Home » Posts tagged '1% Tobin Tax'

Tag Archives: 1% Tobin Tax


Join 17,075 other subscribers

Are British Women to Blame for High UK Immigration?

by John Brian Shannon

It’s a proven fact, men can’t bear children. Ask anyone.

Therefore, any children born in a country are going to be born to women. And before World War I, British females of child-bearing age were having 3.2 children on average which created a constant, but manageable population growth rate.

This translated into a healthy economy — all those new mouths to feed, clothe, educate and shelter — and such birthrates form the basis of every domestic economy.

In economies with a high national birthrate per fertile woman, a significant domestic economy exists and consequently, sending raw resources or manufactured goods to other countries *isn’t* required to prop up the economy.

When more people are being born than are dying every year, you have the perfect domestic economy — and exports are merely the icing on the cake — and what a ride it is when the domestic economy is growing and exports are growing every year! Woot!

That’s how Britain prospered for centuries until WWI and WWII changed all that.

Let’s Skip Over the War Part and Get to the Results

Enough has been written and filmed about Britain’s part in WWI and WWII to fill entire libraries (as it should, and to every living and long-dead veteran, thank you again for our freedom!) but for our discussion today, let’s look at how two world wars changed the demographic picture of Britain.

Women entered the formal workforce and began to earn money.

This was done because the men were away fighting a war and the country was in a desperate labour shortage. Anyone who could turn a shovel, milk a cow, assemble a rifle, or ‘man’ a telephone exchange, was put to work immediately. Some workers were barely in their teens and had plenty of responsibility on their shoulders. The British people of the last century were truly an adaptable and amazing people who rose to every challenge and succeeded. Often at great personal cost.

With most of the men away, women worked up to 16-hour shifts on farms or in factories, and still cared for their household and any children that had been born prior to the war, and Britain’s birthrate fell precipitously. In fact, the birthrate per fertile woman fell below replacement levels and the population of the country as a whole, began to fall.

No country can sustain such a falling birthrate, however due to the extremely high wartime demand for weapons and other war matériel the economy continued to function. Not as well as prior to the war mind you, but it still functioned — and apart from borrowing money on the international markets to fund the war machine — Britain’s economy remained sound. The last payment on Britain’s WWI and WWII $120 billion war debt was recently repaid in 2006.

Economic Recovery and Birthrate in the Postwar Era

The result of all this war was that there was a postwar baby boom and Britain’s economy once again began to thrive.

Two profound things changed the British economy forever in the postwar era: 1) British women were likely to put off having children and continue working, and 2) in 1961 birth control pills became available to married women and were later made available to single women.

As a result, the birthrate per fertile woman in Britain again plummeted (replacement levels in Western countries is at 2.2 babies per fertile woman) and employers were eager to employ women who were happy to work for less than half of what men earned. In some cases, women were paid only 40% of what their male counterparts earned and no one thought anything about the discrepancy — not even the women.

Women’s participation in the workforce increased, and beginning in the 1970’s the rates of pay for women began to rise and even fewer babies were born to British women who were too busy earning income to want children.

Consequently, the government was informed by industry-centric economists to open the floodgates to foreign workers (starting in 1999) to meet the demand for labour in the country (which is a different way of saying, ‘bring in the kind of workers who will work for what we used to pay the women’ e.g. 40% of the wage rate for male workers) and British profits will rise again. Indeed they did, but unemployment among British citizens rose and downward pressure on wages began to be a measurable factor.

Company profits rose, British GDP rose, productivity fell but later recovered as the foreign workers became more proficient at their jobs and had a better understanding of the English language, and domestic demand for goods and services (which every economy is built on) skyrocketed.

All of it is an astonishing success story, Britain with its wartime partners winning two world wars, rebuilding its economy in the postwar era, adding millions of women to the workforce, the introduction of pharmaceutical birth control, near-parity for women’s wages in recent years, high profits for companies and a respectable GDP growth curve.

