Why should Pakistan trust us?

Distrust lies at the heart of the west’s relationship with Afghanistan and Pakistan -- but this is n

For western governments to lecture the likes of Pakistan about democracy and stability, as David Cameron did this morning, must seem a cruel joke to many in that country. Our part of the world has a long history of generously lending money to fuel violence, prop up undemocratic, often brutal regimes and exacerbate poverty.

Pakistan is a country with only 54 per cent literacy, and where 38 per cent of small children are underweight, yet it spends nearly $3bn a year servicing debts -- almost three times what the government spends on health.

Loans have flowed freely into Pakistan in order to keep favoured military governments in power, most recently that General Pervez Musharraf, when Pakistan's debt increased from $32bn to $49bn.

A recent $7.6bn International Monetary Fund loan, needed so that the country can keep paying off its old debts, is conditioned on reducing budget deficits, eliminating electricity subsidies and increasing indirect taxation. As usual, ordinary people will pay for the west's "largesse" that kept in power governments subservient to western interests.

Such injustice doesn't stop at Pakistan. Consider Indonesia, where 61 per cent of the population live on less than $2 a day. Like with India, as David Cameron reminded us this morning, fighting poverty in Indonesia will be central to the success of the Millennium Development Goals. But just like India, this seems a second-order priority compared to selling scores of Hawk fighter jets to the country.

Indonesia still owes the UK over $500m for Hawk jets and other military equipment sold to the brutal General Suharto. Suharto was guilty of crimes against humanity by any standard, killing up to a million political activists in his first year in office.

Today, Indonesia pays over $2.5m every hour to service its $150bn debts -- much run up by Suharto. Is it surprising if Indonesians think their lives matter less than the financial and strategic interests of the west?

Afghanistan has been rushed through the debt cancellation process to prevent any embarrassing examination of past lending, but has been forced to privatise its banks and will doubtless return to the same state of heavy indebtedness in years to come -- it serves the government, which needs the finances to hold on to power, and it serves the west, which needs the debts to keep control after the soldiers leave.

Control of these countries can be maintained through this same, deeply unjust economic system, through playing one faction off against another, through fighting when everything else fails to work. Democracy, stability and trust, however, require something far bolder, but not impossible.

It is possible to stop lending in such deeply unjust ways. It is possible to cancel debts based on loans that should never have been lent. It is possible to stop forcing countries to pay what they are unable to afford, or to force them to make their economies work in our interests simply because we can.

As repayments on deeply toxic debts continue to drain Muslim countries of their wealth, we need to realise that the debts, or reparations, if you prefer, that our governments owe the Muslim world are vast and rising. Trust will not be possible until they are paid.

The Jubilee Debt Campaign's "Fuelling Injustice: the Impact of Third World Debt on Muslim Countries" is available at jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.