So-why would anyone love a World Government anyway?

Recently we approached one of the sharpest minds in the UK with our thoughts on the nation state. To our immense honour they replied. Please understand that, although we must protect their confidentiality, these are their exact words:

….. the core paradox today is that countries have to be small to get a real sense of citizen accountability – but big to grapple with these problems of security and prosperity. Therein lies the size conundrum………….

And we hope that the following anecdote illustrates why they are right.

Yesterday, while wandering at leisure on England’s south coast, we came across a seafront meeting of locals who had convened to discuss ways of improving their town, which they held to be in Decline. Before anyone sneers, let us record how moved we were that they had turned out at all, and how assiduously they strived to avoid dragging in wider political allegiances. Their concerns were local indeed:-flower beds, and the colours of bus shelters, mainly. Their hostility common- a deep suspicion of their local council and all its works. Which is shortly to be replaced by a merger with certain neighbouring towns, a prospect greeted with general dismay.

It follows that, if they were so suspicious of their local council- the very first and most immediate layer of their government- how much more suspicious might they be of a World Government? And not just them, but people everywhere, from the High Arctic to the projected colonies on the Moon? What makes people cling so jealously to the local and the tangible? We confidently tell them that Big offers Defence, Economies of scale, Energy grids, Supply chains, AI, biotech, cyber capacity and Climate resilience. Plus the World Cup. And quite rightly they counter that Small offers meaningful scrutiny, power where the scale is human, that corruption is easier to spot, that leaders are socially legible (you can imagine them in your local pub), not a distant man in a suit reading from an autocue. Policy feedback loops are brief too, meaning decisions have immediate consequences political pressure works-and you see where your money is going. That is a strong set of arguments, tuned to the way people are. Should we close down this whole LSS trope of World Government, and concentrate instead on flower beds and bus shelters?

Perhaps. And perhaps not. Even the most well-kept flower beds cannot escape the droughts of climate change for ever, nor the neatest town the effects of rising seas. The threats in the world will require collective action sooner or later. While the things they love like beer, cars and chocolate are supplied from the efficiencies of world markets, the very antithesis of the local and the particular. But so far all arguments on our side have been based on reason and evidence. Which can never win the emotional loyalty which those who tell stories about Tribe and Location currently scoop with ease. It is time for us to look for stories of our own. Which can offer so much more.

#world government #accountability #politics #economics #history #power

Chikungunya: another potential Climate Change epidemic?

News that we’re in for a record El Niño[1] this year brings a depressing thought is Climate Change going to deliver a whole new wave of tropical diseases alongside all those floods. fires and migrations? We’ve touched on this before (LSS 25 10 21,14 11 23, 2 10 25) but had rather hoped that it had all gone away. It hasn’t, as this excellent article by Shivali Best of the Mail [2] explains in forensic detail. And it’s her work we’ll be riffing on today, with a little help other sources.[3]

Shivali takes Chikungunya virus as her theme. It’s a nasty little disease caused by an alphavirus of the Togaviridae group. Discovered in Tanzania in 1952 it delivers a painful cocktail of symptoms including fever and severe joint pains: the latter may be extremely debilitating and long-lasting. But the real problem lies in its vectors, the famous yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti and the scarily named tiger mosquito (a. albopictus) Do they call it that because of its bite? Not only does climate change allow these insects to spread to lands where the cold had formerly precluded their presence. The same warming allows the virus to breed up to five times faster inside the mosquito. Before you ask: there are vaccines of sorts underway: but progress has been slowed because most of the money has been spent on wars and shopping malls.

And so Chikungunya joins the long sorry list of diseases spreading due to global warming. To which we could append Malaria, Dengue, Zika, Lyme, Tick Born Encephalitis, Vibrio group……..enough! LSS readers are a well-informed lot. They know what’s happening. They know why. The real task before us all is how to clear up the damage, and make those culpable pay for it

[1]Prepare for El Niño, UN warns – it could be the strongest in decades – BBC News

[2]Chikungunya virus is heading for Europe: Scientists warn mosquito-borne tropical disease could spread to major cities thanks to climate change | Daily Mail

[3]Chikungunya fact sheet

#chikungunya #malaria #climate change #disease #vector #epidemic #health #mosquito

