Fans of voting systems may be interested to hear how we selected our candidates for next year's council elections last night. A shortlist of 4, 2 candidates to choose. We used AV to select the first candidate, then we held a second AV ballot of the three remaining on the shortlist to choose the second candidate. Two AV ballots back-to-back - bliss! One feature of this system is that the block vote had the opportunity to also select the second candidate. Now I don't know if they had been told who to vote for in the second ballot, but I suspect that was the case. Anyway, congrats to the two successful candidates. They know how democracy works in the Labour Party.
The problem there is that, if you run the vote twice, then in all probability it is the same people choosing both candidates. This doesn`t do much for diversity. Far better to go for STV and run the process just once.
But then the Labour Party are very good a sewing things up, and at the same time boasting about how democratic they are.
Capitalism is supposed, in theory, to be about low barriers to entry, perfect competition, and survival of the most efficient enterprises. In some areas of the economy, such as much of tech and online, you could argue that this still applies - although even here a few firms like Amazon are hoovering up an ever larger share of business. (snip)
We seem to have followed the US down a path where the economic, social and political checks and
Yep - once a majority no longer feel they have a stake in a society that society is not sustainable. Redistribution of wealth through taxation, welfare and investment in public services is just as much in the interests of those at the top as those in the middle and at the bottom. Companies and individuals hiding money offshore to prevent some of it being spent on improving the life chances of the less fortunate are sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
Somehow the trend of granparents moved to the suburbs and became owners, and neither my parents nor my generation rented beyond our 20s. Yet now we see property progressively concentrated in the hands of an emerging landlord class, increasingly beyond the reach of ordinary young workers, and levels of home ownership in much of the country falling fast.
I don't fully understand why this concentration of capital, wealth and power is happening, but we see the evidence all around us. I did read an interesting theory a few years back that it was the existence of communism, as a rival world view competing for the support both of non-aligned nations and of voters in western democracies, that acted as a brake upon the excesses of capitalism, creating incentives for those at the top to ensure that its benefits were sufficiently widely distributed to maintain majority global and domestic support. Once this rival world view disappeared, these brakes came off. This seemed to me to be persuasive insofar as both the outcome and the timing match what we have seen, but correlation alone doesn't turn hypothesis into explanation.
On many ways it's the professionalisation of politics: our ministers can't upset vested interests. Big business likes regulation as its creates competitive advantage. Politicians like regulation because it means they are doing something
And regulation is also popular with voters - see laws on animal cruelty, exploitation of child labour, job protection, minimum wage, statutory holidays etc.
Some regulation is.
But why do you think the big banks pushed for mortgage regulations that prevented challengers offering anything different to the big bank products?
FPPT for Cyclefree: yes, I absolutely dislike anyone in politics who hates any other democratic politicians (one cannomination.
I don't think any opinionrare exceptions (Danczuk!).
For balance, also FPPT on the decline of constructive conservative ideas. I read the Sunday Times and Sunday Telegraph on the plane to Kenya this week, and they're both depressingly in the grumpy old men camp. The conservative difficulty is that they don't see a way to address the issue that the undoubted efficiency of free markets is leaving a large swathe of the population on permanently depressed income. As one Tory MP observed, it's not realistic to expect people to support capitalism if they have no realistic chance of getting capital. Some - I'd include May - want to make an effort in this direction, but have no coherent intellectual project. Others don't actually care, and resort to empty abuse when the model is challenged from the populist left.
Capitalism is supposed, in theory, to be about low barriers to entry, perfect competition, and survival of the most efficient enterprises. In some areas of the economy, such as much of tech and online, you could argue that this still applies - although even here a few firms like Amazon are hoovering up an ever larger share of business. But in most of the 'old' economy capitalism has been replaced with a form of oligarchy, with a few large firms sheltered from genuine competition and corporate governance manipulated to deliver massive salaries to a handful of people at the top, with no effective constraint, whilst the terms for the rest of the workforce deteriorate towards minimum wage and loss of security. This isn't a sustainable state of affairs in a democracy, and it is even less edifying to see similar setups migrate into the public sector (cf. Bath University).
We seem to have followed the US down a path where the economic, social and political checks and balances that kept capitalism working for the majority of people are being lost, leaving us with an 'elite' who are effectively economic rent-takers, akin to the feudal lords who came round every year to collect rent from their desperate tenant farmers.
Yep - once a majority no longer feel they have a stake in a society that society is not sustainable. Redistribution of wealth through taxation, welfare and investment in public services is just as much in the interests of those at the top as those in the middle and at the bottom. Companies and individuals hiding money offshore to prevent some of it being spent on improving the life chances of the less fortunate are sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
The diagnosis is relatively simple, the solution less so.
The basic problem with this is that the investment you quite is a reduction vs previous and creates half baked fudge that will cost significantly more money in the medium to long term than it saves. It's exactly like when BR electrified the East Coast on a treasury constrained budget - the wider spacing of centenary supports leads to dewiring iincidents and delays to this day. And the investment you refer to includes cancelling wiring the Windermere branch leaving it isolated and cancelling Midland electrification and cancelling Transpennine electrification. Which means a lack of capacity growth which constrains economic growth costing money. And means absurd fudge like Grayling's "digital railway" non-alternative for Transpennine which has the industry either laughing or face planting at how little grasp he has of reality. Even on Great western we have the absurdity of the new trains having to drop pantograph and coast under the wires for a few miles because budget cuts meant the replacement bridge was scrapped and the wires don't have sufficient clearance for high speed use.
(Snip)
Whilst you are right about the ECML's knitting being lightly built (*), at least the line was electrified. As were hundreds of miles of other lines under Thatcher and Major - e.g. the Norwich and King's Lynn lines.
You may want to look at how many miles were electrified under Blair and Brown - ISTR it was sixteen or so around Stoke.
And the coalition and subsequent governments are electrifying - it's just that the (nationalised) Network Rail has utterly failed. That's not down to politicians - it's fully NR's mistake. They utterly misjudged how much the projects would cost.
So you have a record of massive investment in electrification by Conservative or Conservative-coalition governments and next to sod-all by Labour ones.
Instead, Blair pi**ed billions down the drain on the WCML upgrade.
Infrastructure investment is really difficult. But it's totally false to say that this government is not doing so. The question, as is always the case with infrastructure, is whether they're investing in the right projects.
Given what you've written this morning, you might want to write to Jeremy and ask him to give HS2 fuller backing.
(*) There were some really innovative technology used, and BR needs congratulating for that.
McDonnell i... “Every infrastructure project you put out there immediately starts employing people, they start paying their taxes and as a result of that you cover your costs.
Er, no. Taxes simply won't cover the operating costs and the capital expenditure costs of large scale infrastructure investment.
Does McDonnell actually believe this stuff? (Which is worrying) Or is he knowingly lying to people (which is worse).
But I agree with the comments on the Paxman-style of journalism which looks to generate heat not light.
When income tax is 100% then I guess what McDonnell says is true.
Some goes on income tax, some on other goods and services, which in turn gets taxed or spent by others on taxes or other peoples. Only that amount that is saved or spent on imports leaves the economy. The rest circulates. There is also a geographic and social redistributive effect.
At a time of high employment, the effect is pretty limited, and is inflationary,
If he had talked about the money multiplier he would have had more of s point. But he wasn't
I am very against borrowing and deficit spending, I would much rather see a budget balanced via taxes or cuts elsewhere over a very short cycle. Borrowing is just taxing our children.
But our children (I don't actually have any) are getting the benefit too of investment. It doesn't help them to make the economy smaller by not borrowing to invest.
I am suggesting higher taxes, and cuts to projects like Trident and HS2, that are of little or no benefit to the next generation. I would rather see HS2 money spent on urban tram systems that are used by the many, rather than HS2 systems for the few.
The next generation has enough costs in terms of housing, student debt, no pensions, and funding social care for my generation. Paying for our overspending is a burden too far. Budgets should balance over a cycle of a couple of years.
Debt is a chain around the legs of the next generation that forever limits their lives.
