Nobody who voted, either way, can claim to have understood the full implications of a 'Remain' or of a 'Leave' vote in the 2016 Referendum on Britain's place in the European Union.
It is almost certain that the great proponents of Remain - Cameron, Clegg and scaremaster Osborne - had no idea in advance how they would interpret, then implement, the Leave vote that occurred. Cameron ran away from responsibility:and even a gold-plated palace would not be a sufficient environment in which to write the exculpatory memoirs from which he hopes to make a pile of pennies. The fact that he has bought a sort of gypsy caravan, reminiscent of certain dead children's writers, for the purpose displays his ability to compound folly with ever-deeper illusion. Since the guilty men and their followers [and their mentors] had put the question to the nation, they should at the very least have had transparent contingent plans. They evidently did not. Nor did the civil service have anything like an adequate plan for what would happen after Cameron ran away, Clegg went into obscurity with his party, and Osborne's toxicity with the electorate was recognised by the new prime minister [of whose judgement and capabilities Osborne had been a vigorous critic when they had sat together in cabinet]. Evening Standard editor Osborne has been intermittently sensible in his comments on the Brexit situation, but he remains so much in the public mind as the author of the twin disasters of the Cameron era - austerity, and 'operation fear' in the Brexit campaign - that his political resuscitation is most improbable.
The prominent 'leavers' - who were far fewer than the high-profile 'remainers' - appear to have undertaken even less preparation than the remainers to meet the contingency that their side would actually win. The clownish assertion - written on their battle bus - that the net amount someone had calculated on a chewing-gum packet as the net annual payment made by the UK to Brussels would instantly be available to allocate to the National Health Service, resonated with a population that was all too aware that osbornian austerity was depriving family and friends of treatment that could be available. Whether the sum was in any way valid as an arithmetical calculation or an allocable fund did not count with those who used it. It was merely one of a few desperate claims that they made to align themselves with a population that was disgusted by the failed political class and utterly unconvinced by the econocratic arguments that underpinned austerity. Boris Johnson became a more popular buffoon, becoming recognised outside greater London. Michael Gove surprised people with his articulateness: only to earn buffoon status for himself by his last-minute, half-cock, ill-considered decision to stand for the party leadership after Cameron scuttled away [thereby sparing the party from the embarrassment of having Johnson as their leader].
Mrs May began her period as prime minister well, with conciliatory speeches and the dismissal of Osborne; since which she has got everything wrong that was within her power to influence. She called an election unnecessarily then threw it away. She activated the withdrawal procedure with the EU before she had any clear plan. But from the start she made clear her utter incomprehension what she was dealing with, when she said 'Brexit means brexit': while everybody knows that the word itself is totally meaningless. While she has struggled, with a group of spectacularly inadequate ministers, to define what Brexit might mean the country has drifted towards the disaster of leaving the EU with no interim deal that will keep the UK effectively [under deep make-up] within the European Economic Area.
This has created a field day for the couple of dozen Tory MPs who appear really to believe - in their enfeebled minds - that the World Trade Organisation [WTO's] tariff regime will enable Britain to survive as 'the fifth-largest economy in the world'. The whole point is, that it is NOT tariffs but REGULATIONS that are used by all countries and economic communities to keep out unwelcome competition. Inside the European carapace the UK necessarily conform to the rules, and thus its trade with other EU members states can move freely. To loose that benefit, with the block that sends and receives about half of Britain's imports and exports, would be irreplaceable. The assumption that German motor manufacturers and French wine growers will 'see us right' is infantile. Professor Minford's calculations of the 'benefit' for Britain of trading on WTO terms with the global community - including the EU - are agonisingly bereft of any allowance for the predominant pattern of restrictions on trade, that would be tightened against an innovative economy such as the UK if we were adrift in the world and thus are extremely dangerous. But those are the argument to which the headbangers adhere: because they have nothing else. Yet they hold the government in awe; and are increasing their power to ruin the country. I will have to return to this topic in the coming days, as the argument gets more fraught approaching the deadline for the next meeting of EU heads of government.
Showing posts with label Clegg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clegg. Show all posts
Sunday, 29 October 2017
Monday, 21 August 2017
Carney in Jackson Hole
Mark Carney is due soon to return to Canada and make a political career in an environment free of worries about the pound sterling, the European Union and Theresa May. While Trump survives in the US presidency there will be a small risk for Canada in the future of the North American Free Trade Area, but in other respects Trump cannot hurt Canada; and if his failures drive down the value of the US dollar, this will be to the benefit of the Canadian currency and economy. Britain's problems may be of passing interest to Mark Carney post-Bank of England, but he will have [nor will he want] any part in addressing them.