The downside for some is that it took millions of foreign-born workers migrating to Britain to sustain growth in the UK economy because British-born women would rather work than have babies. (Just like women in other developed countries)

Which brings us to the present moment.

Would UK Women Prefer to Have Babies, or Would They Prefer to Work?

The simple answer is, if they could afford to stay home and have babies, they would. Many studies support this finding although a certain percentage of women would continue to work until their 40’s before having children.

Even in this era of cheap birth control and relatively plentiful work for women, many women would prefer to stay home and raise children. But due to lower wages as a result of massive immigration many families cannot afford to have one wage-earner staying at home to raise children.

And we all know how enormously expensive raising children can be these days.

Are There Any Solutions?

There are always solutions. The question is; Are they affordable and acceptable to the majority of citizens?

  1. Wages rise enough for one wage-earner to support the entire family and have enough money left over to take a nice, 3-week family vacation per year (like it used to be in the ‘old days’) OR,
  2. British citizens willing to go through the effort and expense of raising children must receive some kind of assistance paid by an incremental increase in the national taxation rate.

Eventually, everyone who pays taxes would be able to recoup the additional portion of the taxes paid when they themselves decide to have children.

Using a Parental Guaranteed Basic Income to Boost the UK-born Birthrate

Let’s say that UK-born ‘Richard’ and ‘Anne’ want to have children. But because of the high costs of food, clothing and shelter in the UK (which you can partially blame on high immigration loads that force-up prices) they decide they must remain working until they can afford to have children. Many Britons are caught in this trap.

Why is it a trap? Because every year they remain working, the cost of everything continues to rise and they’re no further ahead after ten hard years of effort.

Both people working + one recession = no kids. It happens over and over. Working couples barely reach a point where they feel they can afford to start a family, and BOOM! along comes a financial crisis. Bad for the baby-blanket business!

It’s typical for recessions to occur every 15-25 years. So British-born couples like Richard and Anne may never reach their goal of having children, like millions of other Britons. And if they finally get to the point where they feel they can afford a family — they’re 100 years old like Abraham and Sarah of ancient Mesopotamia.

And everyone wonders why Britain has a 1.89 birth rate per fertile woman, which is far below population replacement levels. As mentioned above, 2.2 births per fertile woman is considered replacement level in developed nations. If you want to grow the population and not just maintain the present number, then the birthrate value must rise above 2.2 births per fertile woman.

The UK has a long way to go to meet replacement levels let alone begin to increase the population!

If that’s true, why does the UK population continue to increase? One word: Immigration.

Again, the solution if you don’t want ever-increasing immigration to prop-up your population and eventually replace the UK-born people;

  • Raise wages dramatically so that one wage-earner can afford to provide for the entire family, OR,
  • Families with children receive some kind of payment from the government financed by an incremental tax increase.

For those who don’t like higher taxes, hey, that’s your right. But don’t complain when your children are the last native-born Britons in the country!

Assuming you don’t want to hand Britain over to foreigners (even though some of them are very nice) UK-born women will need to be compensated for leaving their career and raising children.

A monthly payment can make the difference between a falling or rising birthrate.

If Richard continues to work and Anne receives a Parental Guaranteed Basic Income (PGBI) of £1088 per month, it might be enough for middle class families to get by with only one wage-earner.

In this way the negative birthrate problem in the UK will eventually be righted and massive immigration loads will no longer be required to sustain the UK population / and consequent domestic economy.

More UK-born children = fewer immigrants moving to the UK

Assuming both Richard and Anne have worked since leaving school and paid their fair share of taxes, when they are ready to start a family they will do so secure in the knowledge they will be able to afford it due to the PGBI system. Richard will earn his wages and Anne will receive £1088 per month.

At income-tax time, they simply combine their income (let’s assume £80,000/yr for Richard and £13,056 for Anne) and pay the normal amount of tax on their combined income of £93,056.