That's true of excessive debt, but debt itself has been essential to the growth of the British economy since more or less forever. Our more sophisticated financial systems enabling management of high levels of public debt was one of the prime reasons for our time of international hegemony.
McDonnell i... “Every infrastructure project you put out there immediately starts employing people, they start paying their taxes and as a result of that you cover your costs.
Er, no. Taxes simply won't cover the operating costs and the capital expenditure costs of large scale infrastructure investment.
Does McDonnell actually believe this stuff? (Which is worrying) Or is he knowingly lying to people (which is worse).
But I agree with the comments on the Paxman-style of journalism which looks to generate heat not light.
When income tax is 100% then I guess what McDonnell says is true.
Some goes on income tax, some on other goods and services, which in turn gets taxed or spent by others on taxes or other peoples. Only that amount that is saved or spent on imports leaves the economy. The rest circulates. There is also a geographic and social redistributive effect.
At a time of high employment, the effect is pretty limited, and is inflationary,
If he had talked about the money multiplier he would have had more of s point. But he wasn't
I am very against borrowing and deficit spending, I would much rather see a budget balanced via taxes or cuts elsewhere over a very short cycle. Borrowing is just taxing our children.
But our children (I don't actually have any) are getting the benefit too of investment. It doesn't help them to make the economy smaller by not borrowing to invest.
I am suggesting higher taxes, and cuts to projects like Trident and HS2, that are of little or no benefit to the next generation. I would rather see HS2 money spent on urban tram systems that are used by the many, rather than HS2 systems for the few.
The next generation has enough costs in terms of housing, student debt, no pensions, and funding social care for my generation. Paying for our overspending is a burden too far. Budgets should balance over a cycle of a couple of years.
Debt is a chain around the legs of the next generation that forever limits their lives.
Why on Earth do you see HS2 as 'for the few' ?
And as for it being of no benefit to the next generation - LOL! What's your thinking behind that?
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
Fans of voting systems may be interested to hear how we selected our candidates for next year's council elections last night. A shortlist of 4, 2 candidates to choose. We used AV to select the first candidate, then we held a second AV ballot of the three remaining on the shortlist to choose the second candidate. Two AV ballots back-to-back - bliss!
One feature of this system is that the block vote had the opportunity to also select the second candidate. Now I don't know if they had been told who to vote for in the second ballot, but I suspect that was the case.
Anyway, congrats to the two successful candidates. They know how democracy works in the Labour Party.
Today’s Times gives further insight on the latter. I believe that Nick Palmer above described it as “mild-mannered”. I’m not sure I’d like to see vicious in those circumstances. To tie this to Brind’s article, perhaps journalist approaches would be different if politicians weren’t inherently dishonest.
Link? Or more details so I can google?
It’s the top left story on the Times online front page.
The problem is that McDonnell IS a fool. I am embarrassed to have him as shadow chancellor of the party that I support, and which he is destroying in the long term -because be in no doubt, he would be an economic disaster which would pave the way for decades of Tory rule. Look at his past. He does not understand economics. Like Corbyn, he is a bundle of political emotional spasms with no skill or understanding to bind them into coherent action, No one makes a fool of John McDonnell. He does such a good job of doing that himself.
Mr. rkrkrk, I'd ignore such rules, frankly. Brown's Golden Rule was a crock of shit rather than gold, and Osborne's end to the deficit was continually postponed.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
The problem is that McDonnell IS a fool. I am embarrassed to have him as shadow chancellor of the party that I support, and which he is destroying in the long term -because be in no doubt, he would be an economic disaster which would pave the way for decades of Tory rule. Look at his past. He does not understand economics. Like Corbyn, he is a bundle of political emotional spasms with no skill or understanding to bind them into coherent action, No one makes a fool of John McDonnell. He does such a good job of doing that himself.
As far as I can see McD is an unreconstructed Marxist. Simples. He will attempt, at least in a staged version, full-blown Marxism across the UK economy.
Cyclefree is spot on downthread. Labour told us that its manifesto was fully costed and on that basis was a serious programme for government. However, McDonnell has demonstrated that he's no grasp of the figures, and he'd be CoE in a Corbyn government. At the last election the Tories made no effort to dismantle Labour's claims on the economy. That won't happen next time. Expect to see and hear much more of McDonnell's performance in these interviews.
McDonnell i... “Every infrastructure project you put out there immediately starts employing people, they start paying their taxes and as a result of that you cover your costs.
Er, no. Taxes simply won't cover the operating costs and the capital expenditure costs of large scale infrastructure investment.
Does McDonnell actually believe this stuff? (Which is worrying) Or is he knowingly lying to people (which is worse).
But I agree with the comments on the Paxman-style of journalism which looks to generate heat not light.
When income tax is 100% then I guess what McDonnell says is true.
Some goes on income tax, some on other goods and services, which in turn gets taxed or spent by others on taxes or other peoples. Only that amount that is saved or spent on imports leaves the economy. The rest circulates. There is also a geographic and social redistributive effect.
At a time of high employment, the effect is pretty limited, and is inflationary,
If he had talked about the money multiplier he would have had more of s point. But he wasn't
I am very against borrowing and deficit spending, I would much rather see a budget balanced via taxes or cuts elsewhere over a very short cycle. Borrowing is just taxing our children.
But our children (I don't actually have any) are getting the benefit too of investment. It doesn't help them to make the economy smaller by not borrowing to invest.
I am suggesting higher taxes, and cuts to projects like Trident and HS2, that are of little or no benefit to the next generation. I would rather see HS2 money spent on urban tram systems that are used by the many, rather than HS2 systems for the few.
The next generation has enough costs in terms of housing, student debt, no pensions, and funding social care for my generation. Paying for our overspending is a burden too far. Budgets should balance over a cycle of a couple of years.
Debt is a chain around the legs of the next generation that forever limits their lives.
Why on Earth do you see HS2 as 'for the few' ?
And as for it being of no benefit to the next generation - LOL! What's your thinking behind that?
The problem is that all North-South rail lines are at capacity, so we have to build something, whether it’s a new rail line or more roads for the freight. No-one ever talks about rail freight.
Given that there needs to be a new line, it makes sense to use the latest technology to build it, in other words to make a high speed line.
Sometimes journalists just ask stupid questions though. Explaining why they are stupid takes up too much time.
For instance - in the debate on re-nationalisation of railways/utilities, the question the journalists should be asking Labour is - why do you think these will be better run under public ownership?
Not: how much will this cost? which is a question which shows you do not understand the issues.
"As any economist knows if this government buys an asset by borrowing at zero real interest rates it really does not matter how much you have to borrow. Ask Labour politicians why they think the industry would be more efficiently run under public ownership, not how much will it cost."
A good 80% of the population and rising would think the cost an important question. So it's a good one to ask. The fact that you believe it to be misplaced does not make it bad.
Besides, will borrowing inevitably be at zero real interest rates? Forming a very grand spending policy based on transient market conditions doesn't make the question invalid. It's a very good example of someone finding an alternative analysis uninformative, seeking to delegitimise it and crying foul when his case is not accepted unquestioningly.
They should be trying to inform people I think. I suspect if this was in your field you would not be so sanguine about a journalist mixing up common law and european law or some other technical distinction that 80% of people don't understand or care about but is actually quite important.
Journalists sometimes ask dumb questions about the law. But usually they contain an insight into a thought process that needs to be engaged with. Identify and address that thought process and you have made far more strides than you would have made answering questions in an expert-approved format.
I don't subscribe to a point of view that regards obvious questions that a bystander disagrees with as being somehow inappropriate to ask. Arguments by appeal to authority are never attractive.
Besides, the question is a legitimate one, speaking to a widely-held fear that Labour tends to spend beyond the economy's capabilities. Labour needs to show that it understands the motivation behind the question and address it. Interviews like the one above show, quite literally, that John McDonnell doesn't understand the real question.
Well this is almost a first for me, a Don Brind thread header that I actually agree with. Not the bit about McDonnell and his "investment" of course. That might have been possible if we had run substantial surpluses through the bubble in the early years of this century and had no structural deficit but with Brown in charge of buying elections that was never going to happen.