George Osborne is a co-culprit with Cameron and Clegg in most of the disastrous aspects of the Coalition and subsequently the Conservatives' economic policies, but it is generally accepted that he alone drove through the decision to bypass Bank of England insiders, and all other Brits who might have had a claim to be considered as Governor of the Bank of England, and opt to advise the Queen to appoint the clever Canadian. Carney was appointed when the policy of Quantitative Easing and low interest rates had been entrenched by the previous management of the Bank, who had reacted to the meltdown of world banking as a crisis of moral hazard until Chancellor Alastair Darling sounded the alarm and compelled them to act positively [if not entirely sensibly]. Since his appointment, in retrospect, Carney has not had much to do. His 'forward looking' comments about the British economy in context, and what the Bank may or may not do about lending and about interest rates have all been falsified by events; to the extent that some journalists have made a joke of his predictive capabilities. He participated in 'project fear', the campaign to scare the British electorate into voting to remain in the European Union even after the continentals had grossly insulted David Cameron [and, by implication the country that he represented] by their contemptuous dismissal of his half-hearted attempt to make the"ever-closer union" less objectionable to sensible Brits. When the referendum result was announced, before there was time for any deep observation of its short-term impact on the economy and on the currency, Carney led his outfit into panicky and wrong decision to lower interest rates further and to continue 'printing money' that the banks could then lend and drive asset prices [especially house prices] ever higher even as real wages continued to fall.
Mark Carney seems a pleasant man, and has a reputation for high intelligence. His record in Canadian banking is excellent: his record at the Bank of England gains him nul points. Later this week he goes to the US ski resort of Jackson Hole to meet the other governors of central banks, with a massive audience of media, to exchange platitudes. The real meetings of central bankers, that matter, occur in the context of the Bank for International Settlements at Berne; and sometimes the governors have influence when they gather with their countries' finance minister in the context of the G20, G8 [or whatever number gather, dependent on which countries are in favour with the USA]. The annual performance at Jackson Hole, beside allowing opportunity for some private chatter and data swapping, allows some more speculative statements to be made. This year, it is expected that the Chair of the US Federal Reserve Board will indicate the approximate scheduling of future interest rate increases; and that the Chairman of the European Central Bank will indicate that it is his organisation's plan to begin policy tightening, within the next year. Carney will have nothing to say. The Bank of England is still stuck like the proverbial rabbit in the headlights, mesmerised by Brexit, Trump and the fear of Britain being alone in the world without a Churchill able to summon up the Few, the Dunkirk Spirit and the resources that were handed to stand-alone Britain by President F D Roosevelt.
Mr Carney's children have already gone back to their Canadian educational institutes, and he will follow them soon. He has learned a lot, but been unable to do anything. His experience in Britain has fitted him better for his future career in Canada; and Britain gained nothing from his presence with us here.
George Osborne is a co-culprit with Cameron and Clegg in most of the disastrous aspects of the Coalition and subsequently the Conservatives' economic policies, but it is generally accepted that he alone drove through the decision to bypass Bank of England insiders, and all other Brits who might have had a claim to be considered as Governor of the Bank of England, and opt to advise the Queen to appoint the clever Canadian. Carney was appointed when the policy of Quantitative Easing and low interest rates had been entrenched by the previous management of the Bank, who had reacted to the meltdown of world banking as a crisis of moral hazard until Chancellor Alastair Darling sounded the alarm and compelled them to act positively [if not entirely sensibly]. Since his appointment, in retrospect, Carney has not had much to do. His 'forward looking' comments about the British economy in context, and what the Bank may or may not do about lending and about interest rates have all been falsified by events; to the extent that some journalists have made a joke of his predictive capabilities. He participated in 'project fear', the campaign to scare the British electorate into voting to remain in the European Union even after the continentals had grossly insulted David Cameron [and, by implication the country that he represented] by their contemptuous dismissal of his half-hearted attempt to make the"ever-closer union" less objectionable to sensible Brits. When the referendum result was announced, before there was time for any deep observation of its short-term impact on the economy and on the currency, Carney led his outfit into panicky and wrong decision to lower interest rates further and to continue 'printing money' that the banks could then lend and drive asset prices [especially house prices] ever higher even as real wages continued to fall.
Mark Carney seems a pleasant man, and has a reputation for high intelligence. His record in Canadian banking is excellent: his record at the Bank of England gains him nul points. Later this week he goes to the US ski resort of Jackson Hole to meet the other governors of central banks, with a massive audience of media, to exchange platitudes. The real meetings of central bankers, that matter, occur in the context of the Bank for International Settlements at Berne; and sometimes the governors have influence when they gather with their countries' finance minister in the context of the G20, G8 [or whatever number gather, dependent on which countries are in favour with the USA]. The annual performance at Jackson Hole, beside allowing opportunity for some private chatter and data swapping, allows some more speculative statements to be made. This year, it is expected that the Chair of the US Federal Reserve Board will indicate the approximate scheduling of future interest rate increases; and that the Chairman of the European Central Bank will indicate that it is his organisation's plan to begin policy tightening, within the next year. Carney will have nothing to say. The Bank of England is still stuck like the proverbial rabbit in the headlights, mesmerised by Brexit, Trump and the fear of Britain being alone in the world without a Churchill able to summon up the Few, the Dunkirk Spirit and the resources that were handed to stand-alone Britain by President F D Roosevelt.
Mr Carney's children have already gone back to their Canadian educational institutes, and he will follow them soon. He has learned a lot, but been unable to do anything. His experience in Britain has fitted him better for his future career in Canada; and Britain gained nothing from his presence with us here.
Monday, 14 August 2017
Brexit: Trouvez la Femme
So now we know, for sure; definitely.
As on the previous Sunday, when I went to get a copy of the Mail to check on the context of remarks by Vince Cable, so yesterday I bought the Telegraph so that I could read exactly the piece attributed to Philip Hammond and Liam Fix. It was cited on the radio as representing the formation of a joint strategy for Brexit, and thus the conclusion of a cabinet spat that has been reported over this year's 'silly season' by much of the media.
It was a short piece, attributed to the two men [and doubtless accepted by them] but indubitably crafted in 10, Downing Street, and polished by party professionals. It represented what had generally been understood to be Mrs May's position ever since she made her sublimely idiotic remark that "Brexit means Brexit". Since it was coined, derived from 'Grexit' which meant the threatened departure of Greece from the eurozone, the term Brexit has simply meant "the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union, in response to the referendum decision of 23 June 2016". Mrs May was asked how she interpreted the terms: did it mean withdrawal from the European Common Market and the Customs Union? Did it simply require departure from the political institutions only? What mix-and-match of possible options did she favour?
None of this has been clear: either in her much-cited 'Lancaster House Speech' early this year or in her disastrous election campaign. Nor has it been any clearer whether she favours a 'hard Brexit' [undefined] or some 'softer' version. Two things that do appear to be consistent in her few and often oblique remarks on the matter are:
1. Her proclaimed determination to reduce net immigration: the great 'failure' of her six year tenure of the Home Office which she apparently thinks she can achieve from Number Ten. If she does achieve it, she will alienate industry and commerce, the universities, and the immigrant communities from the Commonwealth who had seen a reduction in EU immigration to the UK as a chance for them to bring more friends and family members into the country.
2. Her equally definite declarations that there is no place in the UK post-Brexit for the European Court are equally likely to make for an extremely difficult negotiation with M Barnier on trade matters that should be straightforward.
Lewis Carroll, in one of the most brilliant satires on society, has a character declare that they can think of six impossible things before breakfast. Mrs May, without saying anything on those lines, has made it abundantly clear that she has one impossible thing on her mind all the time: the removal of the British economy from its European Economic Community context without significant damage to Gross National Product or to the standard of living of the mass of the nation.
It now appears that Fox and Hammond have accepted that they must both support this point of view, at least publicly and for time being. This is a consensus that cannot last. The crisis in British politics will continue: well done, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Odious Osborne!
As on the previous Sunday, when I went to get a copy of the Mail to check on the context of remarks by Vince Cable, so yesterday I bought the Telegraph so that I could read exactly the piece attributed to Philip Hammond and Liam Fix. It was cited on the radio as representing the formation of a joint strategy for Brexit, and thus the conclusion of a cabinet spat that has been reported over this year's 'silly season' by much of the media.
It was a short piece, attributed to the two men [and doubtless accepted by them] but indubitably crafted in 10, Downing Street, and polished by party professionals. It represented what had generally been understood to be Mrs May's position ever since she made her sublimely idiotic remark that "Brexit means Brexit". Since it was coined, derived from 'Grexit' which meant the threatened departure of Greece from the eurozone, the term Brexit has simply meant "the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union, in response to the referendum decision of 23 June 2016". Mrs May was asked how she interpreted the terms: did it mean withdrawal from the European Common Market and the Customs Union? Did it simply require departure from the political institutions only? What mix-and-match of possible options did she favour?
None of this has been clear: either in her much-cited 'Lancaster House Speech' early this year or in her disastrous election campaign. Nor has it been any clearer whether she favours a 'hard Brexit' [undefined] or some 'softer' version. Two things that do appear to be consistent in her few and often oblique remarks on the matter are:
1. Her proclaimed determination to reduce net immigration: the great 'failure' of her six year tenure of the Home Office which she apparently thinks she can achieve from Number Ten. If she does achieve it, she will alienate industry and commerce, the universities, and the immigrant communities from the Commonwealth who had seen a reduction in EU immigration to the UK as a chance for them to bring more friends and family members into the country.
