Since this blog began George Osborne has held the role of either Chancellor or Shadow Chancellor. And now, as I predicted before the Brexit vote, Prime Minister May has sent him to the back benches.
He deserves to be there. He failed. That is in both his own terms and more objectively.
He failed to cut the deficit and never came close to balancing the budget which he, bizarrely, said he would do.He borrowed more than any Chancellor in history instead.
And he delivered a stagnant economy where GDP per head is still struggling to meet pre 2008 levels and where most people have not seen their incomes rise for a decade, or more.
Leave aside a catalogue of tax, benefits and other errors of judgement that stretched right across government. Leave aside too the supposed reputation as the master political strategist who instead helped create Cameron's dire legacy. Osborne can be condemned for simply failing to ever get to grips with the economy.
There are three good reasons why that happened. First remember he began his economic career as a supply side reformer. He was a proponent of flat taxes. He always wanted to emulate Itreland's tax status. And he wanted to relax regulation in the City in 2007 as the crisis loomed. At heart, he got everything wrong before the 2008 crisis.
And he got everything wrong after it. Believing the economy to be akin to a household and showing no understanding at all of the nature of money, its role in macroeconomic policy, or the true nature of tax, he demanded cuts in government spending and increases in tax to supposedly balance the books without giving any indication that he understood that this would shrink GDP and create liquidity issues. More QE was the necessary response, which inflated all the wrong sectors of the economy whilst Osborne never understood that at a stroke it could also solve his debt problem by simply cancelling it.
As a result, crucially, he refused to realise that what the markets were saying as interest rates held low and gilt yields fell was that what they really wanted him to do so was supply more bonds to meet their demand for a safe place to save, but with the corollary being that they expected and trusted the government to invest on their behalf, which he never did. He cut investment spending as a proportion of GDP instead: he never got over his initial belief that there was no real role for the state in the economy. The consequence has been economic failure.
He failed because for eleven years he did a job he did not believe in. He was in charge of the government's role in the economy when he fundamentally believed it did not have one. No wonder nothing good ever came of it. That attitude was, and will always be, a recipe for disaster in a Chancellor.
There have been no signs to date that Philip Hammond's core beliefs on this issue are very much different to George Osborne's. We just have to hope otherwise. Yesterday the UK government sold more than £1 billion of index linked gilts at a negative rate of more than 1%. In effect people are willing to pay the government to take their money, albeit in this case with a gamble on inflation rates built in.
The point is, in a world where there is a massive savings glut, a shortage of demand and a crippling lack of investment and so no hope of economy recovery without government intervention the last person we need at the Treasury now is another hands off Chancellor.
A new Chancllor, and I would say this whatever their hue, has to realise that George Osborne did get everything wrong.
The state is not a household. It can and should print its own money.
The UK is not like Greece. It has its own currency.
But the UK does face an economic crisis and the sectoral balances show that only by the government investing can growth be delivered, incomes raised, tax revenues grown and anything like balance restored.
I am not confident that Philip Hammond will make such a radical change to policy, but I have to live in hope. After eleven years of Osborne that is all that is left.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I am glad Osbourne has gone but Hammond I see as rather capricious in his approach to moss things. He comes across to me as someone who is a blank slate upon which a very strong leader writes their instructions.
However – this country does need to be governed and in order to do that things need to calm down – as I said elsewhere I think that the Tories will put their hands in their pockets and start spending money in key areas to just that.
Why we keep getting Chancellor’s with NO background in economics beats me. Osborne simply slinks away after 6 years of vile policies intended to marginalise and harm the most vulnerable in society and nothing is said-no apology, no humility for the vile divisive language he used towards people that had very little propping them up.
And then May, with grotesque condescension suddenly , says things that implicitly condemn the policies of the Last 6 years with zero compunction or even a scintilla of regret that she voiced NO opposition to the gross acts of economically unnecessary callousness and a press unprepared, in the main, to hold her to account for this.
Yet here we are with a Cabinet that, so far, looks as vile and right wing as every with the arch-libertarian David Davis and Fox holding important posts and a Foreign Secretary who is an exhibitionist opportunist and liar, leading a leave campaign that propagated fraudulent information about changes in public spending that might result from Brexit.