What I agree with is that the Paxo style interview cheapens and coarsens the public debate, deters rather than assists in enlightening the audience and makes it sound like there are simplistic choices to make if only our politicians were not so stupid and venal.
Andrew Neil is our best interviewer at the moment but where he was at his best was during the interviews that he did at the election when he gave people a chance to speak and explain their ideas. This budget and its aftermath was not his finest hour.
Brind is better when he is observing rather than predicting. With his prediction articles there is always an agenda touting his particular strand of politics and his analysis is rarely objective, and often downright dishonest.
In fairness that might well be applied to most of us. Critique is always easier than solutions.
Of course. But there is a qualitative difference between the posts in here that "the Tories are heading for a massive majority" - which we can see, in hindsight at least, weren't soundly grounded in objective analysis - and the Brind thread leads we got during the labour leadership along the lines of "the story inside Labour is that Owen Smith is doing really well", which were just puff pieces intended to spin the news agenda.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
Mr. Rentool, I'll never understand a perspective like that. You know the City pays a bucketload of the taxes the left are so keen to spend, right?
The worried people are only worried about their personal incomes, not the success of the UK economy. So we can have a successful financial services sector, but with those who work there needing fewer wheelbarrows to cart away their cash in.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
McDonnell i... “Every infrastructure project you put out there immediately starts employing people, they start paying their taxes and as a result of that you cover your costs.
Er, no. Taxes simply won't cover the operating costs and the capital expenditure costs of large scale infrastructure investment.
Does McDonnell actually believe this stuff? (Which is worrying) Or is he knowingly lying to people (which is worse).
But I agree with the comments on the Paxman-style of journalism which looks to generate heat not light.
When income tax is 100% then I guess what McDonnell says is true.
snip
If he had talked about the money multiplier he would have had more of s point. But he wasn't
I am very against borrowing and deficit spending, I would much rather see a budget balanced via taxes or cuts elsewhere over a very short cycle. Borrowing is just taxing our children.
But our children (I don't actually have any) are getting the benefit too of investment. It doesn't help them to make the economy smaller by not borrowing to invest.
snip
The next generation has enough costs in terms of housing, student debt, no pensions, and funding social care for my generation. Paying for our overspending is a burden too far. Budgets should balance over a cycle of a couple of years.
Debt is a chain around the legs of the next generation that forever limits their lives.
Why on Earth do you see HS2 as 'for the few' ?
And as for it being of no benefit to the next generation - LOL! What's your thinking behind that?
The problem is that all North-South rail lines are at capacity, so we have to build something, whether it’s a new rail line or more roads for the freight. No-one ever talks about rail freight.
Given that there needs to be a new line, it makes sense to use the latest technology to build it, in other words to make a high speed line.
I may be wrong but is there an intersection of the sets of people who oppose HS2 and Leavers?
Because if that's the case then either Leavers can stop saying 'we've had the debate, we've had the vote' now get on with it, and saying 'stop HS2'. We've had endless Parliamentary debates on HS2 and two general elections and now we need to get on with it.
The problem is that all North-South rail lines are at capacity, so we have to build something, whether it’s a new rail line or more roads for the freight. No-one ever talks about rail freight.
Given that there needs to be a new line, it makes sense to use the latest technology to build it, in other words to make a high speed line.
Well yes, I agree with you.
One of the things that makes me laugh about Labour's obsession with the 'ownership structure' of the railways is that they utterly ignore freight. To the extent that one pro-nationalisation polemic produced by a trade union mentioned freight only three times in dozens of pages - and that was just the word, not the needs of the railfreight industry.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
It reads like hysterical drivel. For instance: Fund managers must plan for the serious possibility that a developed OECD country may nationalise power utilities, water companies, mail delivery, and rail transport in sweeping moves unseen in the trading life of most investors now alive.
How young are these fund managers? Did they never go abroad on a school trip? Most of what they are worried about seems to be true already, or in the recent past, or will be caused by Brexit.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
A good 80% of the population and rising would think the cost an important question. So it's a good one to ask. The fact that you believe it to be misplaced does not make it bad.
Besides, will borrowing inevitably be at zero real interest rates? Forming a very grand spending policy based on transient market conditions doesn't make the question invalid. It's a very good example of someone finding an alternative analysis uninformative, seeking to delegitimise it and crying foul when his case is not accepted unquestioningly.
They should be trying to inform people I think. I suspect if this was in your field you would not be so sanguine about a journalist mixing up common law and european law or some other technical distinction that 80% of people don't understand or care about but is actually quite important.
Journalists sometimes ask dumb questions about the law. But usually they contain an insight into a thought process that needs to be engaged with. Identify and address that thought process and you have made far more strides than you would have made answering questions in an expert-approved format.
I don't subscribe to a point of view that regards obvious questions that a bystander disagrees with as being somehow inappropriate to ask. Arguments by appeal to authority are never attractive.
Besides, the question is a legitimate one, speaking to a widely-held fear that Labour tends to spend beyond the economy's capabilities. Labour needs to show that it understands the motivation behind the question and address it. Interviews like the one above show, quite literally, that John McDonnell doesn't understand the real question.
Or does, but doesn't have or can't give the answer.
If only politicians were people with the intelligence and insight to know the answers to the big problems we face! Sadly the truth is that, half of the time, they are as clueless as the rest of us, and have simply to wing it and create the impression of certainly when they actually haven't a clue, and the rest of the time, they do know the answer but cannot provide it because they also know that it is politically unattractive or undeliverable due to some vested interest or other that they cannot afford to challenge.
The problem is that all North-South rail lines are at capacity, so we have to build something, whether it’s a new rail line or more roads for the freight. No-one ever talks about rail freight.
Given that there needs to be a new line, it makes sense to use the latest technology to build it, in other words to make a high speed line.
Well yes, I agree with you.
One of the things that makes me laugh about Labour's obsession with the 'ownership structure' of the railways is that they utterly ignore freight. To the extent that one pro-nationalisation polemic produced by a trade union mentioned freight only three times in dozens of pages - and that was just the word, not the needs of the railfreight industry.
The difference with rail freight is that it does operate as a competitive market. Want to move stuff from A to B? There are several freight companies who will bid for the contract. We have seen new entrants, large and small, and the original dominant player lose market share hand over fist by generally being a bit crap. In terms of renationalisation priorities, I would put rail freight well behind public utilities, for example.
Mr. Rentool, high earners pay more tax in both absolute and proportional terms. We should encourage more of them.
The idea of hammering down success instead of trying to foster more is madness.
Mr. Meeks, also worth considering the impact of the middle class becoming thinner, and the cultural effect of poor integration of migrants and lack of defence of British values.
Whilst our departure from the EU, should it happen, is a very significant event, we shouldn't let that distract wholly from other divisions in the country. Those divisions would be just as real if we'd voted 52% Remain.
Quietly brilliant - the FT headline for the Royal news:
"Prince Harry wedding holds scant promise for economy"
Why on earth should Prince Harry have to worry about the short term boost his wedding day gives to the economy? He has enough pressure around it as it is.
Though ironically having the wedding but not making it a bank holiday would be best, still plenty of merchandise sold but limited impact on productivity
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
It reads like hysterical drivel. For instance: Fund managers must plan for the serious possibility that a developed OECD country may nationalise power utilities, water companies, mail delivery, and rail transport in sweeping moves unseen in the trading life of most investors now alive.
How young are these fund managers? Did they never go abroad on a school trip? Most of what they are worried about seems to be true already, or in the recent past, or will be caused by Brexit.
No, I think the point being made here is that these traders will not have experienced the process of nationalising, rather than have never travelled on SNCF or whatever.
The process will involve taking away shares from city types (and also many private small investors and pension funds) and giving them freshly printed gilts (at a ratio that McD refuses to spell out, but will be no doubt crappy).
McDonnell i... “Every infrastructure project you put out there immediately starts employing people, they start paying their taxes and as a result of that you cover your costs.
Er, no. Taxes simply won't cover the operating costs and the capital expenditure costs of large scale infrastructure investment.
Does McDonnell actually believe this stuff? (Which is worrying) Or is he knowingly lying to people (which is worse).
But I agree with the comments on the Paxman-style of journalism which looks to generate heat not light.
When income tax is 100% then I guess what McDonnell says is true.
snip
If he had talked about the money multiplier he would have had more of s point. But he wasn't
I am very against borrowing and deficit spending, I would much rather see a budget balanced via taxes or cuts elsewhere over a very short cycle. Borrowing is just taxing our children.
But our children (I don't actually have any) are getting the benefit too of investment. It doesn't help them to make the economy smaller by not borrowing to invest.
snip
The next generation has enough costs in terms of housing, student debt, no pensions, and funding social care for my generation. Paying for our overspending is a burden too far. Budgets should balance over a cycle of a couple of years.
Debt is a chain around the legs of the next generation that forever limits their lives.
Why on Earth do you see HS2 as 'for the few' ?
And as for it being of no benefit to the next generation - LOL! What's your thinking behind that?
The problem is that all North-South rail lines are at capacity, so we have to build something, whether it’s a new rail line or more roads for the freight. No-one ever talks about rail freight.
Given that there needs to be a new line, it makes sense to use the latest technology to build it, in other words to make a high speed line.
I may be wrong but is there an intersection of the sets of people who oppose HS2 and Leavers?
Because if that's the case then either Leavers can stop saying 'we've had the debate, we've had the vote' now get on with it, and saying 'stop HS2'. We've had endless Parliamentary debates on HS2 and two general elections and now we need to get on with it.
Mr B. Are you posting from the Maildives on your honeymoon? And if so, haven’t you better things to do?
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
Where did that quote come from? Not heard it before, althjoiugh I’m no historian.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
Yes, but as a means and not an end in itself. Labour governments like all governments have a responsibility to be economically competent. And Labour is offering McDonnell and Corbyn...
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
When a politician fails to answer a question, there are two main reasons. He may not know it because he or she is working in a different department, or they're not very numerate. You can apply the latter to Mrs Abbott. Probably Jezza too.
But McDonnel is shadow CoE.
The second reason is that he or she does not want the voters to know it because they are stupid and might draw the wrong conclusions. This was McDonnell's reason. The party know best and need to lead the sheep to the promised land.
Voters are simplistic and don't understand ideological purity. You can't spend too much in McDonnell world. It always makes a profit.
A cure for all our ills? Get 100,000 unemployed people digging a hole in the road and another 100,000 filling it in. Result success. GDP is increased, unemployment reduced, easier roads to drive on. The ovaltinees are happy. All hail the power of the Multiplier.
But this is too complicated for the population who haven't been raised in Marxist theory. So no need to worry their pretty little heads about.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
What a depressing attitude to this country's greatest money spinner. Yes, the dominance of the City causes real problems, but there is no alternative in the short term. North Sea oil is almost spent.
The City is not there to be placated by Government: the political preferences or objectives of its workers are not something Labour needs to worry too much about. It is, however, a potential lender and as such its views matter to the extent that affects its pricing of risk. Oddly, those who are keenest on seeing the City rattled are the ones who will complain most if the cost of government borrowing goes up.
Would the gilts markets give John McDonnell the same benefit of the doubt in pricing the risk of lending to the government that they give Philip Hammond? Would they do so over the entire borrowing period of the very substantial spending planned? Investors will approach this rationally (there's too much money at stake to do anything else). But they will look at track records, past pronouncements and clarity of plans. If you're planning a spending spree on an overdraft, best to keep the bank manager squared off.
Journalists sometimes ask dumb questions about the law. But usually they contain an insight into a thought process that needs to be engaged with. Identify and address that thought process and you have made far more strides than you would have made answering questions in an expert-approved format.
I don't subscribe to a point of view that regards obvious questions that a bystander disagrees with as being somehow inappropriate to ask. Arguments by appeal to authority are never attractive.
Besides, the question is a legitimate one, speaking to a widely-held fear that Labour tends to spend beyond the economy's capabilities. Labour needs to show that it understands the motivation behind the question and address it. Interviews like the one above show, quite literally, that John McDonnell doesn't understand the real question.
I don't entirely disagree. But answering by addressing the motivation behind the question = not answering the question to the modern media. And really I suppose I'm hoping we can get some intelligent questions in there as well.
When a politician fails to answer a question, there are two main reasons. He may not know it because he or she is working in a different department, or they're not very numerate. You can apply the latter to Mrs Abbott. Probably Jezza too.
But McDonnel is shadow CoE.
The second reason is that he or she does not want the voters to know it because they are stupid and might draw the wrong conclusions. This was McDonnell's reason. The party know best and need to lead the sheep to the promised land.
Voters are simplistic and don't understand ideological purity. You can't spend too much in McDonnell world. It always makes a profit.
A cure for all our ills? Get 100,000 unemployed people digging a hole in the road and another 100,000 filling it in. Result success. GDP is increased, unemployment reduced, easier roads to drive on. The ovaltinees are happy. All hail the power of the Multiplier.
But this is too complicated for the population who haven't been raised in Marxist theory. So no need to worry their pretty little heads about.
The third reason is that no-one yet knows the answer. And the fourth is that some problems may not actually have an answer, at least within bounds that most people would see as an answer rather than just another problem. In both of these cases the politician just has to make something up and try and look confident.
After all, surely the question isn't whether McD's plan is sensible, deliverable or beneficial, but whether it is more or less so than whatever we will be doing if the Conservatives are elected again?
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
What a depressing attitude to this country's greatest money spinner. Yes, the dominance of the City causes real problems, but there is no alternative in the short term. North Sea oil is almost spent.
We saw where a Laissez-faire attitude to the city gets us. Not good. You can't trust it to act in national interest.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
We are human beings, humans who realise that paying £56,000,000,000 on debt interest - the same as the NHS staff bill - and adding to that debt every year, is unsustainable.
Gordon Brown borrowed money to hand out in tax credits for several reasons. 1. To create a client state. 2. To create a system that rewards 60% of society with cash handouts, in a way that the other 40% (including 99% of journalists) neither understand nor comprehend. 3. To buy votes from the working classes. 4. To enable Labour supporters to scream how the Tories are nasty idealists who hate the disabled and do “visceral damage” to society, when this unsustainable largesse is reduced or withdrawn in the face of still being unable to balance the books a decade after the last recession started.
Mr. rkrkrk, I'd ignore such rules, frankly. Brown's Golden Rule was a crock of shit rather than gold, and Osborne's end to the deficit was continually postponed.
A rule which is monitored by the independent OBR (one of Osborne's better ideas) would mean bad, bad, bad political headlines for Labour if they broke it.
The media would have an independent arbiter to trust rather than just the complaints of the other side. It doesn't guarantee that Labour would meet such a rule - but it would be a powerful incentive.
Possibly OT. It's strange how a country can have a national mood but I've no doubt they do. A year ago France was on the floor. After Paris there was Nice. There was visibly no cheer anywhere. The soldiers were on the streets and you were searched at every shopping centre and cultural event. Now it's full of light again. The people have picked themselves up and the joy is palpable. The police are still on the streets but the dogs are perky the shops are busy and the swagger's back.
.....I can't imagine the swagger coming back to the UK but they say the dawn follows the darkest night and maybe the Royal wedding might help
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
DEs voted for Brexit and Corbyn, C2s Brexit but not Corbyn, C1s were split in support or opposition to both and ABs neither voted for Brexit nor Corbyn.
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
Where did that quote come from? Not heard it before, althjoiugh I’m no historian.
Simon Schama's heavy going book, which I read some years ago, is seen as the definitive account, but I would have to fish it out to remind myself of his conclusion. Certainly, however, revolutions are often started not by the powerless but by those who are disgruntled but have sufficient power and means to do something about it. The successive challenges to absolute monarchy in Britain came from the nobles/wealthy middle classes and the Russian revolution had little to do with ordinary workers and nothing to do with the peasants.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
What a depressing attitude to this country's greatest money spinner. Yes, the dominance of the City causes real problems, but there is no alternative in the short term. North Sea oil is almost spent.
The City panicked about Brexit but that's turned out fine. No reason we should share their worry about Corbyn and company; just Project Fear again.