Labour’s troubles are historic, not just economic

One thing we like about Larry Elliott of the Guardian: he always looks for deeper reasons behind the news stories flashing across our screens. For him, they’re often economic reasons. .[1] Today he examines the plight of UK Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the sea of troubles against which he has tried to take arms. Brexit,(“not done properly” Elliott asseverates ) globalisation (“has mainly benefitted the South East”), too much financial services ,and of course de-industrialisation. Especially in the old manufacturing areas like the Midlands, the North of England and the Scottish river valleys. Where Starmer and his party received such a kicking in the recent local elections. It was that last one that caught our eye, gentle readers.

For what was the Labour Party but a Party of the mass industrialised workers? From its foundation, in deep partnership with the Trades Unions and Co-Operative movement, but a Party of workers, who had been torn off their farms and thrown together into mass agglomerations in things like factories, mines and ports? Whose consciousness and very lives were collective, where sharing was a more certain way to survive hardship. But now those factories are gone. And the industrial unions with them. (for the benefit of foreign readers, Britain has an atrophied group of unions, but they now largely represent small groups of white collar workers and count for little in the balance of power).

For us the clue is in the name: the party of Keir Hardie grew from an organised, industrial membership. The Party of Keir Starmer exists in a very different nation. The politics of the 20th century were all about economics Those of the 21^st about Identity. No wonder Labour got such a kicking. No wonder the Conservatives did too. A very different road now lies ahead. In every country.

[1] Labour is being destroyed by dithering: it should either do Brexit properly or rejoin the EU | Larry Elliott | The Guardian

[2] Labour Party (UK) – Wikipedia

#Keir Starmer #Keir Hardie #Labour Party #economics #politics #history #society #britain

No Pandemic this time: but what happens next?

While we sympathise with the unfortunate passengers and crew of the MV Hondius who may have been exposed to the hantavirus, our first response was rather selfish; “is this a new pandemic, and if so, how bad will it be?” We were not alone: and fortunately, as this excellent summary article from Julia Musto of the Independent, via MSN, explains: humanity seems to have dodged the bullet this time [1] Although utterly dangerous the virus just doesn’t seem to spread with the same facility as others such as SARS-CoV-2, or the influenza group. So that’s alright then.

Or is it? Because as certain as the House always winning, another pandemic will come along. Bringing the same economic, social and physical disruptions as COVID 19 did back in 2020. Or worse maybe. Surely humanity has learned some lessons from that catastrophe? Taken steps, you might think, to mitigate the worst effects and learn to pool our resources so that next time round everything will be different? Not according to Kat Lay of the Guardian [2] whose indefatigable investigations have unearthed another avoidable catastrophe in the making.

Because although a Pandemic Treaty has been signed , it cannot go into effect until a special clause called a Pabs (Pathogen access and benefits sharing) has been ratified. It hasn’t, as regular readers will be unsurprised to learn. The result is:

“If a new pathogen emerged today, the world remains largely unprepared for it. A lack of action to prevent and prepare for the next pandemic threat is a disservice to humanity,”

Kat cites the usual litany of petty squabbles, mutual jealousies and general misinformations which have led us all into this sorry plight and ends her article there.

But we, gentle readers, cannot quite leave you without adding our own thought. Natural Selection tells us that species go extinct when their key survival features are no longer adequate to their environment (what use are flippers to a whale out of water, for example?) Humanity’s key advantage was its intelligence and relatively large brain. Is this clear example of the failure to use this clear cognitive advantage a sign of even worse things to come?

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/general/could-cruise-boat-hantavirus-be-the-next-global-pandemic/ar-AA22CAGh?

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/may/05/talks-stall-on-who-pandemic-treaty-global-response-disease-outbreaks?CM

[3] MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak – Wikipedia

#hantavirus #pandemic #covid 19 #WHO #health #medicine #virus

Beyond the Nation State #6: The Cost of Nations

Identity, it is said, is the most important thing a People can have. So what better way to guarantee that identity than by taking back control and assuring it inside a sovereign nation state.? It’s a very popular policy at the moment, so there must be advantages. But it’s worth at least noting the counterfactual argument, because it has consequences for what we try do here.

