects Europe as well…

The Expulsion Myth

One claim that pops up repeatedly in Remainer myth-making is that the lack of drivers is due to Britain having ‘expelled’ European HGV drivers. This is easily demolished by the fact that there was no mass expulsion of Europeans following Brexit. All Europeans who were living in the UK were entitled to apply for Settled Status. Thus, drivers who wished to continue working could do so.

It is estimated that around a third of European drivers left the UK following Brexit, for a total of around 12,000. This sounds like a lot, but when you consider that there are 100,000 less drivers available since the pandemic began, Britain would still be nearly 90,000 short even if they had all remained. Their absence doesn’t help, but can hardly be credited with being a major cause of any problems.

And, though we can say that those 12,000 left, we cannot say what their exact reasons were. Some, undoubtedly, will have been largely or entirely due to Brexit, if they thought applying for Settled Status was too much hassle or were turned down for some reason, or if they decided they didn’t feel welcome anymore. But, there had been a decline in East European drivers prior to Brexit as the stagnant pay and conditions in the UK were countered by increasing wages in their home countries – people who had come to Britain because they could earn more to send home found they could earn almost as much, if not the same or more, in their own countries, allowing them to spend more time with their families, and probably make more when you factored in lower living costs.

Then, of course, we have the pandemic, which may have caused some to decide to return home rather than risk being stuck in a different country to their families for who-knew-how-long. Probably, for many, it was a mix of factors.

Europe has problems, too

If you were to read a Remainer social media post on the issue, you’d likely see it claimed that Britain’s shelves are empty, whilst those in Europe are groaning with goods. Of course, if there are any empty supermarket shelves in the UK, it’s not a significant issue. But, the idea that Europe is replete with HGV drivers is actually a myth.

Yes, Europe is facing a shortage, too, of around 400,000 across the EU.

As the EU hasn’t left itself, and, indeed, has received a boost of some 12,000 drivers from the UK, I think it is safe to assume the shortage there has nothing to do with Brexit. So, why make the connection without evidence on this side of the Channel? Much the same problems afflict both the continent and Britain.

5000 Special Visas

The UK government has pledged to offer 5000 special visas to European drivers, although, given the total lack, this is really just a bandaid and a sop to shush critics.

However, claims by Remainers that this somehow proves Brexit was a failure or the government is making a u-turn on immigration shows that they still don’t understand the issues involved. No reasonable Leaver ever claimed that there would be no need for migrant workers or that Europeans should be banned from these shores, despite the feverish imaginations of certain Remainers. What people wanted was control over who could come to the UK and a level playing-field between Europeans and people from elsewhere in the world, especially the Commonwealth. Choosing to make more visas available and for a limited period doesn’t invalidate either of those concepts; in fact, it is an example of the first.

The One Good Remainer Argument

Although most Remainers’ claims have been nonsense, I did see one argument in the letters pages of the latest Private Eye that made a good point and demonstrated why it would have been so much better had Remainers and Leavers engaged in civilised dialogue rather than a slanging match.

The point was that many European countries restrict or prohibit deliveries by HGVs at weekends, whilst the UK does not. Thus, if they weren’t restricted by Brexit, we could have had them crossing the Channel to take up the slack at weekends.

Of course, this wouldn’t entirely alleviate the problems and a lack of casual HGV drivers from Europe isn’t a major cause of the current lack in the UK, and there would be those who might wish to follow the Europeans’ lead on restricting weekend deliveries, but it does show how, with the focus on fighting over Brexit, even now, the potential for creative answers has been ignored.

So, what are the reasons?

As Brexit is just one, and not a major, reason for the lack of drivers, what are? There are three main issues afflicting the sector, the interplay of which has caused the lack.

Age

With few new drivers entering the industry (see below), the age of drivers had been going up. This means that drivers are retiring due to their age or because they find the job too hard and aren’t being replaced.

Pay and Conditions

Pay for HGV drivers in the UK has stagnated for years, especially when you consider the ridiculously-long hours many work and the poor conditions (like having to sleep in their cabs). Once, the pay looked good compared to that in Eastern Europe, but, as noted, pay has increased there and European drivers have headed home rather than stay.

Given that it can be a tough job, the poor pay is hardly enticing for young people to enter the industry, meaning there aren’t new drivers joining as old ones depart, whether Europeans heading home or older drivers retiring. Without improvements, existing drivers will continue to quit and won’t be replaced.

Licences

Ironically, even if a young person wants to enter the world of the HGV driver, they will often find they can’t. The cost of becoming one is ridiculously high, especially when you consider the pay and conditions are hardly enticing. But, there is also a lack of test availability and a backlog of licences being issued. Even those who could be driving are often unable to because they just cannot qualify.

Other Reasons

Tax increases for some self-employed workers have made it less economical to be a driver and, then, we have the pandemic, which has caused disruption to deliveries and likely affected driver numbers.

The Global Angle

It’s not just the UK and EU that are suffering a lack of drivers. The USA is, too. Then, we have the disruption of shipping due to the pandemic and the blocking of the Suez Canal, and a global lack of shipping containers. Now, there is also talk of China cutting back on production in order to hit its targets in cutting pollution.

Training and recruiting more drivers would improve things, but even if the UK had a surfeit of drivers there would still be a risk of shortages if goods cannot get to Britain or there are no goods to deliver.

Britain is particularly vulnerable to shortages as it has allowed both its agricultural and industrial production to decline and is an island nation that requires goods to arrive via plane or ship. The malaise that has seen the UK become overly-reliant upon imports is the same malaise that has seen the lack of HGV drivers go untackled for so long. Ironically, given the way Remainers have seized upon the situation, it was those in power, who abdicated so much of their authority  to the EU and sacrificed British productivity on the altar of European integration, who allowed this situation to form and fester.

Reforms

Will Boris Johnson grasp the nettle and carry out the major reforms needed to ensure that the current manufactured crisis doesn’t transform into a very-real one? Can he? Or, will he do as previous Prime Ministers have done and mouth a few platitudes and leave the mess for his successor to sort out?

Time will tell. But, perhaps, most of all, can the UK finally come together and face the necessary changes, or will people continue to bicker and fight whilst the country falters on the edge of the abyss?