Possibly OT. It's strange how a country can have a national mood but I've no doubt they do. A year ago France was on the floor. After Paris there was Nice. There was visibly no cheer anywhere. The soldiers were on the streets and you were searched at every shopping centre and cultural event. Now it's full of light again. The people have picked themselves up and the joy is palpable. The police are still on the streets but the dogs are perky the shops are busy and the swagger's back.
.....I can't imagine the swagger coming back to the UK but they say the dawn follows the darkest night and maybe the Royal wedding might help
London hasn't looked back since the Olympics, but the rest of the country has not shared in this.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
What a depressing attitude to this country's greatest money spinner. Yes, the dominance of the City causes real problems, but there is no alternative in the short term. North Sea oil is almost spent.
The City panicked about Brexit but that's turned out fine. No reason we should share their worry about Corbyn and company; just Project Fear again.
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
Where did that quote come from? Not heard it before, althjoiugh I’m no historian.
A lawyers joke. I've heard it used with other professions and probably other revolutions!
The problem is that all North-South rail lines are at capacity, so we have to build something, whether it’s a new rail line or more roads for the freight. No-one ever talks about rail freight.
Given that there needs to be a new line, it makes sense to use the latest technology to build it, in other words to make a high speed line.
Well yes, I agree with you.
One of the things that makes me laugh about Labour's obsession with the 'ownership structure' of the railways is that they utterly ignore freight. To the extent that one pro-nationalisation polemic produced by a trade union mentioned freight only three times in dozens of pages - and that was just the word, not the needs of the railfreight industry.
The difference with rail freight is that it does operate as a competitive market. Want to move stuff from A to B? There are several freight companies who will bid for the contract. We have seen new entrants, large and small, and the original dominant player lose market share hand over fist by generally being a bit crap. In terms of renationalisation priorities, I would put rail freight well behind public utilities, for example.
1) We're talking about a strategy for the railways that ignored railfreight. It was insane.
2) Good. So you're saying that privatised railfreight has been a success (*). So your answer to this is to nationalise passenger railways, rather than look at how the existing structure may be improved?
3) You may want to tell this to some of you fellow Labourites, and especially those in the rail unions, who seem to think that 'rail renationalisation' should and will include railfreight.
(*) This is difficult to judge. IIRC freight tonnage has decreased, but that is mainly because the trainload bulk coal market has vanished due to the closure of power stations. Other freight markets have performed better. But it's easy to argue that passenger sectors have outperformed freight since privatisation.
Mr. Sandpit, it was one of those where I might have stopped watching if I weren't writing a post-race analysis.
Mr. D, part of the City's panic immediately after the vote was their idiotic hubris in thinking their exit polls would prove accurate when the proper chaps who normally do them didn't because they didn't believe it would be possible to be accurate.
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
Where did that quote come from? Not heard it before, althjoiugh I’m no historian.
Simon Schama's heavy going book, which I read some years ago, is seen as the definitive account, but I would have to fish it out to remind myself of his conclusion. Certainly, however, revolutions are often started not by the powerless but by those who are disgruntled but have sufficient power and means to do something about it. The successive challenges to absolute monarchy in Britain came from the nobles/wealthy middle classes and the Russian revolution had little to do with ordinary workers and nothing to do with the peasants.
Don’t think I’ll get Schama’s book. However I agree with your second sentence and onward.
An interesting piece for which, as always, many thanks Don. To be fair, and I'm sure he'd admit it, McDonnell didn't come over well in the post-Budget interviews but the usual suspects both here and elsewhere rather over-egged the pudding.
There are those for whom every interview given by every Labour spokesperson is a "car crash" and oddly enough most of these figures are staunch Conservatives so we may need to look elsewhere for more objective analysis.
As for the more general argument about interviewing, there's this thorny question of "accountability" or rather the notion, and this is especially true when a Government has a large majority, that there is no accountability available within the political process and a Government can do more or less what it likes and it falls to the media to provide that sense of challenge and to ask the difficult questions.
This began in the Thatcher years but has evolved and was strengthened by the expenses scandal into a low-level ongoing witch-hunt. I'm not suggesting and wouldn't want a return to the days of deference but it seems reasonable to allow someone being interviewed to make their case before being interrupted.
Should a politician know the price of a pint of milk ? Yes, in an ideal world but the Prime Minister in particular lives in a particularly cosseted environment and I can appreciate how easy it can become with time to lose touch with "ordinary" people. That being said, appreciating the concerns of the electorate should be central to any politician's role and being reminded of those concerns periodically no bad thing.
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
Where did that quote come from? Not heard it before, althjoiugh I’m no historian.
I did a Google search for the quote and only found two definitive hits - a post by someone in a history discussion forum in December 2013, and a post by PB'er antifrank with that quote exactly, in one of our own threads (originally about Scottish Indy polling!) back in May 2014.
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
Above all, it was minor nobility who supported the Revolution, in the countries the French occupied. The peasants were largely hostile to the French.
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
Where did that quote come from? Not heard it before, althjoiugh I’m no historian.
A lawyers joke. I've heard it used with other professions and probably other revolutions!
Pharmacists opinion of lawyers is summed up by the very unkind joke that went round some years ago, to the effect that Big Pharma were using lawyers instead of rats as experimental subjects. Reason; there were more of them, they were easier to replace and the lab staff who looked after them didn’t get attached to them.
2. To create a system that rewards 60% of society with cash handouts, in a way that the other 40% (including 99% of journalists) neither understand nor comprehend.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
Yes, but as a means and not an end in itself. Labour governments like all governments have a responsibility to be economically competent. And Labour is offering McDonnell and Corbyn...
And the Conservatives are offering Brexit. I think even with Corbyn and McDonnell Labour wins on economic competence.
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
Where did that quote come from? Not heard it before, althjoiugh I’m no historian.
I did a Google search for the quote and only found two definitive hits - a post by someone in a history discussion forum in December 2013, and a post by PB'er antifrank with that quote exactly, in one of our own threads (originally about Scottish Indy polling!) back in May 2014.
I'll have a rummage when I get home (I'm on a train this morning so I've had more time than I've had recently to post on threads, but no access to books).
An interesting piece for which, as always, many thanks Don. To be fair, and I'm sure he'd admit it, McDonnell didn't come over well in the post-Budget interviews but the usual suspects both here and elsewhere rather over-egged the pudding.
There are those for whom every interview given by every Labour spokesperson is a "car crash" and oddly enough most of these figures are staunch Conservatives so we may need to look elsewhere for more objective analysis.
As for the more general argument about interviewing, there's this thorny question of "accountability" or rather the notion, and this is especially true when a Government has a large majority, that there is no accountability available within the political process and a Government can do more or less what it likes and it falls to the media to provide that sense of challenge and to ask the difficult questions.
This began in the Thatcher years but has evolved and was strengthened by the expenses scandal into a low-level ongoing witch-hunt. I'm not suggesting and wouldn't want a return to the days of deference but it seems reasonable to allow someone being interviewed to make their case before being interrupted.
Should a politician know the price of a pint of milk ? Yes, in an ideal world but the Prime Minister in particular lives in a particularly cosseted environment and I can appreciate how easy it can become with time to lose touch with "ordinary" people. That being said, appreciating the concerns of the electorate should be central to any politician's role and being reminded of those concerns periodically no bad thing.
I expect the Shadow Chancellor, who is auditioning for that position at the next election, to have read the Red Book of the Budget and know the headline figures from the top of his head before putting himself in front of a journalist. A journalist who would have read the Red Book himself and understood the details.
IIRC David Cameron had an aide make up a memo card with the answers to questions commonly used by journalists to trip up ‘out of touch’ politicians.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
Yes, but as a means and not an end in itself. Labour governments like all governments have a responsibility to be economically competent. And Labour is offering McDonnell and Corbyn...
And the Conservatives are offering Brexit. I think even with Corbyn and McDonnell Labour wins on economic competence.
Which is the nub of the matter. Tory attachment to Brexit has forced them to give up their USP of (reputedly) economic competence.
Totally O/T but if Ben Stokes is still under investigation, or indeed if the CPS are still deliberating, why was he allowed to leave the country last night? Seems odd.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
Yes, but as a means and not an end in itself. Labour governments like all governments have a responsibility to be economically competent. And Labour is offering McDonnell and Corbyn...
And the Conservatives are offering Brexit. I think even with Corbyn and McDonnell Labour wins on economic competence.
But not among the group that @Alistair Meeks identified, the relatively affluent who backed Brexit, nor among the left behind. Polling tends to put the Conservatives ahead on economic issues.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
We don't have a Tory government. We have a collection of people, a nation in fact, both dizzy on the victory of Little England and railed against the forces of modernity and progress.
They can't believe their luck, just as if you or I woke up to find that we could actually fly, or turn Tunnocks tea cakes into gold, we would I'm sure misuse the power until we regained our composure.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
We don't have a Tory government. We have a collection of people, a nation in fact, both dizzy on the victory of Little England and railed against the forces of modernity and progress.
They can't believe their luck, just as if you or I woke up to find that we could actually fly, or turn Tunnocks tea cakes into gold, we would I'm sure misuse the power until we regained our composure.
Liam Fox is flying the flag today in Sydney. Doesn't it make you feel GREAT?!
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
We don't have a Tory government. We have a collection of people, a nation in fact, both dizzy on the victory of Little England and railed against the forces of modernity and progress.
They can't believe their luck, just as if you or I woke up to find that we could actually fly, or turn Tunnocks tea cakes into gold, we would I'm sure misuse the power until we regained our composure.
Liam Fox is flying the flag today in Sydney. Doesn't it make you feel GREAT?!
Sometimes journalists just ask stupid questions though. Explaining why they are stupid takes up too much time.
For instance - in the debate on re-nationalisation of railways/utilities, the question the journalists should be asking Labour is - why do you think these will be better run under public ownership?
Not: how much will this cost? which is a question which shows you do not understand the issues.
"As any economist knows if this government buys an asset by borrowing at zero real interest rates it really does not matter how much you have to borrow. Ask Labour politicians why they think the industry would be more efficiently run under public ownership, not how much will it cost."
A good 80% of the population and rising would think the cost an important question. So it's a good one to ask. The fact that you believe it to be misplaced does not make it bad.
Besides, will borrowing inevitably be at zero real interest rates? Forming a very grand spending policy based on transient market conditions doesn't make the question invalid. It's a very good example of someone finding an alternative analysis uninformative, seeking to delegitimise it and crying foul when his case is not accepted unquestioningly.
They should be trying to inform people I think. I suspect if this was in your field you would not be so sanguine about a journalist mixing up common law and european law or some other technical distinction that 80% of people don't understand or care about but is actually quite important.
Labour needs to show that it understands the motivation behind the question and address it. blockquote>
They won't, and they can't, as some of the posts of this thread also demonstrate.
Public spending is a public good, and the more of it the better, is as far as the thinking goes.
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
Correct. The affluent middle-classes in the South are much overlooked.
This is why Leave got 52%, as opposed to the Trumpian c.40% they'd have got on a purely Farageite platform, or the c.35% they might have got on a purely Goveite sovereignty platform.
Put the two together, which do have overlaps because a strong subset of each would have vote Leave regardless, and.. bang, you're there.
The problem is that all North-South rail lines are at capacity, so we have to build something, whether it’s a new rail line or more roads for the freight. No-one ever talks about rail freight.
Given that there needs to be a new line, it makes sense to use the latest technology to build it, in other words to make a high speed line.
Well yes, I agree with you.
One of the things that makes me laugh about Labour's obsession with the 'ownership structure' of the railways is that they utterly ignore freight. To the extent that one pro-nationalisation polemic produced by a trade union mentioned freight only three times in dozens of pages - and that was just the word, not the needs of the railfreight industry.
I'm not sure how much union muscle rail freight provides for them.
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
The middle classes were the winners from the French Revolution because they bought property confiscated from the Church and the aristocracy on the cheap. They were also the bedrock of Napoleon's support, as he ensured there would be no restitution of that property.
On a slightly related note there was an interesting comment on an FT forum that not all farmers are distressed by the prospect of Brexit upheaval. They expect land values to plummet and are looking forward to buying up bankrupted smallholdings.
What a complete cock-up the Tories have made of Brexit
When the definitive Book of Brexit comes to be written, one feature above all will stand out – the gulf between what Britain thought was likely to happen and the reality of what actually occurred.
At every stage, from the triggering of Article 50, through to the build-up to next month’s EU summit and (unless something remarkable happens) all the way to March 29, 2019, the British government has been shocked and surprised by the refusal of the 27 and their top team to compromise on their stated positions.
The conclusion has to be that the Government honestly believed that the two sides to the negotiation were partners, not opponents. They may even have calculated that in some bizarre fashion Britain had the upper hand. Theresa May and David Davis, backed by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, thought that a quick, no-fault divorce, followed by a frictionless trade deal, would be done and dusted within a year, leaving the UK – in the Prime Minister’s words – to enjoy a “deep and special partnership” with Europe.
@RochdalePioneers - I think your investment critique is generally correct, but I second the poster who said your posts are not improved by the predictable and unoriginal anti-Tory bile.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
We are now. But thats only been true for the last 40 years - as recently as the 60s the vision was forward looking and modern. After the oil shock and the collapse in the post war settlement, its like the country has said lets not bother.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
We don't have a Tory government. We have a collection of people, a nation in fact, both dizzy on the victory of Little England and railed against the forces of modernity and progress.
They can't believe their luck, just as if you or I woke up to find that we could actually fly, or turn Tunnocks tea cakes into gold, we would I'm sure misuse the power until we regained our composure.
Liam Fox is flying the flag today in Sydney. Doesn't it make you feel GREAT?!
Yep, Fox will have to be careful not to share the fate of Baldwin in 1929, after his claim in the Commons that rising Broccoli exports indicated a thriving economy led to much mirth and satirical cartoons, including the Liberal General Election poster of the year 'hoisting the broccoli standard'
McDonnell i... “Every infrastructure project you put out there immediately starts employing people, they start paying their taxes and as a result of that you cover your costs.
Er, no. Taxes simply won't cover the operating costs and the capital expenditure costs of large scale infrastructure investment.
Does McDonnell actually believe this stuff? (Which is worrying) Or is he knowingly lying to people (which is worse).
But I agree with the comments on the Paxman-style of journalism which looks to generate heat not light.
When income tax is 100% then I guess what McDonnell says is true.
snip
If he had talked about the money multiplier he would have had more of s point. But he wasn't
I am very against borrowing and deficit spending, I would much rather see a budget balanced via taxes or cuts elsewhere over a very short cycle. Borrowing is just taxing our children.
But our children (I don't actually have any) are getting the benefit too of investment. It doesn't help them to make the economy smaller by not borrowing to invest.
snip
Debt is a chain around the legs of the next generation that forever limits their lives.
Why on Earth do you see HS2 as 'for the few' ?
And as for it being of no benefit to the next generation - LOL! What's your thinking behind that?
The problem is that all North-South rail lines are at capacity, so we have to build something, whether it’s a new rail line or more roads for the freight. No-one ever talks about rail freight.
Given that there needs to be a new line, it makes sense to use the latest technology to build it, in other words to make a high speed line.
I may be wrong but is there an intersection of the sets of people who oppose HS2 and Leavers?
Because if that's the case then either Leavers can stop saying 'we've had the debate, we've had the vote' now get on with it, and saying 'stop HS2'. We've had endless Parliamentary debates on HS2 and two general elections and now we need to get on with it.
That was my experience.
I was at a Vote Leave event where a fellow delegate raised HS2, rather intemperately, and was both confused and annoyed that I supported Leave, and HS2.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
Yes, but as a means and not an end in itself. Labour governments like all governments have a responsibility to be economically competent. And Labour is offering McDonnell and Corbyn...
And the Conservatives are offering Brexit. I think even with Corbyn and McDonnell Labour wins on economic competence.
But not among the group that @Alistair Meeks identified, the relatively affluent who backed Brexit, nor among the left behind. Polling tends to put the Conservatives ahead on economic issues.
According to all the rules, Brexit should never have got near winning an absolute majority in a national referendum.
The fact it did should be serious food for thought for everyone, but it isn't.
It is said that the French revolution took place not because peasants were starving but because lawyers were starving. Similarly, those looking for the causes of Brexit spend far too long looking at the left-behind working class (who have been there for generations, making no decisive influence in elections in my adult life) and nowhere near enough looking at the relatively affluent who decided that they didn't have much to lose by going for it.
Where did that quote come from? Not heard it before, althjoiugh I’m no historian.
I did a Google search for the quote and only found two definitive hits - a post by someone in a history discussion forum in December 2013, and a post by PB'er antifrank with that quote exactly, in one of our own threads (originally about Scottish Indy polling!) back in May 2014.
McDonnell i... “Every infrastructure project you put out there immediately starts employing people, they start paying their taxes and as a result of that you cover your costs.
Er, no. Taxes simply won't cover the operating costs and the capital expenditure costs of large scale infrastructure investment.
Does McDonnell actually believe this stuff? (Which is worrying) Or is he knowingly lying to people (which is worse).
But I agree with the comments on the Paxman-style of journalism which looks to generate heat not light.
When income tax is 100% then I guess what McDonnell says is true.
snip
If he had talked about the money multiplier he would have had more of s point. But he wasn't
I am very against borrowing and deficit spending, I would much rather see a budget balanced via taxes or cuts elsewhere over a very short cycle. Borrowing is just taxing our children.
But our children (I don't actually have any) are getting the benefit too of investment. It doesn't help them to make the economy smaller by not borrowing to invest.
snip
Debt is a chain around the legs of the next generation that forever limits their lives.
Why on Earth do you see HS2 as 'for the few' ?
And as for it being of no benefit to the next generation - LOL! What's your thinking behind that?
The problem is that all North-South rail lines are at capacity, so we have to build something, whether it’s a new rail line or more roads for the freight. No-one ever talks about rail freight.
Given that there needs to be a new line, it makes sense to use the latest technology to build it, in other words to make a high speed line.
I may be wrong but is there an intersection of the sets of people who oppose HS2 and Leavers?
Because if that's the case then either Leavers can stop saying 'we've had the debate, we've had the vote' now get on with it, and saying 'stop HS2'. We've had endless Parliamentary debates on HS2 and two general elections and now we need to get on with it.
That was my experience.
I was at a Vote Leave event where a fellow delegate raised HS2, rather intemperately, and was both confused and annoyed that I supported Leave, and HS2.
On ConHome opposition to HS2 fulfils the same role as opposition to Trident within left wing Labour.
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
If the Labour Party is getting people in The City worried, then we are doing something right.
Well said. That is rather the point of the Labour Party.
Yes, but as a means and not an end in itself. Labour governments like all governments have a responsibility to be economically competent. And Labour is offering McDonnell and Corbyn...
And the Conservatives are offering Brexit. I think even with Corbyn and McDonnell Labour wins on economic competence.
But not among the group that @Alistair Meeks identified, the relatively affluent who backed Brexit, nor among the left behind. Polling tends to put the Conservatives ahead on economic issues.
According to all the rules, Brexit should never have got near winning an absolute majority in a national referendum.
The fact it did should be serious food for thought for everyone, but it isn't.
There have been a number of metaphors for Brexit. The most obvious is a vehicle driving off a cliff. This may yet prove to be the most accurate, but for now we are still in the fall. The sharp rocks lie in our future.
SeanT came up with his favoured childbirth analogy, but given that Brexit is the bastard lovechild of Farage and BoZo. that is actually more an argument for late term abortion.
There is another, better analogy, I realise now. It captures the futility, sacrifice and ultimate failure, and is forever immortalised by these words
We took risks, we knew we took them; things have come out against us, and therefore we have no cause for complaint, but bow to the will of Providence, determined still to do our best to the last ... Had we lived, I should have had a tale to tell of the hardihood, endurance, and courage of my companions which would have stirred the heart of every Englishman.
Yes, Brexit is our very own quest to the South Pole.
Initially pointless (we only did it because we thought we could, and nobody had tried before), terribly under-prepared, questionable choice of personnel, needless sacrifice, ultimate tragedy, and of course, the Norwegians beat us to it...
The only upside for Brexiteers is that some of their number may be lionised as a result.
Comments
But then the Labour Party are very good a sewing things up, and at the same time boasting about how democratic they are.
But why do you think the big banks pushed for mortgage regulations that prevented challengers offering anything different to the big bank products?
You may want to look at how many miles were electrified under Blair and Brown - ISTR it was sixteen or so around Stoke.
And the coalition and subsequent governments are electrifying - it's just that the (nationalised) Network Rail has utterly failed. That's not down to politicians - it's fully NR's mistake. They utterly misjudged how much the projects would cost.
So you have a record of massive investment in electrification by Conservative or Conservative-coalition governments and next to sod-all by Labour ones.
Instead, Blair pi**ed billions down the drain on the WCML upgrade.
Infrastructure investment is really difficult. But it's totally false to say that this government is not doing so. The question, as is always the case with infrastructure, is whether they're investing in the right projects.
Given what you've written this morning, you might want to write to Jeremy and ask him to give HS2 fuller backing.
(*) There were some really innovative technology used, and BR needs congratulating for that.
And as for it being of no benefit to the next generation - LOL! What's your thinking behind that?
Telegraph - panic starting to stir in City at prospect of Jezza:
"Worries about a duumvirate of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – the ‘Marx Brothers’ as they are known in the City – are approaching systemic levels."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/27/corbyn-dangerous-markets-hard-brexit-warns-morgan-stanley/
Given that there needs to be a new line, it makes sense to use the latest technology to build it, in other words to make a high speed line.
I don't subscribe to a point of view that regards obvious questions that a bystander disagrees with as being somehow inappropriate to ask. Arguments by appeal to authority are never attractive.
Besides, the question is a legitimate one, speaking to a widely-held fear that Labour tends to spend beyond the economy's capabilities. Labour needs to show that it understands the motivation behind the question and address it. Interviews like the one above show, quite literally, that John McDonnell doesn't understand the real question.
I thought the nickname was interesting, I seem to recall a similar debate about the Marx brothers on here a few days ago.
BTW Mr Borough, congratulations on your marriage at the weekend.
Because if that's the case then either Leavers can stop saying 'we've had the debate, we've had the vote' now get on with it, and saying 'stop HS2'. We've had endless Parliamentary debates on HS2 and two general elections and now we need to get on with it.
One of the things that makes me laugh about Labour's obsession with the 'ownership structure' of the railways is that they utterly ignore freight. To the extent that one pro-nationalisation polemic produced by a trade union mentioned freight only three times in dozens of pages - and that was just the word, not the needs of the railfreight industry.
How young are these fund managers? Did they never go abroad on a school trip? Most of what they are worried about seems to be true already, or in the recent past, or will be caused by Brexit.
If only politicians were people with the intelligence and insight to know the answers to the big problems we face! Sadly the truth is that, half of the time, they are as clueless as the rest of us, and have simply to wing it and create the impression of certainly when they actually haven't a clue, and the rest of the time, they do know the answer but cannot provide it because they also know that it is politically unattractive or undeliverable due to some vested interest or other that they cannot afford to challenge.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/28/profumo-had-long-term-relationship-with-nazi-spy-before-60s-sex-scandal
"Prince Harry wedding holds scant promise for economy"
The idea of hammering down success instead of trying to foster more is madness.
Mr. Meeks, also worth considering the impact of the middle class becoming thinner, and the cultural effect of poor integration of migrants and lack of defence of British values.
Whilst our departure from the EU, should it happen, is a very significant event, we shouldn't let that distract wholly from other divisions in the country. Those divisions would be just as real if we'd voted 52% Remain.
Though ironically having the wedding but not making it a bank holiday would be best, still plenty of merchandise sold but limited impact on productivity
The process will involve taking away shares from city types (and also many private small investors and pension funds) and giving them freshly printed gilts (at a ratio that McD refuses to spell out, but will be no doubt crappy).
No need to worry, they can just look at recent examples from countries like Argentina.
I suppose our attitude to investment is the flip side of the sheer continuity of life in Britain. We are a nation of fiddlers and improvisers rather than visionaries.
I can understand the comments about me - thats the difference. I get the distinct impression that many of you have no idea of the visceral damage your policies are doing to people - or do know and don't give a shit. Tories used to be human beings, whatever happened?
When a politician fails to answer a question, there are two main reasons. He may not know it because he or she is working in a different department, or they're not very numerate. You can apply the latter to Mrs Abbott. Probably Jezza too.
But McDonnel is shadow CoE.
The second reason is that he or she does not want the voters to know it because they are stupid and might draw the wrong conclusions. This was McDonnell's reason. The party know best and need to lead the sheep to the promised land.
Voters are simplistic and don't understand ideological purity. You can't spend too much in McDonnell world. It always makes a profit.
A cure for all our ills? Get 100,000 unemployed people digging a hole in the road and another 100,000 filling it in. Result success. GDP is increased, unemployment reduced, easier roads to drive on. The ovaltinees are happy. All hail the power of the Multiplier.
But this is too complicated for the population who haven't been raised in Marxist theory. So no need to worry their pretty little heads about.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42144889
Would the gilts markets give John McDonnell the same benefit of the doubt in pricing the risk of lending to the government that they give Philip Hammond? Would they do so over the entire borrowing period of the very substantial spending planned? Investors will approach this rationally (there's too much money at stake to do anything else). But they will look at track records, past pronouncements and clarity of plans. If you're planning a spending spree on an overdraft, best to keep the bank manager squared off.
But answering by addressing the motivation behind the question = not answering the question to the modern media. And really I suppose I'm hoping we can get some intelligent questions in there as well.
After all, surely the question isn't whether McD's plan is sensible, deliverable or beneficial, but whether it is more or less so than whatever we will be doing if the Conservatives are elected again?
Gordon Brown borrowed money to hand out in tax credits for several reasons.
1. To create a client state.
2. To create a system that rewards 60% of society with cash handouts, in a way that the other 40% (including 99% of journalists) neither understand nor comprehend.
3. To buy votes from the working classes.
4. To enable Labour supporters to scream how the Tories are nasty idealists who hate the disabled and do “visceral damage” to society, when this unsustainable largesse is reduced or withdrawn in the face of still being unable to balance the books a decade after the last recession started.
The media would have an independent arbiter to trust rather than just the complaints of the other side. It doesn't guarantee that Labour would meet such a rule - but it would be a powerful incentive.
.....I can't imagine the swagger coming back to the UK but they say the dawn follows the darkest night and maybe the Royal wedding might help
NO MORE HOT EIRE
2) Good. So you're saying that privatised railfreight has been a success (*). So your answer to this is to nationalise passenger railways, rather than look at how the existing structure may be improved?
3) You may want to tell this to some of you fellow Labourites, and especially those in the rail unions, who seem to think that 'rail renationalisation' should and will include railfreight.
(*) This is difficult to judge. IIRC freight tonnage has decreased, but that is mainly because the trainload bulk coal market has vanished due to the closure of power stations. Other freight markets have performed better. But it's easy to argue that passenger sectors have outperformed freight since privatisation.
Mr. D, part of the City's panic immediately after the vote was their idiotic hubris in thinking their exit polls would prove accurate when the proper chaps who normally do them didn't because they didn't believe it would be possible to be accurate.
An interesting piece for which, as always, many thanks Don. To be fair, and I'm sure he'd admit it, McDonnell didn't come over well in the post-Budget interviews but the usual suspects both here and elsewhere rather over-egged the pudding.
There are those for whom every interview given by every Labour spokesperson is a "car crash" and oddly enough most of these figures are staunch Conservatives so we may need to look elsewhere for more objective analysis.
As for the more general argument about interviewing, there's this thorny question of "accountability" or rather the notion, and this is especially true when a Government has a large majority, that there is no accountability available within the political process and a Government can do more or less what it likes and it falls to the media to provide that sense of challenge and to ask the difficult questions.
This began in the Thatcher years but has evolved and was strengthened by the expenses scandal into a low-level ongoing witch-hunt. I'm not suggesting and wouldn't want a return to the days of deference but it seems reasonable to allow someone being interviewed to make their case before being interrupted.
Should a politician know the price of a pint of milk ? Yes, in an ideal world but the Prime Minister in particular lives in a particularly cosseted environment and I can appreciate how easy it can become with time to lose touch with "ordinary" people. That being said, appreciating the concerns of the electorate should be central to any politician's role and being reminded of those concerns periodically no bad thing.
Pharmacists opinion of lawyers is summed up by the very unkind joke that went round some years ago, to the effect that Big Pharma were using lawyers instead of rats as experimental subjects.
Reason; there were more of them, they were easier to replace and the lab staff who looked after them didn’t get attached to them.
IIRC David Cameron had an aide make up a memo card with the answers to questions commonly used by journalists to trip up ‘out of touch’ politicians.
They can't believe their luck, just as if you or I woke up to find that we could actually fly, or turn Tunnocks tea cakes into gold, we would I'm sure misuse the power until we regained our composure.
https://twitter.com/MennaRawlings/status/935414803400572928
https://twitter.com/GREATBritain/status/935399121070055425
This is why Leave got 52%, as opposed to the Trumpian c.40% they'd have got on a purely Farageite platform, or the c.35% they might have got on a purely Goveite sovereignty platform.
Put the two together, which do have overlaps because a strong subset of each would have vote Leave regardless, and.. bang, you're there.
That'll be the reason why.
On a slightly related note there was an interesting comment on an FT forum that not all farmers are distressed by the prospect of Brexit upheaval. They expect land values to plummet and are looking forward to buying up bankrupted smallholdings.
When the definitive Book of Brexit comes to be written, one feature above all will stand out – the gulf between what Britain thought was likely to happen and the reality of what actually occurred.
At every stage, from the triggering of Article 50, through to the build-up to next month’s EU summit and (unless something remarkable happens) all the way to March 29, 2019, the British government has been shocked and surprised by the refusal of the 27 and their top team to compromise on their stated positions.
The conclusion has to be that the Government honestly believed that the two sides to the negotiation were partners, not opponents. They may even have calculated that in some bizarre fashion Britain had the upper hand. Theresa May and David Davis, backed by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, thought that a quick, no-fault divorce, followed by a frictionless trade deal, would be done and dusted within a year, leaving the UK – in the Prime Minister’s words – to enjoy a “deep and special partnership” with Europe.
Well, good luck with that.
https://reaction.life/complete-cock-tories-made-brexit/
I was at a Vote Leave event where a fellow delegate raised HS2, rather intemperately, and was both confused and annoyed that I supported Leave, and HS2.
The fact it did should be serious food for thought for everyone, but it isn't.
At least HS2 offers some potential utility.
New Zealand side Canterbury have held talks with Ben Stokes after the England all-rounder was seen at Heathrow airport on Monday.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/42148544
There have been a number of metaphors for Brexit. The most obvious is a vehicle driving off a cliff. This may yet prove to be the most accurate, but for now we are still in the fall. The sharp rocks lie in our future.
SeanT came up with his favoured childbirth analogy, but given that Brexit is the bastard lovechild of Farage and BoZo. that is actually more an argument for late term abortion.
There is another, better analogy, I realise now. It captures the futility, sacrifice and ultimate failure, and is forever immortalised by these words
We took risks, we knew we took them; things have come out against us, and therefore we have no cause for complaint, but bow to the will of Providence, determined still to do our best to the last ... Had we lived, I should have had a tale to tell of the hardihood, endurance, and courage of my companions which would have stirred the heart of every Englishman.
Yes, Brexit is our very own quest to the South Pole.
Initially pointless (we only did it because we thought we could, and nobody had tried before), terribly under-prepared, questionable choice of personnel, needless sacrifice, ultimate tragedy, and of course, the Norwegians beat us to it...
The only upside for Brexiteers is that some of their number may be lionised as a result.