If you’re going to have a sovereignty worthy of the name, you must have the following: Defence, Intelligence, Borders, Customs, Taxes, Tariffs, Executive, Legislature, Judiciary, Foreign ministry ,Legal system, Central bank, Currency, Police and Regulators. To say nothing of the fixed obligations such as pensions you inherited from the larger state you have left. You could opt for health education, culture, policy, tourism and transport as well; but these are discretionary. So could smaller entities bear all these costs if they went it alone? Could California? (large-ish) Wales?(medium) Or Jersey? (rather small, with due respect). Take Wales as a hypothesis : let’s say the UK spends £50 billion on Defence and Wales is 3.1% of its population. That ratio would entitle an independent Wales to £1.5 billion. Would they be as well defended? The answer is no. For one thing they would have to set up entirely new structures of command, procurement, intelligence and all the other essentials of a modern force. Secondly, there is the brute fact that larger purchases always generate cheaper prices for anything Defensive-aeroplanes, tanks, guns, even the dusting cloths you need to keep them clean. Bulk purchase means cheaper unit cost. And it works the other way. Even a superb Welsh manufacturer of tanks would only enjoy tiny assured domestic markets, making its borrowing and production costs prohibitive in a world market. That is why American giants like Ford and General Motors thrived in the twentieth century: they had fixed access to the largest Single Market then available. That is why nations which have tried to downsize, like the UK after Brexit, have struggled so badly ever since.

The argument to grow polities into larger units is the same as that for growing companies. Economy of scale and stripping out fixed costs. A World Government would only need one of each the exhaustive list above. Imagine the procurement advantages in any number of things-medicines, schoolbooks, computers or even those wretched dusters again. What a saving for taxpayers! A single world Ministry of Defence would enjoy the highest possible bargaining power against its suppliers, cutting the cost of the $2.7 trillion we spend as a planet on defence by whole orders of magnitude. Of course, if there were a World Government most defence spending would become unnecessary anyway, as most nations’ armies exist sole to defend against other nations’ armies. But that’s something for another day

#nation state #history #politics #economics #world government

Things Beyond the Nation State #1 Introduction

Identity, belonging and how this species organises itself in groups has been a recurrent theme on this blog since we started back in the pandemic days of 2020. We’ve surveyed the work of theorists like Amy Chua: pondered sports affiliation, tribe and nation, and the several ways of belonging to each. Considered experiments in psychology and behaviour. Even speculated if there might be a World Government waiting in the decades to come. Yet up to now nothing has superseded the Nation State as the only successful and enduring method of organising our multifarious hostile tribes into larger confederations. By which they obtain common benefits of defence and low mutual trading barriers, the two sine qua nones of all statecraft. (everything else is method)

The trouble with this comforting settlement is size. Each little kingdoms of Anglo Saxon England-Wessex, Mercia and the rest-was perfectly able to provide its residents needs for hundreds of years. Until a bunch of pesky Vikings came along and nearly drove them all to utter destruction. Only by forming a larger unit, England, were the Anglo Saxons able to survive and prevail: And England became their nation in turn. A lesson repeated across many lands and times. So powerful that it begs the question: are our current polities, even the largest, now too small too indebted, to mutually jealous, to cope with the existential questions now born into the world? We repeat: this is not a call to abolish nation states which can and should continue to exist, But it may be a call for a next tier or organisation to act on those problems, and only those problems, which only it has the competence to address.

We think those problems are Global Warming, Pollution, Migration, sudden Catastrophes like pandemics, economic Inequality and Security risks from things like AI and nuclear weapons All are pressing and all interconnected at some level or other. You may suggest more, gentle readers. But in the next few weeks we will do our best to list them into some sort of order and try to consider some of the problems they pose, for you to think about. For we know of few hard and fast answers. We hope you will join us on this journey and will welcome your comments, suggestions and ideas. Keep ‘em coming.