If they keep their expenses low, that’s enough annual income to raise one child until he/she reaches 18 years of age.

Which is certainly cheaper for the UK than paying double that amount to host one immigrant who will send much of his/her earned money to his home country to help his or her family for as long as he/she remains in the UK.

If we’re paying thousands per month for each immigrant (directly and indirectly) to sustain the UK population, why can’t we pay Anne less than half that monthly amount to raise a UK-born child?

Eventually, Richard and Anne’s child will grow up to become a worker and he or she won’t be sending thousands of pounds sterling off to a foreign country every year (yes, the immigrants work very hard for their money — they can do what they like with it) but the UK-born child will simply spend their earnings in the UK economy, except for his/her vacations outside of the UK.

For as long as Anne stays at home raising her children she can collect the £1088 per month — until she returns to the workforce and begins earning more than that monthly amount — or when her child hits 18 years of age her payments would automatically end.

Obviously, the easiest way to run this programme is via a ‘reverse income tax’ where a person’s income, their partner and their child, all appear on the same income tax form. After filing their combined tax form, couples would be notified of their eligibility for PGBI and monthly payments would begin.

Caveat: As long as Anne is receiving any amount of income over £1088 per month, either via unemployment insurance payments, annuity payments, inheritances, lottery winnings, gifts from family members, or from whatever other source, ‘Anne’ will not qualify for the PGBI payment. If she is earning less than £1088 per month (from all sources) the PGBI programme would top-up her personal income to £1088/month.

Although it sounds expensive, it would still be cheaper by half compared to the present method of paying immigrants to keep the UK population at a sustainable level and thereby keeping consumer demand high in the overall economy.

How to Pay for This?

Britons are already paying for it… TWICE OVER!

Each immigrant represents a significant cost to the British taxpayer, (and yes, they do work very hard to earn a living in the UK, no one is denying that) but in addition to using infrastructure and services in the country just like everyone else, there is a cost differential of about £100,000 per immigrant over their lifetime.

The Home Office / Border Force must devote considerable time and effort to immigrants with some costs happening even before the migrant lands in Britain.

Immigrants receive the same benefits as UK citizens such as welfare payments, and cost the government in other ways, including police, court, and incarceration costs, higher than average security and certain administration costs that are unique to immigrants — and they displace UK-born workers as they’re willing to work for lower wages.

In addition, they send billions of pounds sterling home every year. The figure of £20 billion per year is most often used — but it is likely much higher. Forget about official statistics, the UK government (like most governments) only records those foreign remittances that people volunteer (£3.2 billion) to share with the government. Banks and wire transfer services like Western Union know the real deal on foreign remittances.

And that’s costly to the UK economy. Just divide £20 billion by the 8 million foreign-born residents in the country and you’ll see how costly ‘foreign remittances’ are for the United Kingdom.

The final note on foreign remittances is terrifying. Such payments are notoriously difficult to prove, but the £20 billion/yr number is a guesstimate. It’s widely acknowledged that UK foreign remittances may be double that amount, and could in the very worst-case scenario top £56 billion per year. And you don’t want to know the grand total of foreign remittances since 1999. No matter the number, it’s a lot of money leaving the UK that will never, ever, return.

What could those billions have done for the UK economy? We’ll never know.

‘Cutting Our Losses’ Covers Half of the Cost of a Parental GBI, but More Tax?

In addition to lowering immigration to low levels because UK-born women would be having more babies — there would need to be an incremental tax increase.

A Tobin Tax is simply a tax on all financial transactions in the country. It’s called an ‘invisible tax’ because banks and retailers simply add an internal 1% tax to each and every financial transaction and remit the revenue to the government annually.

  • Buy or sell some stock, it costs you 1% more than at present.
  • Buy a beer, it costs you 1% more than at present.
  • Take £100 from the ATM (yes, that’s a financial transaction) and the bank charges you 1% on the total amount.
  • Buy some petrol and 1% is automatically added to the cost.