2. Her equally definite declarations that there is no place in the UK post-Brexit for the European Court are equally likely to make for an extremely difficult negotiation with M Barnier on trade matters that should be straightforward.
Lewis Carroll, in one of the most brilliant satires on society, has a character declare that they can think of six impossible things before breakfast. Mrs May, without saying anything on those lines, has made it abundantly clear that she has one impossible thing on her mind all the time: the removal of the British economy from its European Economic Community context without significant damage to Gross National Product or to the standard of living of the mass of the nation.
It now appears that Fox and Hammond have accepted that they must both support this point of view, at least publicly and for time being. This is a consensus that cannot last. The crisis in British politics will continue: well done, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Odious Osborne!
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
What Living Standards?
Yesterday David Cameron displayed his lack of political nous by demanding that all Tory MPs should vote against a motion calling for a popular Referendum on the future of Britain's role in Britain; and some eighty of them ignored the request. If he had allowed a free vote, there would have been a fun day with no significant aftermath: instead he was perceived to have suffered serious reputational damage. After the votes were counted the Leader of the House of Commons expressed the view that there had to be one outburst in favour of the public mood during this five-year Parliament; and that everybody should now knuckle-down and accept whatever was demanded of the UK by the European Union. Some hope!
The Daily Telegraph, for generations the authentic voice of Conservatism, suggested that the incident had demonstrated serious inadequacies in David Cameron's leadership; and it was widely suggested that this diminution in his authority [albeit self-inflicted] will be damaging in the future.
The Government has to hope to carry a consensus in the country through a series of years of dramatically falling living standards. Prices are going up much faster than earned incomes or benefits will increase, and individuals' chance of borrowing money to maintain.a high standard of living will diminish for almost everybody. Only public-sector jobs are strongly unionised; and if the civil service and Fire Brigades and Teachers' unions go on strike to preserve their pay, pensions and benefits they will increase the sense of depression and betrayal among the unionionised majority who will suffer from closed schools, unpaid benefits, accident damage - including human body-parts - left at the scene of the incident, and greater risks from fire and terrorism. The majority of the population support the Firefighters, are cynical about the pay of tube drivers, are increasingly open to the view that schools fail because of bad teaching and discipline, and hostile to the idea of petty bureaucrats being compensated to meet inflation that is crushing ordinary folk. As the public mood sours with the ongoing slide in living standards, some mitigation could possibly be achieved by Churchillian or Roosevelt-like leadership: instead there is a clique of career politicians with exiguous experience of 'real life' and who lack any hint of charisma.
This is why Cameron's failure is so serious. The absence of credible alternatives to Cameron and Clegg within the conventional political system is equally alarming. The government's policy will not lead to recovery: at best it seeks to mitigate the downward spiral in living standards by fostering 'growth' largely in 'manufacturing'. They have had eighteen months to implement policies that should be producing evidence of success, at least on a small scale. It is not visible. There is no reason to believe that mass living standards can be protected in the foreseeable future; and that is likely to spawn more profound political radicalism that has been seen in Britain since 1848.
The Daily Telegraph, for generations the authentic voice of Conservatism, suggested that the incident had demonstrated serious inadequacies in David Cameron's leadership; and it was widely suggested that this diminution in his authority [albeit self-inflicted] will be damaging in the future.
The Government has to hope to carry a consensus in the country through a series of years of dramatically falling living standards. Prices are going up much faster than earned incomes or benefits will increase, and individuals' chance of borrowing money to maintain.a high standard of living will diminish for almost everybody. Only public-sector jobs are strongly unionised; and if the civil service and Fire Brigades and Teachers' unions go on strike to preserve their pay, pensions and benefits they will increase the sense of depression and betrayal among the unionionised majority who will suffer from closed schools, unpaid benefits, accident damage - including human body-parts - left at the scene of the incident, and greater risks from fire and terrorism. The majority of the population support the Firefighters, are cynical about the pay of tube drivers, are increasingly open to the view that schools fail because of bad teaching and discipline, and hostile to the idea of petty bureaucrats being compensated to meet inflation that is crushing ordinary folk. As the public mood sours with the ongoing slide in living standards, some mitigation could possibly be achieved by Churchillian or Roosevelt-like leadership: instead there is a clique of career politicians with exiguous experience of 'real life' and who lack any hint of charisma.
This is why Cameron's failure is so serious. The absence of credible alternatives to Cameron and Clegg within the conventional political system is equally alarming. The government's policy will not lead to recovery: at best it seeks to mitigate the downward spiral in living standards by fostering 'growth' largely in 'manufacturing'. They have had eighteen months to implement policies that should be producing evidence of success, at least on a small scale. It is not visible. There is no reason to believe that mass living standards can be protected in the foreseeable future; and that is likely to spawn more profound political radicalism that has been seen in Britain since 1848.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)