#global warming #nuclear war #pandemic #volcano #AI #pollution #economics #history

R+D=GDP A maths lesson the Swiss can teach the world

Sit quietly in any pub or cafe and you will soon learn why the economy is performing so badly. Most of the diagnoses centre round a few simple tropes: wages are too high, holidays too long, taxes are too heavy, hours worked are too short…….Now, we would not dare to cross the opinions of the towering intellects you find in the bar of the Dog and Duck (it’s physically unsafe anyway ) But we dare to offer an alternative explanation for why economic growth works so well for some countries, just for your consideration, gentle readers. And the answer is: the amount that each country spends on Research and Development,

Let’s take Switzerland as our shiny example. It’s a tiny country constituting only 0.1% of the world’s population. But its R and D spend (3.4% of GDP) puts at 6th place in the global ranking of R&D. The result is a highly diverse export orientated economy, a well embedded public-private sector ecosystem of research institutes, universities schools and so on. All of which puts it almost at the top of the GDP per head league. . There are local advantages: it has strong stable institutions, membership of the EU single market and a low defence spend. Other countries share all or some of these advantages to a greater or lesser extent. We could argue for paragraphs about the pull and tug of these various factors. But we think one lesson is unavoidable, writ both large and small

Writ large, technology is the true game changer for economies. The advent of steam power in the industrial revolution utterly transformed both the out put and wealth of the nations which adopted it. However many hours humans and their animals laboured, they could never match the colossal output capabilities of powered engines. And technology only grows from a huge ecosystem of more general research and scholarship. Current debates aside, Industrial Revolutions are rare. But they can be mimicked by a pipeline of small steady innovations in many fields, which achieve the same things. This is the lesson writ small, which the Swiss have learned par excellence. Tap room philosophers may be excellent at the book keeping needs of their various small enterprises. But they are blind to the bigger lessons: on this matter and many others.

[1]https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/research-and-development

[2]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023591/niesr-report.pdf

#R&D #science #technology #universities #investment #GDP growth

Stanford’s new discovery is a marvel-but can we really call it a vaccine?

Today we are happy to present one of the best news stories we’ve ever covered in our long years on this blog. It’s the announcement of a new type of vaccine from Stanford University. But it’s so mind bogglingly different from all the others we’ve come across that we genuinely wonder if it should be called vaccine at all! The details may be found in this crisp article from the excellent James Gallagher of the BBC [1] Essentially, it’s a nasal spray, so far tested only in mice, that offers protection against several viruses including colds, flu and COVID 19. Also against bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus and Acinetobacter baumannii, two long known antibiotic resistant inhabitants of these pages.

Now, traditional vaccines have worked the same way ever since the pioneering work of Jenner. One organism=one vaccine, with the immune system trained to recognise one small target area of the invading organism. It’s as precise as a sniper; but can only ever protect you against one disease. The brilliant team at Stanford have taken an utterly new approach and decided to tackle the pathway by which a whole bunch or organisms make their attack. In this case the lungs. So it doesn’t matter if you are hit with a COVID 19 virus, the common cold, flu, the bacterial chums we noted above or even certain allergens. The macrophages of the lungs have been fired up and stand ready to repel any hostile borders-and will remain that way for several months[2]

Right, back to the question we started with: as this is so different from anything we were taught in school, can we really call it a vaccine? Well. If you define a vaccine as “ a molecular entity that trains the immune system to respond more effectively to a future biological threat” then yes, it is. But compared to the old ones it is a conceptual leap of awesome power. We doubt it will replace “old -skool” specific vaccines; their efficacy is just too good to waste. But as a completely new, game changing intellectual concept-well we think the sky’s the limit

[1] Single vaccine could protect against all coughs, colds and flus, researchers say – BBC News

[2] Science (2026)
“An intranasal vaccine activating innate immune danger pathways protects mice against diverse respiratory pathogens.”
Published: 19 February 2026

Lead author: Dr. Olivia Martinez, PhD
Stanford University School of Medicine
Department of Microbiology & Immunology

#health #vaccine #colds #flu #antibiotic resistance #virus #bacteria #immune system

Everyone hates Keir. Here’s why

As we write. the current troubles of UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer are profound. One of the reasons they are so bad is that, almost before he took office, almost no one has warmed to him: many evince active dislike. Meaning this serious, intelligent man can draw on no reserves of public goodwill in the way that a more raffish character like say Boris Johnson could. Why?

