Sizewell: another win for French nuclear blackmail

Among the large numbers bandied around by Rachel Reeves was of course well over £10bn of UK money for Sizewell C: and FID is yet to be taken!  Exactly whether this dosh is envisaged as outright cash (as has been the case with the billions already gifted to EDF, even before FID), or dumped straight onto electricity bills, or a combination, I have not yet discerned.  

It's still outrageous - at best a humongous leap of faith, the beneficiary of which is a French concern (and indeed the French state) that has proven itself many, many times over to be unworthy of trust in such matters.  In return for what?  A plant that, even on the most ambitious and optimistic assumptions, could not be generating electricity before the next-Parliament-but-two, and in the meantime will have cost all of us a great deal of non-returnable money.  Who said politicians' horizons extend only as far as the next election at best, and the next headline at worst?

Well of course none of this is to be taken at face value.  They are already pitching for headlines reading "thousands of jobs", although as we know, the hi-tech jobs involved will without doubt be squarely located in France.  The sop of a bit of civil engineering for UK firms - and not even 100% of that, if Hinkley Point C is any guide, which of course it is explicitly meant to be!  If Keynesianism is the guiding theory, you could get a great deal more for your money on vastly more useful civil engineering projects that might actually make some kind of economic return decades sooner than SZC ever could.  Just keeping the money in the UK would be a start. 

And of course there are other short-term considerations, the giveaway being Mr Frog who, on the exact subject of demanding more money for both SZC and HPC (for which, contractually, EDF has sole responsibility) recently stated: "We [UK + France] need to stick together on many subjects - on Ukraine, on all dimensions of our relationship".  We may be sure he really means "cooperation on Small Boats", the carrot of which which the French continually dangle, and then promptly withdraw a couple of weeks later.  Oh, and we must pay for that "cooperation", too.  Such an easy game.

Why are successive UK PMs and Chancellors such soft touches?  Blair, Brown, Cameron, Osborne, May, Hammond, Johnson, Starmer, Reeves ... it's only been Sunak who has ever demurred, and then without any meaningful force.  The rest have all danced to EDF's protracted, staccato jig.  I despair.

ND

Labour leadership stakes: rats-in-sack update

It's two months ago since we last looked at the jockeying for position going on in the Cabinet.  At that time we cast our eyes over Reeves (nobody's idea of the next leader, then or now); Streeting (obviously positioning himself actively); Lammy (radiating ambition); and Rayner (also ambitious but actually a joke).  For completeness, we mentioned Khan (permanently on the lookout for the Main Chance); Miliband (radiating competence); and Mandelson (devious and unpredictable as ever).

How do things look now?  The Grauniad has a telling, tearful piece, avowedly briefed by the wimmin: and it's worth quoting a couple of chunks. 

... a female minister spoke directly to the prime minister to complain about the leaks and briefings she saw directed against other women ... including Bridget Phillipson, Liz Kendall, and Yvette Cooper .,. “Cabinet really no longer feels like a safe space for genuine debate,” one minister said ... after weeks of tension felt by some women in the cabinet... Almost a dozen female Labour MPs who spoke to the Guardian said they were unnerved at how female cabinet ministers appeared to be getting the brunt of the blame for issues in government – though there is less sympathy for the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, because of anger over the Treasury’s handling of spending cuts and welfare. Among some of the new intake of MPs, there is a strong feeling that any ultimate successor to Starmer should be a woman – and a resentment of what they see as a campaign to anoint Wes Streeting.

Hahah!  More popcorn supplies, please.  It goes on: 

At the moment [Streeting] has no obvious female rival as the heir apparent. Senior cabinet ministers who did not want to see Streeting win had previously coalesced around Reeves, but her unpopular decisions as chancellor have meant that is no longer the case. Other ministers would back Rayner, but she would face a brutal press onslaught. Among Labour members there is no doubt, however. Rayner is streets ahead of her rivals in terms of popularity with the grassroots ... There is only one cabinet minister ahead of her, who is probably the least likely of anyone around the table to have another shot at the top job – Ed Miliband.

This is not intelligent commentary.  First, selecting the next leader when there's no vacancy is well-known to be an absolute mug's game.  Genuine, nailed-on heirs-apparent are few and far between in British politics (in the past century or more, only Anthony Eden and Gordon Brown).  

Second, Miliband is not at all the least likely to have another shot.  In countries like France and Italy he would be the number one contender in everyone's books: competent (at politics, that is), confident, popular, experienced, sure-footed, intelligent, and comfortably dynamic enough.  And he has the green-left eating out of his hand - potentially deemed a vital constituency when the Green Party is snapping around Labour's heels in such politically volatile circumstances.  That's how he'd be marketed, anyhow. 