As, Owen Smith points out-if the 172 could have just waited a couple of Weeks they could have torn the Tories to pieces on all of this….but alas, as we’ve witnessed over the last six years , Labour has manged to miss open goal after open goal and then when that open goal widens to infinity, guess what?-they kick the ball in the other direction.
What I should be shocking the country but instead creates no impression at all is the rise of extreme-weather-vane-politics based on ‘Extreme -Overton- Windowing’ (EOW). Mys’ demonstration of EOW is so egregious it seems to have escaped the perceptual field of most journalists with the exception of the Independent, yesterday.
Imagine if Labour had done such a U-turn they would have been accused of being: ‘unreliable/feckless/spendthrift/deficit deniers/economically unsound etc. But because the U turn is a Tory one we know whose interests.
Of course, May used the term ‘project bond’ which could still be a way of creating wealth syphoning rather than publicly owned infrastructure and be part of an expansion of the rentier culture:
” Project bond financing is undoubtedly complex. The process of setting a bond’s structure, terms and covenants may involve many groups and specialties, including investors, government officials, regulators, construction firms, banks, capital markets specialists and, of course, lawyers. Such complicated negotiations may give issuers and investors pause. ” (http://www.whitecase.com/publications/insight/unraveling-four-common-myths-about-project-bonds)”
So the notion that she (her advisers, that is) have any notion of money printing, to create net assets is far from clear. Much more detail will be needed.
Should read ‘Owen Jones’ above, of course…..two many Owens around!
Looking at May’s cabinet I’m beginning to think that what she said over the last two days may amount to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6dm9rN6oTs
Simon,
“a a Cabinet that, so far, looks as vile and right wing as every…”
Hmmm, intersting. Brexiteers and people from outside of her faction voted for her. As is often the case they are now being rewarded with cabinet positions.
Simon, you may recall that in another post I awarded those who acted against Jeremy Corbyn 0/10 for tactics (abysmal timing, as you note), and 1/10 for strategy (taking action without a clearly defined leader in clear view).
I cannot help feeling that, now that the government has issued negative interest rate Gilts, and in view of the developments you have outlined, that I would have been justified in awarded negative marks for the actions taken by the Labour Party since June 24th, when Cameron resigned, but this time encompassing both sides of the conflict in that mark.
As the Brexit casualty list expands the schadenfreude is getting harder to conceal.
Some thoughts:
A bond issue with a negative real interest rate effectively raises revenue, in real terms (as well as issuing debt) how paradoxical is that?
It will only profit the bondholder in the event of serious deflation (better than stuffing it under the mattress I suppose).
A dismissal like Osborne’s often occurs because the target represents ideas or approaches that are about to be changed. Chances are that we won’t be hearing the word ‘austerity’ being used in the future tense.
If that is the case (and I hope that it is) opponents of austerity may need to expand and re-think their identity as well as their strategy. That’s OK, its a good problem to have.
‘Chances are that we won’t be hearing the word ‘austerity’ being used in the future tense.’
Marco, there are a lot of term’s we might not be hearing at least blatantly.
1). ‘There’s no money'( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/matthew-hancock-tory-minister-accused-of-writing-off-those-with-disabilities-on-bbc-question-time-a6751001.html)
2). ‘Those that get up in the morning.’
3) ‘Doing the right thing.’
4) ‘Those with their blinds drawn’
These are the legacy of 6 wasted years, they won’t be used again. Instead we will see milksop statements from the Rector’s Wife which will operate like a dummy or pacifier.
you missed out “hard working families” (Mrs Dudds favorite & one does wonder – will she use “hard working criminal families” at the home office – who knows.)
I’ve no desire to defend Osborne’s record but he did get one thing partially right. He set up the Banking Commission to examine and make recommendations cocerning reforms which might be made to the banking system, and he endorsed its most radical proposal (namely that retail banking must be separated from investment- (aka “casino”) banking, by 2019, by means of “chinese walls”).
Albeit the Commission’s analysis was disappointingly superficial and its recommendations too timid, at least Osborne went some way towards meeting them (not far enough of course but what more was to be expected) – and even that gave rise to predictable howls of protest from his friends in The City.
Since then nothing further has bee heard and I must admit to having totally lost the place. Was legislation passed giving effect to the crucial change (I can’t remember) or does doing that now devolve upon Hammond?
Oh come on – he gave them a decade to do not a lot
From my limited time in corporate life I distinctly recall there being a unique facial expression that was only ever worn by those who were being introduced to the concept of “Chinese Walls” for the very first time.
Completely incredulous and trying hard not to show it.
🙂
I don’t know why anyone expects to see a radical change. If Hammond was a progressive he wouldn’t be in the Tory party. At least they are what it says on the tin – ‘Conservative’ (lol!). Whereas Labour … who knows what it means any more. The raison d’être of the Conservative Party is to protect personal assets – whatever it takes. Sometimes this necessitates throwing a few additional crumbs (i.e. a Starbuck’s muffin + a latte) to the precariat to keep them amenable.
Plus ça change … Just look at who May is surrounding herself with. Liam Fox for God’s sake. He shouldn’t even be allowed to be an MP. And Johnson as Foreign Secretary. Apparently already attracting derision for abroad. If only it was just a bad dream. Unfortunately for the country it’s the current reality.
Outlaws, robbers and brigands – the whole lot of them!
When the pantomine of musical chairs is over, all the platitudes to appease the masses have been uttered, policies tweaked to avoid the worst of the collateral damage from the last government, it will then be back to business as usual – which is of course business as usual.
Steady the ship, keep your hand on the tiller, make sure all the crew are whipped into shape and the slaves safely locked up in the galley. No change to the direction of travel and certainly no change to the existing social and economic order!
Enter Chairman May, goodbye Chairman Cameron, god forbid we never see Chairman Blair or his ilk ever again who refuse to change this non-sensical merry go round of toffs in power.
Oops- ‘from abroad’.
At the MoD Spreasheet Phil wanted budget surpluses, whilst simultaneously overseeing armed forces struggling for kit and personnel to cover existing commitments. In a way the MoD oversees it’s own micro economy where government investment in personnel, new technologies and big ticket equipment have a very positive effect on the wider economy. Indeed Brexit (which I did not support) offers the chance to purchase and invest in the UK rather that elsewhere. (See the MARS ships). I see no reason why he will approach the wider economy any differently as chancellor.
Prime Minister May talked big about fairness and one Britain whilst bringing Boris government. Expect no reemergence of the socially minded Tory.
The new PM did not have to regurgitate key passages of her important economic policy speech on Monday in her first speech as PM. But she did. The new Channcellor and Home Secretary are her trusted deliverers of these policies. The fact that the thrust of some of these policies is upsetting some of the teenage scribblers at The Economist is very reassuring. Appointing these three leading Brexiteers (Johnson, Davis and Fox) to deal with external matters is a win-win for the new PM.
Much can (and will) go wrong. And, while I would much prefer to see a competent centre-left PM and government in place, that is not on offer – and it looks like it won’t be for the foreseeable future. Remember it took Labour 18 years from 1979 to convince voters to accept them in government. For the first time in a long time I’m feeling reasonably optimistic and confident about the country.
I am not with you, yet
I’d go easy on that confidence, Paul. The Tory Party doesn’t really do change. There is no clear economic policy until documents are produced and the channels of investment made absolutely clear. I’m expecting another rentier rip-off paraded as something else -all that has been mentioned are ‘project bonds’ which could be a disguised PFI for all we Know.
As for dealing with executive pay, that just won’t and can’t happen, just wait and see.
More feelgood factor waffle I’m afraid.
We agree Simon
Believe me, I wouldn’t trust the Tory High Command as far as I could throw them. But we have to deal with what’s in front of us. There is no credible or electable alternative. It appears that most of the Labour party’s members, TU-affiliated members and supporters either do not understand or reject the basic tenets and practices of representative parliamentary democracy. On the other side, many of the PLP have no real connection with the hordes of voters who are deserting the party in its traditional heartlands and are incapable of presenting a credible alternative to this emerging Tory hegemony.
We also need to remember that the Tories and UKIP together secured 50% of the votes cast in May 2015.
The new PM has given numerous hostages to fortune. And yes. We need to see how the proposed policy changes are presented in detail and in a form to be enacted and implemented. And that’s why we desparately need an effective opposition to hold her and her government to account. And it is not necessarily to advance a radically different approach. One could hardly insert a cigarette paper between the thrust of what she has proposed and what Labour proposed under Ed Miliband. She needs to be forced to implement what she has committed herself to.
Agree? We don’t know yet. Not exactly. It was barely 3 days ago that people in this forum were predicting a Tory move to the right and considering a Leadsom victory.
I’m not convinced by Teresa May but we should admit it when we’ve been blindsided well and truly. Right now there no genuinely confident assessments. Its pure wait and see.
“There is no credible or electable alternative.”
Paul,
You actually came that close to saying ‘There Is No Alternative’ and your basis is just as arbitrary and dogmatic as Maggie’s.
As for the Tory/UKIP 50%, You might have noticed that Nigel quit his job quite recently saying that he had “fulfilled his political ambitions”. Unlike most among us he realises that UKIP no longer serves much of a purpose. Its all downhill for them now and their proportion of the “50%” is inevitably set to decline.
If the UKIP financial backers had any sense they would reform the party and rename it as UKPR – with another single interest objective this time to introduce PR across the UK in all elections.
As UKIP supporters have seen the gross inequality of the current FPTP system in recent elections, there would be a large army of voters just waiting to be joined by whatever other parties decided this was not a left/right issue to bicker about who was leading the charge.
Just a thought!
I hope you won’t be disappointed. Personally I can’t envisage a Conservative government of any hue mending the deep divisions within the country, delivering sustainable growth to be shared equitably, clamping down on the usurious practices of the City, building genuinely social housing … or indeed anything that will permanently shift power downwards to the people at large, both socially and economically. I’m just going on their historical track-record, but maybe you know something I don’t – which is a definite possibility!
“Remember it took Labour 18 years from 1979 to convince voters to accept them in government”. The difference with now is that Labour party membership is growing & has a young profile, the Tory party is dying – the profile of members is ageing – rapidly. It is well on the way to morphing into a corporatist party with probably less than 50k members. Two fundamentally different political groupings are emerging with fundamentally different groups of supporters. If the Labour bunch can a) organise, b)put out clear messages/policies that appeal to UK citizens – the Tories are toast. Furthermore, investigations into election fraud continue – may could yet lose her majority – with zero prospect of calling an election. 18 years in the wilderness? I don’t think so.
“Who needs members?” would be the Tory response…
Good observations, Mike.
Mike-that sounds almost optimistic so there might be a chance of a Labour, real Labour Government before we are three score years and ten?
However, with the present voting set up there might be about 200,000 or more who can’t vote unless they affiliate to a Union or stump up £25 pronto.
I hear that the NEC has banned all local party meetings until after the leadership election. Anyone know if that’s true and what reason has been given?
‘I hear that the NEC has banned all local party meetings until after the leadership election. Anyone know if that’s true and what reason has been given?’
Yes, Keith , that is the case, I got the e mail informing me this morning from our chairman. Reason – don’t know! Diktat.
Seems there are some conspiracy theories already about the CLP meetings being cancelled Simon. Odd they didn’t give you a full explanation, I’m assuming there is not usually a pre-election CLP purdah of several months?
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/what-is-real-reason-for-complete.html
Hammond may be a little smarter than Osborne economically but that’s a very low bar. I’d lay money on it that neither of them could support their views mathematically, nor decry opposing views. Their understanding doesn’t go beyond common usage and that is based on the circles they move in and teaching from flawed modelling.
But the main underlying difference is whether you believe economics to be an attempt to model a natural phenom, the markets, or a socioeconomic tool that can be used to both create and control markets. Put another way how and where should people, and their wellbeing, be factored in.
“neither of them could support their views mathematically”
Given the success record of mathematical economics on macro issues, I’d say you were paying them a compliment with that one.
This interview from 2012 tells you all you need to know about Hammond
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9244414/Families-must-accept-share-of-blame-for-Britains-woes.html
“We have to stop blaming banks, they had to lend to someone.” Where to start on yet another Chancellor who is happy to make public his economically and financially illiteracy, with nonesensical pronouncements. At best you could say he’s not genuinely stupid and is simply pointing the finger at ordinary households and diverting “blame, guilt and shame” – their way, for political reasons. But this does not seem to be terribly good electoral politics, less so than Osborne’s it’s all Labour’s fault and infinitely more unpleasant and unsavoury. Especially so when the data shows us that UK banks lost 15 times more on their foreign lending book.
http://hb.betterregulation.com/external/Speech%20by%20Ben%20Broadbent%20-%20Deleveraging.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17398014
He’s more of a fiscal hawk than Osborne, has even less understanding of how the financial system and banks actually create money, and the only upside is that he seems less of a skilled political operator. This is the financial and fiscal equivalent of replacing Hodgson will Allardyce… I think this appointment will be an even bigger headache for May, and more importantly for the rest of us, than Boris, although that could be a close run thing.
APB
I have to admit I agree
I have no belief that he has any more economic comprehension than Osborne and no expectation at all that he can deliver a credible fiscal policy
R
Good stuff APB, but you picked a poor analogy (about Woy and Big Sam)
Interesting APB.
We can now only sit back and watch and see what happens now.
But Boris Johnson – Foreign Secretary? What is all that about?
I suspect the Tories need a buffoon to give away our remaining assets to foreign interests because only buffoons are capable of doing such a thing.
Does Mrs May have to appease the loyal followers of Boris, so to appease them and keep them close she gives him a job which possibly he can do the least harm with. A telephone call would smooth over his gaffe’s. And he does have entertainment factor, I know, dreadful isn’t it. But what to do about the Labour Party, can it be mended. I still have the journalist, forgotten his name, ringing in my ears, who said it is a20th century party in the 21st century, Harris was it. But the conservatives are still surely wolves in sheeps clothing.
Does anyone know what a “21st century party” is? I’m not sure.
Now the traditional industries, coal, steel, ship building are so diminished,the ordinary working man who was the backbone of the country has to fester or rage. Smaller specialist industries need to emerge, medical instruments, Musical instruments,science,.
Must invest in the young. Be media savvy, IT savvy. Think Mr Harris thought traditional Labour voters were steeped in the past and must adapt or perish, not sure. Courtesy of Mrs Thatcher, vanishing communities and let the market decide, leaves us wasting away largely. Mr Hammond did do economics at university read somewhere. Sorry to ramble.
Without being facetious, I think what he meant, in over-simplified terms, is that Labour was originally set up to represent and get a better deal for industrial ‘blue-collar’ workers – located mainly north of the Wash. While the UK is no longer an industrial power-house, and hasn’t been for over 40 years, the Labour ‘agenda’ hasn’t changed sufficiently to identify with and to represent the current work-force, especially since the Trades Unions were emasculated by Thatcher.
While New Labour did attempt to ‘modernise’ Old Labour, it simultaneously bought into the Neo-liberal economic ideology – albeit softer on the edges but still market-driven. By so doing it didn’t truly represent Labour’s traditional industrial constituency (with its post-industrial social issues) and became increasingly London-centric. In essence it was never a progressive political movement.
While it’s convenient to separate eras into centuries, there’s never a strict dividing line. By ’21st century’ most people take it to mean a new period in our history driven by information technology, more pressing environmental /ecological issues, a failure of traditional Capitalism to meet the new challenges facing humanity etc.etc. And it is increasingly felt that the Labour Party does not reflect the future as much as it does the past. By contrast, the Conservative Party’s agenda hasn’t required such a dramatic change as its core ethos has always been solipsistic and protective of individual wealth, however it is derived. Hence it is often referred to as the oldest active political party in the world.
Of course it’s a more complex story than that, but you know the script. In any case, your original question was probably rhetorical.
In hindsight I could simply have said – any political party with policies that effectively and sustainably meet the complex challenges facing national and international society in this century. The Tory Party? No. The Labour Party? No. The Green Party? Probably.
Sylvia,
Having said that “I’m not sure” I might note that my best guess would suppose that a ’21st century party’ is one that has come to recognise that there is an emerging wave of artificial intelligence technology that is expanding the reach of automation from the farm and factory into the services sector – which is the last bastion of human employment.
The old notion that automation & productivity create new jobs, income and opportunity is now redundant. Labour productivity rises faster than wages and automation’s capacity to replace jobs has outstripped its potential for creating new ones. Thus far, the impact has been hidden in the form of underemployment (as opposed to official ‘unemployment’). The full implications of this development are overwhelming and yet few if any of our political parties even have it on their radar. They continue to bang on about “productivity” when productivity has become passe, and “market solutions” when markets have no potential for resolving this problem.
I would also consider that a ’21st century party may be one that is coming to terms with the fact that infinite economic growth is incompatible with life on a finite planet. I am not aware of any parties that have caught up with that notion just yet. The Greens maybe.
I am still not entirely sure what a 21st century party is but I do suspect that we don’t have one – anywhere.
The Tory party do not have to change, they have in this class society, the iron grip, aristos, super rich.
Will still need a stonemason, no, a nurse on nights with a distressed patient, carers in animal rescue centres.
But I guess that won’t give shareholders their bonus. Will artificial intelligence lovingly comfort the fearful and lonely.
My apostrophe in earlier comment correction, gaffes. Dreadful with apostrophes. Love to read you all, wish I was clever like that.
Sylvia
A stonemason is already automateable and the others may not be that far behind. Carers for dogs probably the most difficult as they, unlike humans, are not able to suspend their disbelief.
John D,
I think that we must have written our replies at the same time and I didn’t see yours until much later. In any case it is a good reply, quite relevant.
Sylvia,
No, artificial intelligence will not “lovingly comfort the fearful and lonely” nor will it ever replace all of our jobs, but if it replaces half of them say, a third, or two thirds, we will still have an overwhelming problem that no party is honestly or openly addressing.
To be fair, there are some parties and administrations that have taken a lead by proposing or introducing UBI (universal basic income). This essentially puts everyone on the dole. The idea of it is to redress inequality and compensate for the consumer demand (or spending power) that has been lost to structural unemployment and underemployment.
To their credit, these people are light years ahead of most but UBI is still a lightweight substitute for full time wages. One thing that we can be sure of, the era when people were socially, even personally defined by their jobs their work or income is on the way out.
This is more than economic, it is an industrial scale identity crisis – for everyone.
Re UBI I found today’s article on the BBC website an interesting angle on capitalism’s biggest dilemma and how it might solve it as a desperate measure to maintain the system of inequality.
So is it a “right to be lazy” or a right to equality we are seeking, because I seem to have noticed that a very small percentage of the world’s population has a “right to be lazy” all the time as a result of their accumulation of “ownership” the vast majority of the worlds financial wealth.
So surely the rest of the world’s “right to be lazy” is quite justified if that is good enough for those at the top of society, or perhaps we should really be arguing much more forcefully for the right to re-align the ownership and distribution of the world’s wealth more equally across all the world’s population.
The more I think about it I am beginning to dislike the economic and political basis for the concept of UBI (a capitalist solution to a capitalist problem) as it infers some great generosity on the behalf of those who have accumulated the world’s wealth to share it just a teeny little bit more but not give up their hegemonic dominance over the rest of society.
Whereas clearly what we should be arguing is for the democratisation of all the worlds wealth, not a few more crumbs from the top table – thank you very much sir grovel grovel beg beg.
Just give me a pitchfork now and I will find a suitable place to point it!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36782832
If Trump becomes president Boris and he will be able to compare notes about hairdressers (but they’d better not include Hollande in the conversation).
Imagine if we had voted remain, we would still have Osborne, Cameron, austerity guaranteed, but there is now at least some resemblance of hope. As I and other pro brexit bloggers predicted.
Possibly “hopitude” from Fintam O’Toole
[it]New times require new words. US satirist Stephen Colbert invented “truthiness” — a political discourse in which what matters is what you feel to be true, regardless of any evidence. In a similar spirit, I offer “hopeitude” and define it as a political discourse in which overwhelming optimism is expressed on no grounds whatsoever. Hopeitude is the language both of Brexit and of Donald Trump.
Real hope has an intimate and serious relationship to despair. Hope and despair are not pure opposites. The great developments of modern civilisation — democracy, universal healthcare, access to education for the masses, recognition of equality between genders, the revolt against prejudice based on race, religion and sexual orientation — have all been driven by both emotions. You have to despair of poverty, ignorance, prejudice, injustice, indignity and patriarchy before you can rise up against them. Out of despair comes the hope that something better must be built. And this hope is concrete: it provides the sense of direction from which realistic maps of the future can be made.[/it]
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-people-need-hope-not-hopeitude-1.2718229
I like it
But I am a big fan of Fintan O’Toole
I take the view that Hammond and May were/are friends and she, as ‘the difficult woman’ is likely to get him to comply with her agenda.
I can’t believe there would be any other motive for:
Her statement outside no 10
Sacking Osborne from the Cabinet
Appointing Hammond as Chancellor.
I cannot see why he has been appointed unless he’s undertaken to be compliant.
I reckon working ‘for the people’ is the only way May thinks she’d be elected as PM next time.
So I live in hope!
PMs and Chancellrscalways fall out…
I wonder if by appointing Johnson as Foreign Secretary, May has made the first of many mistakes?
Either that or judging by international reaction to his appointment ,people abroad will just refuse to work with him, and he will have to step down thereby saving May having to make the decision for him?
Again though – where is Letwin? Where is Maude? Are they still the puppet masters in all of this?
I think Letwin and Maude are gone
Boris? She may want him to fail
Then she shreds the Brexiters
Good observation re. Boris. The same thought had occurred to me and I have no doubt that it has occurred to him as well.
Thank you muchly Richard for being much more observant than I.
James s
“Imagine if we had voted remain, we would still have Osborne, Cameron, austerity guaranteed, but there is now at least some resemblance of hope. As I and other pro brexit bloggers predicted.”
True but that was never in the manifesto. And we are still unsure what the manifesto was.
Sylvia
“Will artificial intelligence lovingly comfort the fearful and lonely.”
Precisely!
AI/IT will not rule the world not because computers cannot think but because they cannot feel.
Maybe not. But they could probably be programmed to fake enough warmth and sympathy to do as good a job as many humans.
And would it be `fake`?
After all a (human I assume) programmer would be building the algorithm:`when you detect tears, say “there,there” ` + another 16 layers of complexity.
Your AI observation may be true but it is scant consolation in the terms of the issues that I had raised.
I’m not sure any future AI will have to have feelings to make the right choices. Human feelings foster compassion as well hate . It’s interesting that western democracies and what we would perceive as advanced civilisations seek to rise above human feelings and reactions especially when dealing with law and judgment.
Just look at family law and see how human instinctive evolution is required to deal with an impartial human being passing judgement on when and where you can see your own flesh and blood.
I love the way we ‘pronounce’ on AI as if anyone in the world would have a clue. A genuine thinking machine? salvation or damnation? That’s the reason for describing such an event as a singularity. There is currently, that we know of, no development approaching real AI and no scientific path mapped out to attain such. Smart programs able to repeat, mimic and learn from mistakes are just that, programs. Even such scifi terrors as self replicating nano bots are no more than mindless machines following a program.
“Of course we have got to reduce the deficit further but looking at how and when and at what pace we do that and how we measure our progress in doing that is something that we now need to consider in light of the new circumstances that the economy is facing.”
This is the equivalent of saying ‘I don’t know’ so I’ll produce this waffle instead which is so open ended as to be the cognate of silence (except silence would be more honest).
More armpit farting, I’m afraid.
Viewed objectively (and being aware of their limitations) that bit of waffle was actually an encouraging sign. What it didn’t do is show commitment. What it did do was show they are no longer committed to the “living within our means” deception.
You can’t distinguish things clearly if you’re determined to pull a negative out of everything.
The negative is that there is no acknowledgement of the farcical crap that has been spouted over the last 6 years. he’s admitting that the public have been duped by pretending with that phrase ‘we’ve got to get the deficit down’ that what he will do is connected with those lies but is in fact an implicit rejection of them.
It’s a crumb from the neo-lib table, I accept but still insults public discourse. So that IS negative. We need to work towards openness of discourse and not shyster’s waffle. A deficit doesn’t have to be ‘got down’ deficits are the norm, he’s propagating an untruth, so we should be thankful for: ‘well…it’s not as bad as…..’
Keep pushing for honesty on these things, don’t accept the ‘crumbs.’
Richard
Can you clear up one issue for me? I was surprised to hear Cameron and others saying that they had cut the deficit by 2/3. Your blog says they haven’t really cut it at all, which is what I thought the situation was. Both can’t be correct.
Phil
I am saying debt
They did cut the deficit – although the base line for the 2/3 claim is pretty dubious
Spot on Richard.
But where it says “he demanded cuts in government spending and increases in tax to supposedly balance the books” should it rather say “…and decreases in tax…”?
No I meant increases: remember VAT?