Basically, whatever you purchase is going to cost you 1% more unless it’s something that costs more than £100,000 — because you pay the Tobin Tax only on the first £100,000 on any individual purchase. Which is nice when you’re buying an Airbus A350 or other large purchase.

Yes, nobody likes higher taxes that’s for certain. But there’s no rule that the Tobin Tax must be set as high as 1%. A Tobin Tax could be used to fund special projects like a GBI for UK parents only — in which case it could be set at .2% on individual purchases.

It’s your choice.

Does lower immigration, lower foreign remittance levels, more UK-born children to keep the population stable, and more jobs for Britons matter to you? Or does a Parental GBI funded by a .2% Tobin Tax nullify those gains?

Let us know in the comments!

Population & Density Charts for the United Kingdom 1950 – 2020

UK population pyramid information 1950 - 2020. Images courtesy of PopulationPyramid net

UK population pyramid information 1950 – 2020. Images courtesy of PopulationPyramid.net



The Synergy of Quintile Economics

by John Brian Shannon | November 1, 2016

How Britain could use Quintile economics (Q-economics) to Build a Better Britain

In 2016, the population of the United Kingdom is sixty-five million people. When we divide the UK population into five equal parts, we see that we have five groups of thirteen million citizens. (65,000,000 / 5 = 13,000,000)

Let’s do as the economists and call each group of thirteen million people, one distinct economic quintile.

In the economic quintile system, each group is further classified by annual income, with the top thirteen million listed as the top fifth of income earners in the country, while the bottom thirteen million are listed as the lowest income earners, etc.

We see in the chart below how the various quintiles fare in regards to original income (wages), final income (wages + tax credits + investment income), and the all-important disposable income

The Synergy of Quintile Economics in the UK.

The Synergy of Quintile Economics in the UK. Image courtesy of the UK Office of National Statistics.

Clearly, the top two quintiles are in no economic distress, contributing significantly to their own lives and to the overall UK economy.

The top two quintiles are also known for paying their fair share in every way except for their inordinately high CO2 emission levels (larger homes, more vehicles per person with much-poorer fuel economy, and frequent air travel) and the cost of policing and security for higher income earners is much higher per capita compared to the other quintiles.

Yet, it works for those fortunate enough to be in (or born into) the top two quintiles and it works for Britain’s economy.

When we look at the third quintile group incomes of £26,669 (original income) £33,758 (final income) and £25,833 (disposable income) economists see a healthy middle income group — even when measured against other developed nation third quintiles.

Thus far, we have three groups of thirteen million people that (at least, economically-speaking) are faring well in a developed nation economy. Each of those thirty-nine million people are either holding steady or improving their economic position, and one would like to think that they are doing the same in regards to their overall life satisfaction. All of those people (with the exception of CO2 emission levels) are paying their way and are no drain on the UK economy. So far, so good!

The second quintile numbers are challenging. With group incomes of £13,462 (original income) £22,337 (final income) and £19,251 (disposable income) this group is definitely suffering, often face unemployment or are permanently unemployed due to the offshoring of manufacturing jobs — a process which began in the 1980’s. These people through no fault of their own and probably doing their best to succeed in life, simply haven’t had the opportunity, nor (perhaps) the higher education to allow them to join the higher economic quintiles.

In the end, they probably contribute as much as they take from the UK economy. And their overall life satisfaction is likely to be low. The first and second quintiles are also the most vocal and unlikely to vote for incumbent politicians.

Finally, we get to discuss the bottom quintile group with group incomes of £6146 (original income) £13,841 (final income) and £11,883 (disposable income)

Either because of young age/entry-level work or part-time work, or diminishing opportunities in their chosen career, or poor opportunities for higher education in their younger years (in the case of older members of this group) this quintile suffers from low income, much poorer health, poorer housing, and lower life satisfaction index scores. They also die younger, spend more time in hospitals, and as a quintile have more dealings with police and security agencies. Through no fault of their own (as offshoring of jobs isn’t their fault, nor is increased immigration where lower paying jobs are taken by cheaper labour immigrant workers) this group costs the UK economy billions of pounds sterling every year.

If there were jobs available for the people in the bottom quintile they would take them, and no longer find themselves in the bottom fifth with all the attendant costs to themselves, their families, and to UK society

But the simple fact is, in the UK there are many more people looking for work, than there are jobs available — and this is particularly true since the beginning of the influx of eastern European immigrants and immigrants from other regions.

While the highest income quintile costs UK society via extremely high CO2 emissions and policing and security costs — the lowest quintile costs the UK via higher healthcare, crime, policing and incarceration, and social welfare programme spending.

And much worse than all of that, is the lost opportunity that these people represent for themselves and for the UK. This group also has (by far) the lowest life satisfaction levels and the highest suicide rate of all the quintiles. Yet, little is being done to resolve this poorly-understood strata of UK society.

There are three well understood paths to help the bottom-two quintiles (which applies in all developed nations, not only in the UK) which I can briefly touch on here:

  1. Short term: So-called ‘Helicopter Money’ where the government simply provides more money to the lowest economic quintile. It’s true, the money must come from somewhere and such spending is often resented by taxpayers who themselves, may have benefited from a better education, or inherited money, or both. However, whether £200 billion (for example) is spent on the social costs that are directly attributable to poverty (a combination of social welfare payments, higher healthcare costs, crime, policing/incarceration, and ‘other’ costs) or whether it is spent on helicopter money — it still totals £200 billion! Although, spending on Helicopter Money would have the added benefit of dramatically reducing poverty-induced homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare, healthcare wait times for all healthcare users, crime against persons and property, while insurance rates would fall and the UK would see a lower suicide rate due to higher life satisfaction levels among those in the bottom two quintiles.
  2. Middle term: Job retraining. Although it’s true that there are many more job-seekers in Britain than there are jobs available, some people that are willing and physically able to work will choose independence from social welfare programmes and thereby increase their personal income and life satisfaction. In a time of increasing unemployment, job retraining programmes are of little value. However, during a time of increasing employment, job retraining programmes score a triple-win — with lower unemployment insurance spending and lower social welfare spending, as retrained people are working and contributing to society, paying taxes, and supporting their own families — instead of being homeless, committing crimes and ending up in the hospital, prison, or both.
  3. Long term: Many countries now provide ‘one tuition-free university degree’ to each citizen. Each additional degree must then be paid for by the student, or by a sponsor. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Chile, and others, have various programmes whereby citizens can obtain one or more university degrees with no tuition cost for students. Notably, these countries have higher life satisfaction and boast much lower crime statistics when compared to similar developed nations without tuition-free university opportunities. In the United States, those who sign-up for military service under the ROTC programme gain one free college degree in addition to receiving valuable military training and post-military job placement assistance. Britain could offer ‘One Free University Degree in exchange for Gap Year Military Service’ allowing students to take a year off from scholastic learning (their Gap Year) and enter military service as a cadet. At the end of that year, they will have tuition equivalent to obtaining one university degree waiting for them at selected colleges or universities in the UK.

Which is best? All three!

If the UK simply increased social welfare spending to £1088. per month, that replaces all other social welfare spending — for unemployed persons over the age of 19, or to top-up the wages of those stuck in low paying full-time or part-time jobs, or to top-up pensioners on low incomes — all of that additional money instantly becomes available to local economies.

People who earn or receive £1088. per month (£1088. per month is a standard anti-poverty metric) do not have the ability to save money in the bank! Every pound sterling would be immediately returned to the local economy every single month; in rent payments, sales at the grocery store, hardware store, pharmacy, etc. — and if a person is looking for employment, at the barber or hair salon, and the (work clothing) store.

And due to all of that additional spending, personal income tax, business tax, and government sales tax revenue would be significantly higher, while small business bankruptcies would plummet as presently marginal businesses would see definite sales increases.

It would represent an incredible boon to the overall economy, and small business in the UK would receive additional billions of pounds per year — replacing all those billions going to homelessness and addiction programmes, to additional policing and court and incarceration costs, and to untold property damage and harm to persons from those people who feel they have ‘nothing to lose’ — all of which is paid for ultimately, by taxpayers.

If you’re a British taxpayer, where would you rather your tax money be spent? On astronomical policing, court and incarceration costs that the government won’t ever divulge (because there would be a taxpayer revolt!) or spending it to allow people to live decent lives for the same, or much less cost per year?

It isn’t about a ‘free ride’ for those who choose not to work, as Britain has millions more job-seekers than there are jobs available year-in and year-out (as in all developed nations) it’s about choosing to spend taxpayer money on the obscene social costs of poverty — or choosing to spend the same amount or less, on supporting local business.

It really is about the economy! It’s about appropriate job retraining programmes that meet the wildly varying needs of each particular decade. And it’s about one tuition-free college degree for a better educated Britain, via Gap Year military service.

How to pay for all of that?

Increasing social welfare spending to £1088. per month, means that policing, court and incarceration costs, homelessness and drug addiction costs, property crime costs and insurance rates, etc. would fall dramatically. Yes, there might even be an opportunity for savings once that programme would be completely rolled-out!

Highly adaptable job-retraining programmes geared towards the needs of the end-user (UK business) might well incur some additional costs compared to the presently available job-retraining programmes.

And the ‘One Tuition-Free University Degree’ costs would be borne by the UK military, as it would be the entity charged with paying for each cadet’s tuition after they have completed one full year of military service.

So yes, in totality, there would be some financial cost, but many societal benefits.

An unobtrusive 1% Tobin Tax could pay for simplified and more effective Social Welfare Spending, more appropriate Job-retraining and One Tuition-Free College Degree per student

There is one very-easy-on-the-taxpayer way to afford this (and, Bonus!) allow the government to never run a budget deficit again — by instituting a 1% Tobin Tax (a 1% tax on every financial transaction) that would cost each individual taxpayer a tiny fraction of their total investment spending, and for those who invest little it would affect them little.

As Prime Minister Theresa May has implied, Building a Better Britain is not about ‘doing the same things over and over while expecting a different result’ — it’s about looking at what works well in other developed nations and adapting it to Britain’s case. Sooner, rather than later.

Brexit and Enhanced Commonwealth

by John Brian Shannon | June 25, 2016

When a thing isn’t working, it’s time to quit. Whether it’s a marriage or a political union there comes a time to say a respectful ‘goodbye’.

And it appears howevermuch joining the EU has propelled the UK economy, the social cost of millions of eastern European economic migrants and Levant refugees streaming into the UK is higher than British citizens are comfortable with.

The raison d’être for the creation of the EU is quite wonderful — inspired even. But there can be a difference between the theory of a thing and what has actually occurred.

Sir Winston Churchill information courtesy of Gov. UK

Scary statistics were trotted out in order to push UK citizens into voting to stay in the European Union, but when analyzed turned out to be speculative, at best.

It looks like the EU project is in trouble. I wish them well, and I hope they solve their problems.

In the meantime, the UK must do what is best for the UK

And in my opinion, that means inviting like-minded nations to join The Commonwealth with the goal of increasing economic and social integration with those sovereign northern European nations. (Norway never joined the EU, Switzerland recently left the EU, and the Scandinavian nations are gone as soon as the first opportunity appears that meets optics standards)

If the UK, the Scandinavian countries and Ireland form a loose economic and social cooperative union (or even better, become members of a re-energized Commonwealth) it will immediately boost economic and social metrics across those nations without the downsides of EU membership.

Without wishing any harm to the EU; The European Union can better concentrate on southern European issues with Germany and France leading the way, and without northern European concerns to complicate things.

