Sep 22

Darling said they did not get rid of Head Banker Mervyn King because there was no one else. This is of course pure Labour rhetoric, cowardice and their defining quality can kicking.  Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , ,

Dec 24

Tiss the season for Labourites to stoke the fires of how they come to support a party with little or no regard to human rights and democracy, bar the getting elected bit. So it’s the Tories 10 most brutal crimes.  Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , ,

Nov 11

The Dutch and German economic commentators and Bank apologists like Darling are out in full force to tell Greece to take its medicine. Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , ,

Oct 07

The economy maybe tanking but there seems precious little Osborne feels he can do. My advice in that circumstance do nothing and certainly not the last resort of the clown Quantitative Easing. No one has more effectively explained that QE is a waste of time other than to enrich bankers who steal by diluting everyone else’s capital than Osborne. Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , ,

May 25

For years many of us welcomed low interest rates. Our mortgages got cheaper after all. Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , ,

Jan 30

When it comes to economics it does seem no matter how well voiced one is it’s hard to know what is right and we may choose our response on the basis of what we’d like to believe. Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Oct 21

Paying back the deficit will be a lot like a Mortgage it will appear like the amount is static before it dips. Thus in the early years the difference between brutal cuts and measured cuts will be small. Indeed the biggest danger to reducing deficits is another recession which by its nature will be prolonged.

Thus in many respects the Ed Balls keep spending policy is not so flawed except that it’s a policy  that never finds a reason and leads to a creeping public sector and a private sector that is at best moribund. It produces an economy that produces nothing and consumes a lot and eventually one assumes there will be a reckoning. The other flaw is that using Govt borrowing as a stimulous is OK when people will consume but if they save the money and are buying foreign goods, as they are, the Accelerator effects may not even outweigh the drag of Public Sector spending.

Essentially a position of no cuts is to defend the world of Gordon Brown where everyone is expected to doff the cap and be beholden to the magnificence of Govt. To have the Russian view of we need a strong leader and to be told what to do. Indeed the behavioural aspects of Brown’s National Social Democracy are disturbing. Britains litter everywhere despite bins. Despite London having more street furniture than the rest of the non UK world combined people hurdle barriers and Jay-Walk. Train stations are an unpleasant cacophony of announcements about what you should not do – as though you planned to forget your bag or missed the hundred no smoking signs. Brown and Balls would have created a dead world of form filling compliance and one must fear that Ed Say Anything is of that ilk.

Nonetheless just because Labour is an unrepentant party of dictatorial and depraved dislike of anything human does not make Osborne right. Given the difference in interest is so small over the next few years with the Darling  plan then the additional hundreds of thousands on the Dole is an unnecessary risk. The Darling plan is what Labour would have done. What the politician Johnson has come up with about merely taxing the Banks is of course focus group led nonsense. as Ed Miliband said Labour are only about positioning for electoral advantage and hence will make statements made of pure air.

The kind of neo con neo liberal neo stupid policies of Osborne have not worked very well for the most part. They have utterly reduced Iraq to a militia state. They did not work in Russia and led to the ‘Brownian’ Putin taking command – some tongue in cheek there for the sensitive Brownites out there.

I can understand Osborne’s ideas and drivers but all policies like his do is cement the position in society of a few rich people at the expense of jobs and industry. Sure the opportunistic and frankly hypocritical Keynesian arguments of an infantile left allow him space to get away with it but it’s far too risky a policy.

For the first time I question why the Liberal Democrats see this as necessary. It comes across as a fait accompli and there are reasons to think we need it. However  like most extreme politics this is based on believing the worst can and will happen.

Sadly for me I have to advocate a middle course and would suggest the Darling plan was the best. Precisely because unlike Osborne or Brown Darling was a career politician and as unreactionary as we can get.

Osborne actually agrees with my view we need to produce more in Britain and we need a more dynamic private sector. However this is not achieved with unrelenting economic gloom as I experienced growing up when the nightly drops in the £ and FTSE and rises in unemployment were as much as back drop as Punk and the New Romantics.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Oct 11

Prime Minister’s know that the role no one wants is Home Secretary. If you’re a lousy Foreign Secretary like David Miliband who has spent 3 years: transferring us from a point-less war in Iraq into an even more point-less one in Afghanistan: Covering up complicity in Rendition and Torture by his idol: Endorsing interviews where Torture took place: No one knows or cares. It did not happen in Britain and a few hundred soldiers here or there means less to the public than Baby ‘P’ and also falls on the Defence Secretary who is normally someone so stupid the military can understand him and a perfect fall guy.

Home Secretary gets the Police, Asylum, Immigration, Prisons, Gun law and hundreds of surprise sources of immediate alarm requiring an instant and correct response where none might be available. Thus its a good position for the expendable or those with no overt ambition and even a good place to stick a loyalist. Thus a self aggrandising type like Brown put a political nobody like Jacqui Smith there. Someone who was probably the least inspiring political figure of her generation: Stupid: Greedy: Ignorant: Vicious: Uncaring: Deaf: Incompetent: and a hundred other pejoratives.

After Smith’s greed rather than her near total  incompetence finished her off Brown was forced to use Alan Johnson. Johnson’s first act was to damn science over drug law. In a bravura Commons performance Johnson said people in his constituency in Hull did not care what science had to say and preferred to use rumour, prejudice, smear and perception over facts of any sort. Mocking fact as any basis for policy when the rhetoric was not easy to sell. This at a time when Brown said people who disregarded science on Climate Change were Luddites. Thus it must have made for interesting Cabinet meetings as Johnson said rising sea levels were not a problem as they would just drain off the sides of the Earth.

In opposition actually Shadow Home is a great job for precisely the same reason it’s a shocker in power. Things go wrong and you can whine and batter the Govt. Thus Ed Balls one talent of being a thug is suddenly useful. Of course he coveted the Shadow Chancellorship but that meant giving someone who Ed Miliband disagrees with a job which in power would arguably have more power than the Premiership. Indeed it now seems not outrageous that Brown only started to spend money when he believed Blair would step down to give an idea of who holds the purse strings holds the power – hence Presidents and Prime Ministers make foreign wars as that sidelines the Chancellor.

Ed Miliband has made clear Labour will take a position in the centre ground – he will be led by the public. This means being slightly to the left of the Tories on the cuts whereas Balls is almost an extremist. I can only assume similar reasons ruled out Yvette Cooper who seems to have an easily won reputation. She’s never impacted my consciousness  but is a bright button but so were Ed Balls and David Miliband meant to be! This thus left the question with Darling and Straw leaving front line politics along with David Miliband who to put as Shadow Chancellor?

It’s a measure of how weak Ed Miliband’s constituency is that he apparently considered offering his brother the role to stay. He would have taken the nepotism hit. He’d have taken the person with real power in the Parliamentary Party being his rival not himself. Yet  like the first rodent sniffing incoming sea water David was off quicker that Ayrton Senna da Silva sniffing a gap.

So who else did Labour have? If he appointed someone with a career was he looking at the next leader of the Labour Party? Would he also be closing the door on bringing back his brother?

However none of this excuses giving a technical role to an economic ignoramus like Alan Johnson. Is Labour so short of real talent that does not undermine Little Ed’s position? It’s like asking a child to derive Pi to 100000 decimal places and recount it from memory asking Alan Johnson to understand any kind of complexity. Johnson was 19 years a Postman and could not produce a single comment on a Postal Strike – if he’s too weak or stupid to comment on a subject he would know about WTF is he doing as Shadow Chancellor?

What it is truly indicative of  is that Labour will be playing politics. They will be to the Left of the Govt by a short distance. They will not believe in anything just what they think the public will wear. That if once again they think they can outflank the opposition with de facto Concentration Camps for foreigners seeking refuge from violence or interning people for 6 months in the wake of another terrorist outrage they will be there. This is Alan Johnson’s talent enunciating rhetoric that he has no in understanding to back up or get off message with.

The scary thing for the working people of Britain is that if Labour succeed in getting elected with such a reactionary stance as is possible with the cuts they will probably be even worse than last time as the finances are so cooked. Alan  Johnson’s appointment signals Ed Miliband’s weakness at best enough people’s 2nd choice at worst the gerrymandered candidate of incompetent and nihilistic Union Barons. It also shows that Labour will still be guided by what the public say.