We think part of the answer lies in this article by Larry Elliott. For it charts Britain’s fall from manufacturing powerhouse to fragile services-led house of cards in a few punchy paragraphs, while noting China’s almost inverse trajectory to high tech manufacturing superpower. How so? Elliott compares the policies of two politicians who took power at around the same time in their respective nations: Deng Xiaoping and Margaret Thatcher. While the former did everything he could to foster manufacturing, the latter, a true disciple of unfettered free markets, believed:

…… market forces should determine which businesses thrived. If Britain excelled in financial and business services……… That’s what the country should concentrate its efforts on, while other nations made the ships and the machine tools

Underwritten by the short term unearned bonanza of North Sea Oil, this catechism was applied unchecked. With the results we see today. No British Government will ever again have the resources to satisfy the clamours of its citizens-for hospitals, for thriving high streets and clean water, nor create the booming economy they crave. But, used to abundant wealth and easy answers, these citizens still think like spoiled heirs burning through the last remains of the family patrimony. So any sensible family lawyer like Starmer, who tries to utter the self-earned nature of their plight, will pass unheeded, or worse, actively scorned. Such people will always prefer a story teller to a truth teller. And for a way forward? Restore manufacturing, to which end Elliott has some policy recommendations of course . But his real answer is psychological, not economic.

The bottom line is that to rebuild manufacturing Britain has to see the world through the prism of a developing country not a developed one.

In other words -forget its pride.

[1] How can Britain regain its manufacturing power? Start thinking like a developing country | Larry Elliott | The Guardian

#economics #UK #China #Deng Xiaoping #Margaret Thatcher #manufacturing #politics

Narco Warriors: brilliant new podcast on the war that’s shaped two centuries

Photo by Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs on Pexels.com

We’ve always been pretty much against the illegal drugs trade, if that is still a safe thing to say. For its reach and power give it the heft of many a nation. Its turnover is estimated to be between $300-$600 billion per year. If you throw in all the deaths-from assassinations, associated diseases and economic disruption, then these at 500 000 a year are more than many nations’ mortality statistics. And like any State, it has organised armed soldiers, trained and ready to kill. No wonder so much effort has gone in to controlling the sale and distribution of illegal drugs since the nineteenth century. when the Chinese attempted to control the illegal importation of opium. Narco Warriors, a podcast series from highly experienced journalist Lindsay Charlton is the latest attempt to chronicle the long decades of this deadly and interminable war.

Charlton and his team of researchers have assembled hardened veterans of the war-customs officers, investigators, police officers- as well as those who operate in its shadowy intelligence led nooks and corners. The listener is taken on a vast sweep of lands and seas, of shootings, confrontations, agency turf wars and many earnest intelligent brave people trying to do the best jobs they can for their countries. And we salute them, above all for their endless dedication to the public good: for its clear that people of this calibre could have made a lot more money a lot more safely in many other walks of life. And there we might end it. Except for one thought, which that old Devil has just come round and whispered into our ear.

What is a drug anyway? If you say that cannabis, cocaine and heroin are highly dangerous and addictive substances, then you must say the same for alcohol and nicotine. But these are sold openly on the streets in many western countries. Indeed the attempt by the United States to prohibit alcohol from 1919 to 1933 was one of the most unhappy and unsuccessful enterprises which that country ever undertook . For one thing, it was an object lesson in facilitating the rise of violent organised crime, a historical irony not without relevance to present policy. The real problem is that the appetite for cocaine, heroin and alcohol are all driven by human demand. Gangsters are simply those capitalists who supply the illegitimate part and operate according to the same laws of supply and demand as their peers in legal sectors of the economy. As for that demand -there is strong evidence that it is fuelled by rampant economic inequality and the associated poor housing and social and economic insecurity which that entails. In which case the State’s resources would be better spent on building homes, schools and raising the minimum wage rather than on all those flashy speedboats and burly types in uniforms. But: society made its choices long ago, and who are we to call them wrong? If you want to know the consequences of those choices, told by the people who were there, then listen to the first episode [1] And all the subsequent ones of course!

[1]https://audioboom.com/posts/8855552-narco-terrorism-the-forever-war

#drugs #addiction #narcotrafficers #law enforcement #police #transport #smugglingm #opium wars