A couple more comments.  (a)  You just can't rule out Khan or Burnham.  These guys' ambition and political capital is so great.  Safe seats aren't so hard to find in a hurry: Boris always found one at the drop of a hat.

(b) Having mentioned the Prince of Darkness last time and just out of interest, I have it on good authority Mandelson has already f****d up royally in Washington.  Of course, he's made comebacks in the past from many an appalling situation of his own making, so who knows?  But right now, his political capital is deep in the red.

Oh, and Lammy?  Speaking of in-the-red, he's so far out of the money right now, I almost forgot him.

ND  

Polly Toynbee, True Believer: hope springs eternal?

The public career of Polly Toynbee is a continuous source of mirth.  How many socialist saviours has she hitched her wagon to, only to have her hopes crushed.  Owen, Blair, Brown, Patricia Hewitt (sic), ... and now Starmer/Reeves.  Always bearing the imprint of the last person to sit upon her / brief her confidentially over lunch.  But before the worm turns & the Great Disappointment strikes, whilst her wagon still hitched there's nothing she won't do by way of providing what she thinks of as helpful outrider support.  Here's the latest - in the Graun, as usual: 

The Waspi women suffered outrageous misogyny, but in poverty-stricken Britain they’re not the top priority. The government is right in its decision not to pay the women up to £10.5bn in compensation ... a government [does not] have a financial duty to repair historical sexism.

Polly: calm down!  Starmer & Reeves - just like your former beau Brown - don't mind lying & brazening these things out.  It just doesn't bother them!  They don't need your sophistry.  Haven't you spotted how they are leading you by the nose?  Here was you, Polly, back in July in that self-same Grauniad: 

Starmer will bin the two-child benefit cap and outdo New Labour on tackling poverty – I’ll bet on it. I will eat my hat – or several – if Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves don’t soon find the money to bury the pernicious two-child benefit cap. In her first budget, expect Reeves to find the funds for this, and other public spending not yet announced... Some worry that Starmer and Reeves will be deterred by the campaign to force them to pay up, fearing it would signal their willingness to capitulate and splurge on everything else. I don’t think they’re that frit, with the markets and everyone that matters backing them. It would demonstrate surefooted self-confidence...

Any doubt about their good intent vanished with their creation of a new child poverty unit. ... Every Labour government always reduces poverty: this one will be no exception.  Expect no less from Starmer and Reeves, and probably more... And they will start by hurling the two-child benefit cap into the dustbin of atrocious Tory policies. 

Heart-rending stuff, eh?   Here's how her infatuation with Brown ended ...

ND

Goodbye, Darling

We were never very kind towards Alistair Darling here.  Well, a Labour Chancellor, who once supported a Tobin tax - what do you expect?

But, to be charitable - as today we should - how could anyone have followed Gordon Brown in that a role, which meant reporting to the man hour by hour, being second-guessed all the time?  Quite amazing that he maintained the dignity he did.  BTW, he wasn't at the Treasury when Brown did most of the damage (1998-2007).  Oh, and he chaired the 'No' vote campaign during the Scottish Inde1 referendum.  Yes, we did have a bit of regard for the Badger.

RIP, Darling.  Tough trade, politicis.

ND

Hunt's Autumn Statement - open thread

So - what do we think?   Does Hunt's Statement change anything?   Is the Tory goose so truly cooked, nothing can save it?   Has he succeeded in laying a trap for Labour?   Is he scorching the earth ahead of 2025, Gordon-Brown style?

Answers on a postcard ...

ND

Edging closer to winter 2022-23 in Europe

Neither Tory leadership candidate really wants to acknowledge what's coming down the line for Xmas.  They'd much prefer to trade upbeat, positive-sounding stuff.  Boris sure as Hell doesn't want it to be discussed: anything that goes tits-up will be the exclusive responsibility of Whomever Follows, because, hey, there was no delinquency on his watch.   The same reticence can be seen across Europe.  We mulled this over four weeks ago; but as I return from a short hol, evidently the prospects for winter still remain too scary for anyone to acknowledge in full detail.  I suppose we must credit Gordon Brown (not a man who ever got much credit from C@W, and who has much to atone for) for at least having a try.  Even he only talks about domestic energy bills, as if the energy itself is not at issue.  And what of the food?

At the time of writing, only Italy and Slovakia are receiving any Russian gas to speak of: supplies to Germany are down to a trickle.  The gas systems of Europe are so stressed and constipated as they try to replace this with 'reverse-flow' sources - LNG terminals to the west of Europe, pushing gas eastwards - that various technical limitations have been reached and there's even spare capacity at UK LNG terminals right now: the amount we can onward-export via cross-channel pipelines is maxxed out.  The UK, and even more so, Spain (which is similarly well-provided with LNG terminals, but really can't export much to France at all) are islands of 'low' (relatively low) wholesale gas prices.  Demand destruction looms across industrial Europe.  And it's a really hot summer!

(Speaking of which, hot weather sends electricity prices up, too ...)

Presumably, Putin is showing his hand, gas-wise, as early as this in order to give European politicians a low-impact (relatively low) demo of what's to come.   If, despite the inclinations of France / Italy / Hungary / many German businessmen towards an "accommodation", Europe actually has to wear this in winter 2022-23, the dynamics of world trade will be monumentally distorted.  To say nothing of the politics.  Ukraine may be planning a spectacular counter-offensive for the weeks to come, and China continues its firework display: but otherwise, all eyes are on Germany.  What will Scholz do?

ND 

Only Psychopaths Need Apply ...

Here's a really telling piece of pop psycho-philosophy for our times. 

Who could she possibly mean?

It's Veronika Stepanova, a Russian online "psychologist" with a big youtube following, declaring that only a psychopath/sociopath (- ideally, a high-functioning one with a good IQ, natch -) is fitted to be a President.  Unfortunately I haven't got the direct link but you can view the relevant extract in this tweet.

In summary:  to be a good President, it takes someone with a pathological drive for power who can follow the necessary path of listening only to himself, and not the law, without conscience or guilt.  It's hardly a novel thesis: indeed, it's Nietzsche 1.01, The Will To Power, albeit expressed more artistically there.  Only such a man can become a Beethoven, a Caesar, a Napoleon who were certainly all complete shits.  Nietzsche included Goethe but I'm not sure that's as clear an example.  You can add your own favourites to the rollcall: many people put both Gordon Brown and Boris Johnson on the list, which (if that's right) goes to show it's a necessary characteristic but not a sufficient one.

(Ironically, it was of course Stepanova's compatriot Dostoevsky who gave us a compelling of the "maybe necessary, but not sufficient" aspect, in Crime and Punishment.)

It's also a view commonly held by many of our BTLers, who often include the sentiment that it's why they despise all politicians.  OK: but that still leaves a couple of key points to consider:

• It ain't just politicians, is it?  It's great artists (per Nietzsche: consider Monet for example, another self-focused shit); business innovators (libel is libel and I'm sure we all have our nominees); scientists ... and so it goes on.
• So - despise them or not: do we, actually, need them nonetheless?  Nietzsche, of course, didn't care about what "we" need, it was all art-for-art's-sake with him.  But George Bernard Shaw certainly thought we needed them: the hungry man had best follow the fat man, because fattie knows where the food is.

We are stuck with them!  Lamentably, there are those who merely think they are Napoleons - Raskolnikov, Johnson - and we are stuck with them, too.

ND

After Boris: Runners, Riders & the Momentum Thing

Who he?

I am a long-time amateur student of how the big parties change their leaderships.  If there's one iron rule, it's that the long-term heir apparent rarely gets the prize - and when they do, everyone quickly knows it's a big mistake (Eden, Brown).  Generally speaking, heirs apparent come and go: think of Thatcher's time:  Cecil Parkinson;  Norman Tebbit;  John 'golden boy' Moore;  Michael Portillo ... come 1990, nope, none of them.  John Major!  Wouldn't have been on any serious list of predictions 18 months before it happened.  Ditto Thatcher herself, of course, in 1973.  Or May in 2015.  Or Corbyn in 2014.  Or Blair in 1992.

And so it goes on:  parallel instances are legion.

Michael Crick, an old chum of mine and very professional student of these things (no man more so since the late, lamented Vincent Hanna), developed some advanced theorising about what he called "limited electorate" elections (like when MPs choose the leader), honing his observations on frequent, bitterly fought contests in student politics.  In his theory, when everybody involved essentially knows everybody else, and when there's a lot of serious ambition in play, i.e. the post is much sought after**, there is no merit whatever in being an heir apparent.  Quite the reverse: the key is to be accelerating like crazy up the rankings in a shortish period before the election, maybe even coming from nowhere.  That's "nowhere in people's reckoning", not "who the hell is this?" - because, ex hypothesi, everyone knows everyone.  Or, to translate into American political vernacular, it's the candidate with the Big Mo at the exact time of the poll.  Fresh, novelty value.  We've all made a discovery.  "Hey, you know what?  Maybe ... Fred !"

These days, of course, the leadership elections are technically thrown open to t'membership - but only on some shortlist basis.  In other words, the informed, limited selectorship (where everyone knows everyone) gets to pre-qualify what t'membership will find on the ballot.  A bit of a hybrid, but it doesn't significantly invalidate the theory, I suggest.

Anyhow.  By way of calibration, here's the complete list of runners and riders as listed A-Z by Conservative Home back last December, another time when Boris was on the rocks.  (It's not new.)

Badenoch;       Baker;      Brady;      Gove;      Harper;      Hunt;                             Javid;     Mordaunt;      Patel;        Raab;        Rees-Mogg;                                     Sunak;      Trevelyan;           Truss;      Tugendhat

Who is Harper?, I hear you mutter.  And Badenoch .. and Trevelyan ..?  But that's not the point.  Now: here's this week's YouGov opinion poll list:

Gove;          Hunt;          Mordaunt;  Patel;      Sunak;      Truss;                                     Tugendhat;          Wallace;          Zahawi

Read these lists and weep.  But note how things change: and while Gove has apparently now ruled himself out, Wallace - nowhere in December - came top of the poll!

Yes, folks - Timing is everything in these matters, with Events running a close second.  If Boris staggers on into the New Year (a very big If), it'll be someone nobody is even considering right now.

ND

____________

** Obviously this isn't meant to be relevant in elections where generally there is a dire paucity of candidates, e.g. for the chair of the local WI.  Though sometimes it might.

The Green Industrial Revolution re-launch

I have a flashback to 2010, then we had a Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who was trying to overcome the huge challenges of the Financial Crash, whilst watching his popularity decline. 

Today it is Boris, struggling with the Covid pandemic, trying to maintain his now tarnished popularity.

Let's have a re-launch the advisers say, something fun and that appeals to everyone, with a suitably long enough time frame that we don't have to do anything now, but will win some Brownie (see what i did there?) points for vision and strategy etc.

And lo, we are presented with the Green industrial revolution. An idea stolen from Rebecca Long-Bailey of the Labour party no less. The benefit to this is there is hardly any meat here to worry about or initiatives that will cost too much when they meet reality. A downfall meme on this is surely only hours away. 

The idea of greening the economy itself is a good one, just ill-suited for 4 year parliaments to really implement. 

However, I am going to defend one stand-out idea. That of phasing out sale of petrol and diesel in ten years. This to me is exactly how Government should regulate. A simple goal to understand and the technology already exists to make this possible. The private sector is left to steer the ship the right way. 

This way is way more efficient than say setting up our own green car company or legislating like the Green party want for everyone to have a free bus service. 

As for the rest of it, tomorrow's chip paper. 

Peak Corbyn

As you perhaps know I am an inveterate, nay veteran strategiser: I have done it for a living in the military and in commerce.  In the aftermath of the dreadful GE 2017, my thoughts inevitably turned to how the Tories might work their way out of the ridiculous hole May had dropped them in.  (Obviously someone had been given an inkling of the result beforehand, because at least the DUP deal was immediately ready to roll.)

Sticking to aspects that are germane to the matter in hand right now, my strategy incorporated the following elements that had positive leverage potential:

1. The next (scheduled) GE would be five years ahead, a helluva long time
2. Corbyn was 68; McDonnell 66
3. In the ensuing years there were likely to be a number of truly loonie-left Local Authorities to provide public evidence of what these latter-day marxists do, given a sniff of power - 5 years being a mighty long time for them to hold their discipline
4. Da Yoof, whilst capable of surging onto the streets and into the polling booths in a fit of childrens-crusade enthusiasm, are nowadays notoriously fickle, flighty, of short attention-span, and low propensity to make commitments beyond the next Deliveroo pizza horizon  

Anyhow, their attention-span lasted long enough to grant Magic Grandad a full Triumph at Glastonbury 2017; and Momentum, buoyed up with all the confidence May had so culpably endowed them with (see recent posts), was gearing up to take over the world.

Then the long drawn-out Brexit stuff engulfed them, and Corbyn's resolute fence-sitting - almost indistinguishable from being fully impaled on a sharp bit at the top - has begun to annoy quite a number on the Left.  The tone of many a leftie article just now is:  too late, you old git, we've got your number now, and if you change your mind this late in the day, nobody will believe you.  Anyhow - remind me why we ever liked you in the first place?  And where's that pizza?  

Oh, how fickle is fortune, eh? (see item 4 above).   And then we come to item 2, and this week's "Corbyn has lost it" meme, so rapidly fanning out from the Murdoch press.  As with all good malicious rumours, per the Trump handbook (see Scott Adams passim) the key is to say something that immediately chimes, that was almost on everyone's lips anyway, that crystalises the already-present but non-articulated thought.  And, let's face it, this one falls on pretty fertile ground.  The timing was perfect.

Of course, Team Corbs (I believe they go by 'LOTO') have rushed into full Rapid Rebuttal mode - but this one would have been a challenge for Bad Al Campbell** lui-même in his formidable Excalibur prime.  Unfortunately, the best they can come up with is, Jezza is really quite fit.  For his age.  Ahem.  Sadly, as lots of people know all too poignantly, there is many a deep-dementia sufferer who is as fit as a fiddle ...  and that's even before we get into "Methinks / protest ..."  Just how smart is it to call for a full enquiry?  Who knows what else will come up?

People have periodically been calling 'Peak Corbyn' for at least 18 months, but thus far I haven't been convinced.  Today, there's a decent case to be made.  He seems to have a tight pretorian team that can face down even McDonnell, so they can probably keep him, El Cid-like, stuck on his fence for a good while longer.  (People did the same for Gordon Brown, as we frequently noted at the time.)  Trouble is, there may no longer be the adoring crowds gazing up at him from either side.  No Glastonbury for Corbs this year (according the Grauniad, he'd have been booed if he'd tried).  Could be quite a lonely place when the wind gets up.  Clambering down again may be painful in itself, and too late anyway.  Talk is already of handing the baton to Rebecca Long Bailey.

By the way, I hear McDonnell's health is not of the best ...

ND
____________________________
**Did he even start the rumour ..?

UPDATE:  this,  from today's Guardian

Rumours have been flying for months not only about Corbyn’s physical health ... but more broadly about his intellectual capacity; his ability to master an endless series of complex briefs and take timely decisions on difficult issues, while simultaneously managing a sometimes fractious party and dealing with whatever unexpected crisis blows up.

 AND MORE:   (also Graun)

Corbynism’s greatest liability is now Jeremy Corbyn himself ... He sounds tongue-tied and looks like a man hiding from battle, which undermines the image of a candid crusader. When the hero no longer embodies principles on which his movement was founded, the whole edifice wobbles. The attention of young idealists drifts; affection turns conditional; benefit of the doubt is withdrawn. It is getting notably harder, for example, to be loyal to Corbyn and determined to combat antisemitism at the same time ... He once exuded a gentleness that made allegations of fanaticism sound preposterous. Now his peevish side cuts through. He once animated feelings of belonging and purpose in people who had felt starved of inspiration by soulless New Labour. Now he refuses to quench the thirst of his party’s parched remainers ... Few Labour MPs, if any, relish the prospect of an election under their leader, although most pretend to want one. It is hard to present Corbyn as a man for the future, and May’s departure will date him even more. He will be a stale continuity figure from the time of stasis, irradiated through years of loitering ineffectually amid the referendum’s toxic fallout. His aura of specialness has dissipated, revealing the man in all his flawed mediocrity. The prospect of Britain having a radical Labour government is sliding into the gap that has opened up between an idea people once called “Jeremy Corbyn” and the actual Jeremy Corbyn.

Polly Toynbee's Fallen In Love Again

...  and this time it's ... John McDonnell !

A highly entertaining compendium could be published of all her simpering articles in this vein over the decades.  Gordon Brown would feature several times of course; though she lost interest in that one years ago and now merely refers to him wistfully - in the McDonnell piece - as 'hapless'. **

These pieces are generally written after she's been flattered with a private lunch - you can easily tell.  I remember with fondness the fawning piece she wrote about Patricia Hewitt when the latter was Secretary of State at the DTI and had assured Polly-Wolly there'd be no more nukes.  "No new nuclear power plants!" gushed Toynbee.  That was just before the 2005 election of course.  The day after polling, Blair replaced her with Alan Johnson and told him to get right on with a new nuclear programme.

Polly, when will you ever learn?  They are all playing you for a sucker!  

ND

**  But does she know what 'hapless' means?  Most Gruaniad writers do not.

Postscript - blast from the past: here's what happened when Polly first fell out with Gordon ...

There’s a one-eyed yellow Scotsman of a dour and sullen hue
There’s a stench of pious bullshit all around
There’s a broken-heated woman dreams of socialism true
And the yellow Scot forever lets her down

He was known as Red McBroon, and he made the Party swoon
Though his cowardice had long begun to smell
But for all he was a wanker he was feted by the bankers
And Polly Toynbee smiled on him as well ...

Read on here ...

Wonga on the edge - about bloody time

Now here is a tale of real disgrace for New Labour and then Tory ambivalence only late turning into action. I won't shirk when it has been so wrong for so long.