The question is; Do we choose safe, or do we choose Carpe Diem?

The European Union is deep in it’s own problems for the foreseeable future and in that context I made the case for the UK to leave the EU. As there’s no precedent, it could now become anything the UK government wants it to become.

How about this?

  1. The UK adopts a similar relationship to the EU as Norway and Switzerland.
  2. The UK invites Scandinavian nations and Ireland to become part of The Commonwealth.
  3. The UK institutes a 1% Tobin Tax, keeping one-quarter of one percent for administrative purposes, and remits the remaining three-quarters of one percent to the IMF — to be held in a special account that only the UK government can spend on the UK and on other Commonwealth nations.
  4. Every Commonwealth nation should phase-in a 1% Tobin Tax over a 5-year period. And just as in the UK, one-quarter of one percent would be retained by each Commonwealth nation to cover collection and administration costs of the Tobin Tax.
  5. It’s obvious that a trillion pounds of Tobin Tax revenue would accrue rather quickly — and be available to each Commonwealth nation to spend in any other Commonwealth nation. (Need a new SASOL headquarters in London? Perhaps you need to double the export capacity in the port of Accra? Or with the proper funding you can finally build that 1 GigaWatt wind farm and export billions of dollars/pounds/rands worth of electricity to neighbouring countries. Now you have instant funding!)
  6. If you’re the UK there’s one thing you want, countries lining up to join The Commonwealth. And soon contributing their own Tobin Tax revenue to the special IMF account used (only) to strengthen trade links with other Commonwealth economies.
  7. The ultimate goal, would be for the entire Commonwealth to copy the Norwegian economic model (as much as is reasonably possible) in order to attain Norway’s enviable statistics — such as the world’s highest per capita income, among the world’s highest productivity, free university for all citizens and residents and (related to that) among the lowest crime rate in the world, and so much more. Keep in mind Norway’s very high-ranking on the Social Progress Index and on the UN Happiness Index (free PDF downloads for both) And remember, all positive economic indicators flow from those statistics — not the other way around.

The question would then become;
“Which country wouldn’t want to join The Commonwealth?”

Commonwealth countries, plus Scandinavian countries 2016

In this, the 21st-century, it should never be a case of looking at a glass, half-full. It should always be about creating a massively better system. One that is a whole order of magnitude better than the presently sputtering economic model.

Previous generations of politicians rose to meet the challenges of their time, and likewise the UK government must also rise to the so-called challenges of our time.

But meeting the challenges of our time must be considered passé as the UK is sufficiently advanced that it should blow past the challenges of our time in the same way a Bentley Mulsanne Speed blows past an economy car on the M6 motorway.

Who Should Lead an Empowered Commonwealth?

Whomever is the most recently dismissed Prime Minister of any Commonwealth country should (within 180 days of losing office) be appointed to the top job — Secretary General of The Commonwealth.

In that way, a flow of different approaches from highly empowered and knowledgeable people will lead The Commonwealth of Nations and each former PM will undoubtedly leave their stamp on the broad policies of that organization.

A former Indian Prime Minister sitting as Secretary General might advance the cause of microgrid power generation across all developing Commonwealth nations, while the next SecGen (from the UK for example) might take up the cause of getting resources from all Commonwealth nations to China and other major markets. And during the time of an African Secretary General of The Commonwealth, the preferred cause might be improvement of all Commonwealth port facilities in order to dramatically expedite trade — getting Commonwealth goods to every market, faster, fresher, and better.

What matters to me, is that each Secretary General leaves a positive impact on The Commonwealth using his or her unique worldview, experience, contacts and ability.

It will be this synergy that will make The Commonwealth all that it can and should be.

The Commonwealth of Nations is a group of interdependent countries.

“The Commonwealth is a name for countries which were part of the British Empire before they became independent. This group of states works together on many important matters, like business, health and the fight against poverty.” — Wikipedia

Related Articles:

%d bloggers like this: