Teflon Brown and Calamity Corbyn

At last Tony Blair admits he didn’t understand economics – 9 December 2015

What it boils down to is that Labour is incompetent at economics and cannot be trusted to run the economy. It is massively incompetent at projects. Hospital private Finance initiative’s mean the cost to the public for services is 2-3 times as much.

At a stroke this increases inequality by taking more permanently from the 99% to give to the richest 1%. The 1% move their money to offshore tax havens so this money no longer circulates in the UK economy.

This is a perfect formula for keeping economic growth low because growth requires money to be continually re-invested in the economy. The fictionalized economy locks up money in property so that is yet another way of keeping money from the real economy and minimizing growth. Politicians are behind these policies so maybe their best excuse perhaps is that they are too dim to understand what they are doing.

Labour will deny their polices are to increase inequality and minimize economic growth but that in effect is what their policies are

Derek Emery, Warwickshire, UK

Tony Blair and (especially) Gordon Brown were directly responsible for the severity of the crash in this country. The inverted snobbery of abruptly removing regulation of the banks from the Bank of England, and handing it to the SFA (then FSA), triggered their reckless rush for growth. Whereas the Old Lady had overseen the banks impeccably throughout the twentieth century, the Keystone Gestapo never had a clue and were not up to the task. The banks ran rings round them.

All of the basket-case banks were run by non-bankers; they were jumped-up cost accountants like Fred Goodwin or FMCG marketing hotshots like Andy Hornby. Lloyds, which was always the dullest of banks, had been run responsibly by properly trained bankers, and it was only the forced takeover of HBoS  that took it to the edge of oblivion. Eric Daniels didn’t deserve that.

Had the Bank of England been watching the monthly management accounts, as it always had previously, then RBS, HBoS, Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley would never have been able to over-leverage to the extent that they did and were caught out so badly in 2008. It amazes me that Gordon Brown, whose insane idea it was to sideline the Old Lady, has managed to Teflon his way out of any of the blame for this half-witted and catastrophic policy.

That and the truly ludicrous gold sale; by announcing the sale, he single-handedly created the biggest buyers’ market in history, costing us billions. There is surely no beginning to his talent. God help Pimco.

B.R. Barnfield, Madrid, Spain     |    @Webwrights_BB

PMQs: Labour’s miserable year ends with Corbyn flop – 16 December

Good and correct analysis.

Corbyn won’t win mainstream English votes. He was touted as someone who would attract Scots “back” to Labour. A candidate less likely to achieve this is hard to imagine. Indeed some polls now suggest the Tories, under a hard working, forward looking and entirely credible Leader in Ruth Davidson, look like moving into second place.

Labour may, but for the “list” system of PR in Scotland, effectively be wiped out there too. People do not take “list” MSP’s as seriously as those with a direct constituency locus.

If Jeremy was the answer, then the Party asked the wrong question

Archie Dempster, Renfrewshire, UK

Pumped up

There are two hurdles to clear before a president will approve a bill allowing U. S. oil producers to once again export crude to other countries (Begone: Oil export ban is a relic – 11 December 2015) One is price at the pump and the other is oil independence.

If we currently have a policy discount, why wouldn’t the price of gas go up if that policy is changed? I’d like to hear an explanation for why the price at the pump wouldn’t go up if we started exporting.

The second problem is one the politicians have created for themselves by continuously pounding the drum about energy independence. The truth is, unless we are totally oil independent, which we never will be, (and don’t need to be) a policy preventing the export of oil does nothing to protect us from price spikes or shortages. The politicians, however, have done everything in their power to make people think otherwise and now they have to undo decades of economic nonsense they have allowed to proliferate.

Larry Feldman, Lake Oswego, Or., US

Oligopolitics

Writing that small net changes have disproportionate effect (Unstable tectonic plates underlying British politics – 15 December 2015) implies that there has been and is and will be a material difference in policy between the current administration and any Labour one likely to have been assembled if they had won.  That is not a safe assumption. The party leaders are very close in attitude and objectives: broadly a social welfare economy, high government interference, liberal individual choices but very limited corporate or entrepreneurial choices.

It is much more productive to analyse British politics, and I dare say many overseas ones too, according to the traditional economic theory of oligopoly.  In this there are a few players who come to dominate their markets. The only competition is over packaging, style, branding – now where have we seen that at recent general elections.

The consequence of UK politics continuing along its current path will be growing public disaffection.  If we leave the EU things may get stirred up but if we were to stay in the disaffection could become continent wide and uncontrollable.  What then would be the likelihood of extreme or unconventional politicians and parties gaining office? Pretty high, one would guess.

The proposition that it is right for two and a bit political parties to dominate UK politics by shutting out newcomers is not acceptable and not remotely democratic.  For those currently enjoying the outcome to persist with it risks an explosive solution in the future.

Andrew Smith, Epping, UK

Quite gerunding about

The grammar sticklers are wrong, English is a living language – 11 December 2015

Well yes of course you are right. Chomsky is interesting but very political, perhaps. Language will evolve organically with the new words that happen. This should be a cause for celebration. Nobody wants to know what a gerund is. They want to know how they can talk to the person on the table next to them. Latinate rules don’t work all that well in English. Chaucer made a point of using the vernacular effectively. Perhaps we should, too

Howard Osborn, Brown Edge, UK