Wonga is about to go under, announcing another huge loss is coming and three years of huge losses on such a small lending book with the regulatory environment against it - it's curtains. Wonga will be a thing of history soon.


Way back in 2007, when Gordon Brown (who was much worse  than May, let's not forget this - she is inactively terrible, he was actively malign), surveyed all, Wonga was set-up. The premise was, in this time of ultra cheap credit, that some people could not get any. Not Wonga obviously, they got a nice cheap credit line, but there game was usurious lending to the desperately poor. To me, this is like betting on the increase in food prices - just morally wrong.


But in those heady days, anything went and the Regulator was happy to approve the business. Soon enough it grew large on the often over 1000% APR returns it managed to create. However, built on immorality from the start, the business soon festered. To chase clients, they pretended to send letters from law firms to chase for money back.


By 2012 Wonga had become a target for everyone. Even the new FCA could see it and finally steamed into action, capping its insane interest rates and allowing customers to claim back the usurious monies extracted from them. Quickly the business started to fall, unfortunately driven too by a rise in competition  - at least though this restricts interest to a mere 300% per year.


So here we are in 2018, struggling under the weight of its past, Wonga will die.


But really, how on earth was this business ever allowed to exist. Desperate people need money and it can be very hard to get. Yes, there are back street lenders and criminals who purvey this sort of thing - but they are no legal, they have no claim other than threatening physical violence. To allow to pass into law and common practice such usury is a terrible stain on the Labour Government - THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT! Not helped by the incoming Tory administration who at least have overseen a regulation of this business - but, to me crazily, still allowed it to exist.


It is a sorry story and one which really shows how distant politicians are from both the people they serve and the basic principles of economics that they would ever allow this carry on.

Are QE pension deficits a big hidden problem in the economy?

Whenever a big company goes under these days, much of the post-collapse discussion surrounds the pension entitlements of former employees. The UK Government even has a Pension Protection Fund set up to try the best for the employees who are rightly seen as victims.


Dominic Chappell, of BHS infamy, even lost a court case this week for not sharing the information on his companies pension scheme with the Protection Fund - he may even get locked up for it.


But what has worried me for a long time is the destruction of the Pension industry since 1997 and Gordon Brown's raid on the tax relief on dividends in pension funds.


Since there all the UK defined benefit schemes have closed, these were more generous and could not be sustained after the raid. Also, the pension deficits of companies have grown, long-ago now are the pension holidays companies used to take in the 1990's.


In fact, the total amount raised by the Gordon Brown tax is around £150 billion (about £10 billion per annum, twice what it was alleged to be at the time). Today total FTSE350 deficits are around £17  billion, far from healthy.


On top of this then we have the Quantitative Easing fiasco which should ended 5 years ago. Now, we a very low interest environment thank to Banks and Funds being for by regulation to by Government Bonds which have increased in price, thanks to demand, and shrunk in yield. As a result, despite investing at around 6% more each year and having Pension assets double in the past ten years, pension scheme deficits are rising.


With all the money invested into pensions schemes, companies show less profits and in turn have less money to invest. One of the drivers of the UK economy, in a negative sense, is the lack of productivity driven by low investment. Companies that are struggling end up with no profits at all, see Carillion and others - pension deficits are a key driver toward corporate failure.


QE on top of the Brown reforms has destroyed the UK pension scheme industry. Weirdly, a re-balance economy with the end of QE would quickly see Deficits fall and pensions back to health (in their new defined contribution form which is about 1/3rd as good as the old defined benefit schemes).


It is a big underlying macro-economic challenge rarely addressed and as ever was an attempted Labour reform to the private sector gone wrong!

Abandon Hope Now!

As omens and metaphors go, it's hard to beat this one:  HMS Queen Elizabeth is shipping water at 200 litres per hour!

Bloody typical.  A crass decision by Gordon Brown to hobble the nation's defences in order to curry favour in his own constituency - curried pork-barrel, no less - leaves us with a legacy of two entirely useless floating targets monstrosities that, due to the budgetary constraints caused by their own extravagant cost cannot be either (a) equipped with the aircraft they are designed for or (b) set up in carrier-groups of adequate capability to make them viable.

I say 'floating' but even this may be getting ahead of myself because the first one has sprung a serious* leak.  Already.

So, let's just spell out the full metaphorical beauty of this situation:

• very bad, very expensive decision
• taken by a self-interested politician for shoddy reasons
• with long-lasting and baleful strategic consequences
• butt of mockery around the world
• not even executed properly
• everyone tries to be supportive, pretends to be proud, but ...
• set to be a source of embarrassment, not to mention damage, for years to come

Remind you of anything?  The cartoonists will not be far behind.

ND  

__________
* OK, not serious - thanks, Raedwald

Blast from the Past: Polly Toynbee vs Gordon Brown

Toynbee vs Brown, round 12!  Both in the Red corner.   What a love-hate relationship, eh?

This time she's having a go at his new book.  "The sadness is that even 10 years later Brown’s old flaws and resentments remain perfectly intact.  Couldn’t he have restrained himself from expressing his loathing for Blair?"   She's a fine one to talk! - never tires of slagging off Blair, as a cursory search will establish.   

But back to the main theme: her bitter disappointment, firstly when Brown supported the war in Iraq, and again when she discovered paradise had not returned to earth in 2007.  "The real test surely came with his arrival in No 10.  I was among many hoping for a radical shift that never came. Those around him expecting a new blueprint found there was none."

Well, her grasp on facts was never great; but she got that one right.  And if we're dusting all this old stuff down again ... with apologies to Mad Carew:

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

There’s a one-eyed yellow Scotsman of a dour and sullen hue
There’s a stench of pious bullshit all around
There’s a broken-hearted woman dreams of socialism true
And the yellow Scot forever lets her down

He was known as Red McBroon, and he made the Party swoon
Though his cowardice had long begun to smell
But for all he was a wanker he was feted by the bankers
And Polly Toynbee smiled on him as well

He’d been stringing her along with his socialism strong
She’d swallowed all he put into her head
When she judged Blair’s time was short, she said Broon had her support
Provided he would prove himself True Red

He wrote to ask what promise she would like from Red McBroon
They met for lunch as many times before
And fervently she told him then that nothing else would do
But his vote against Blair’s mad Iraqi war

On the night of the debate, Red McBroon was in a state,
His followers could bring mad Tony down
But he’d never in his life had the balls to wield the knife
For he knew the wielder never wears the crown

When it came to the division, courage gave way to ambition
And his scruples failed as surely as his balls
When she heard them read the vote, fury welled up in her throat
And ‘betrayal!’ was her cry around the halls

Now Hell it hath no fury like a jilted Polly Toynbee
First Blair and now McBroon had sold his soul
As she stomped off in the night, for her op-ed piece to write
She vowed vengeance on the yellow Scots arsehole

There’s a one-eyed yellow Scotsman of a dour and sullen hue
There’s a stench of pious bullshit all around
There’s a broken-hearted woman dreams of socialism true
And the yellow Scot forever lets her down.

Nick Drew 2007

More rain in Manchester it seems

Poor Theresa May, now defined as a female personification of Gordon Brown, even down to the policies.


During her speech today the set she was speaking in front of fell to pieces, a nerdy protestor handed her a P45 and she had a cough and cold so she could barely speak.


Truly, this is Brownian motion of the fist order!


To make matters worse, he big non-Brexit ideas were both neither capitalist nor conservative. She wants more council house building - why? Because this has been such a success? Why not just relax planning laws? Why not set an overall target and offer incentives to get there? Why no mention of the plan to reduce immigration and therefore bring future balance to supply and demand in housing?


I can't even begin with the craziness of capping energy prices and will wait for Nick Drew of this parish to respond fully in due course; in short, first the Government rig the markets to reduce supply of energy to increase prices for consumers and now they want to rig the prices companies can charge. This can only lead to dis-investment and corporate collapses in the medium term.


On a human level I am left having some sympathy for Mrs May; a terrible hand of cards is unplayable and you lose the game whatever you do, she had the worst hand of cards given to a Prime Minister in my lifetime so no wonder she is struggling, it is a Kobyashi Maru scenario.


However, there is a greater need for the Country to get on with Brexit and then seek new leadership or else PM Corbyn it will be at the next election.

Sending for Gordon Brown?!

Isn’t it shit? 
Deepest despair 
Project Fear running aground, clutching thin air - 
Sending for Brown! 

Badly amiss? 
Losing the plot! 
Brown of the big clunking fist, glowering Scot
Why are these clowns 
Sending for Brown?! 

What did they find, knocking on doors? 
Finally grasping - Remain’s a lost cause! 
Making his entrance again with his usual flair 
Under his breath, still cursing Blair 

Don’t you love farce? 
Dave’s fault, I fear 
He thought that we’d want what he wants … 
Sorry, my dear! 
So why is the clown
Sending for Brown? 
Oh bugger, he’s here. 

Isn’t it shit? 
Isn’t it queer? 
Dave simply chucking his once glorious career? 
And turning to Brown 
It’s all turning Brown 
Calamity’s near. 

ND

Osborne apes Gordon Brown

What a time to go to China. One of the things about having a busy job in life is that you have to plan so far in advance. if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer its likely takes many months to arrange a trip to China with all the flunkies working at it to get the right meetings arranged for you.

This Osborne is reduced, the time now having arrived and at a very in-opportune moment to say this:

"I very deliberately chose to come here, to the epicentre of the volatility in financial markets this summer, to say this: whatever the headlines, regardless of the challenges, we shouldn’t be running away from China.

 

"And so today my message is clear: through the ups and downs, let’s stick together.

 

"Let’s stick together to grow our economies. Let’s stick together and make Britain China’s best partner in the West. Let’s stick together and create a golden decade for both of our countries.

 

"Britain and China: we’ll stick together."

So, just as Chin starts to really suffer from the downsides of the corruption and dystopian effects of the One Party State, Osborne chooses to go and suck up to them. Rather than offering support in building free markets or powerful regulators, we just sign them up to build the most unaffordable powerstation in the world (seriously, for the ludicrous cost we could likely build the as yet uninvented Fusion power station, it will be twice as expensive as using solar, even in the dark UK) for us.

Worse, China is likely experiencing the beginnings of a prolonged downturn in fortunes. It has enough foreign reserves to mask the depths of the crisis for a decade or so and is lucky that it is so tied to commodity prices that would finish the economy off if they rose.

I mention Gordon Brown because of his Jonah status of always backing the wrong horse, but also the habit of our Chancellors to be ill-prepared to deal with the real world and instead seek to shape the world as they see it.

I doubt it will be long before George Osborne becomes unstuck with his own domestic economic policies either.

Salmond, Boris: Neither To Be Trusted

It will be gratifying indeed if our old friend Badger Darling sees off the ghastly Salmond, or is at least presiding when the caledonian charlatan self-destructs.  Gordon Brown aparently hates the idea of his ex-Chancellor getting the credit both for this and 'resolving the banking crisis' (sic) , which is even better.

It's an odd set of circumstances that sees me having any truck with George Galloway, but his 'just say naw' line captures the matter nicely.  A poond's a poond fer aw that also seems pretty apt, and I'm guessing (from 500 miles away) that most Scots see it the same way.  I expect you'll have had yur tea fits in somewhere, too, in that conservative land. 

Yes, Salmond is as untrustworthy as he looks.  And so, I'm sorry to say, is Boris Johnson, who is clearly on manoeuvres yet again, and with the most inappropriate timing.  On the eve of a Union debate, the outcome of which is pretty critical for Cameron, who wants to hear BoJo announcing that we'd better get our minds around leaving the EU?  There are of course easy answers to that question, but none of them very edifying.

If Boris had been a consistent EU-skeptic there might be a scintilla of excuse.  However, he hasn't.  Quite the reverse, he's been a consistently opportunistic sniper at whatever has been Cameron's position, and in the past hasn't scrupled to let us know that contemplation of leaving the EU is the very essence of madness, and that the City of London would thereby be destroyed.

Much as we love these larger-than-life political rogues, at the end of the day we can do nicely without them.

ND

Gordon Brown's Scottish re-launch

Frequent readers of this blog will know that I hold few people in such low esteem as Gordon Brown. As Chancellor he over saw the biggest boom and bust for 100 years whilst trying to say he did the opposite, plus he has bequeathed us a structural deficit of such large proportions that it will be into the 2020's before it is under control. The list of sins goes on to many pages however brief one could try to keep it.

But it would be churlish of me nonetheless not to recognise his role in the Scottish Referendum. Today he is going to make a speech and has managed through his PR-enabled wife no doubt, to get this run in the Daily Telegraph. This speech will launch his role in the Referendum debate for the rest of the year.

Not for Brown this Independence - far to clean and easy for him. No better still a nice, complex devolution proposal for all four Countries of the UK including England. It's a classic more politics answer with sinecures for himself and his friends for eternity and the game of electioneering expanded to that everyone can get a prize.

If it were that alone, it would be of little interest. the two real belly laugh moments are that he has clearly been told to speak under his own banner, such is the political toxicity of his personal brand. So instead of Better Together he speaks for United for Labour. A real Popular Front of Judea moment (points awarded in the comments for knowing why the Popular front...)

Better still, is the fact that this is the same 'launch' of his independence line that he has made before. It is identical to this hot air served up last September and who could forget his 20 pub questions list of 2012? Might it be he is rather hoping we have forgotten his droning and monotonous wittering on the subject non-stop for the past 3 years - and is instead now hopeful that we have collectively a new found interest in his wisdom and counsel?