Say Anything in the end means Do Anything.

BTW He is not Red Ed but I’d go with Little Ed or Reactionary Ed or Dull’Ed.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Aug 17

The former Chancellor Alistair Darling today said that Labour’s lack of a credible plan to tackle the deficit cost them the election.

This undercuts two themes of Labour now who pretend that they have not ever been in Govt and have no 13 year track record of what they actually do. It removes the nonsense that cuts would not have been severe under Labour (Brown had guaranteed Darling would be Chancellor as the markets, Bank of England and populace would not stand for Balls or him in charge of what matters). It undermines the current view that our public and private debt is manageable.

The Labour supporting left need new clothes. My view is to come up with economics of how we can grow our economy and pay our way. For all the rhetoric no one seems able to answer a simple question “How can we grow our economy and close the Balance of Payments deficit that means we add £7Bn of external debt every month?”. Only George Osborne has raised this question, admittedly rhetorically, but as he said it makes no sense to borrow from China to pay China for goods.

The UK being outside the Euro does not have Germany to fund it and sell it goods as the Eurozone has – even then at some point does Germany own everyone else? China is doing this for the US for the foreseeable future. The UK has to pay its way at some point and whilst short term more growth may be preferable to a double dip of Osborne’s creation nonetheless long term we need more and will maybe not have the opportunity Brown had 10 years ago bequeathed by the maligned Major Clarke years to build public services and the UK economy.

Indeed aside from the Tories the only party who has a ‘positive’ view of the future is the Green’s. Whether their plans will work relies on whether we really can reduce Tax Evasion fundamentally. Certainly using credit checking agencies on the middle and upper classes might work better than on Dole frauds! Catch one generate millions. Catch a dole cheat and it costs as much as saved to do so.

Darling will of course get the full force of the one liners and Labour rhetoric but he’s probably one of the few whose opinions I accept as straight from the horses brain to mouth to me.

Something’s clearly wrong when we have 0.5% base rate and 3% plus inflation after a rapid deflation and the easy solutions of people standing for Labour leadership clearly make no sense.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jun 29

It’s clear that the ideology of Cameron and Osborne is encapsulated in their “it makes no sense to borrow off China to pay for Chinese goods”. The depth of the austerity budget and the willingness to sacrifice short term growth comes from this. Britain is 2nd only to Japan in per capita debt when private and public finances are considered.

Therefore the growth envisaged by Darling and the Labour party is really just more debt as we do not produce goods to make the difference.

The real caveats I have are:-

  1. Is there any evidence that running up private debt and balance of payments deficits hampers the economy? Is there ever a reckoning?
  2. Secondly replacing one unsustainable model with a new one is fine if your new model could work.  Even optimistic fans of private capital will  wonder if the vast sums of the cuts will be filled by wealth created by the private sector in a small time frame like a 5 year Parliament.

I do think that encouraging growth as Labour claims it would have done, yeah right, and not putting up VAT is fine except they have not explained how that will help medium term. Are they saying just continuing to rack up debt the UK is fine? That it will not succumb to Japanese style deflation eventually?

I tend to agree with the Conservatives here as they at least highlight a problem. Darling and co act like we are in a perfectly good position and a country as deeply in debt can just keep spending and growing on debt alone. Whilst Darling’s plan to close the Govt deficit was credible he seems to have no statement on how Britain will pay its way.

It does seem ones position on the need for cuts is determined by one’s view of one’s self. I read little analysis with the more leftist crying about growth with the usual patronising of the poor. The right  taking almost child like glee at the cuts like a Scot in a pub watching the England Germany game.

Cameron and Osborne have raised the question of the long term sustainability of the UK economy one hopes Labour provide their own answer rather than a series of yaa boo patronisation of the unemployed and poor. Especially if they were to win an election a some years time as without the answer we would effectively be endorsing more Brownian Buffoon economics where you spend money without any attempt to raise money through taxes.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , ,