I have already referred in another post to some of the economic nonsense that Rachel Reeves wrote yesterday in the Daily Mail. I failed to note another of her absurd claims, which was in this section:
Is Rishi Sunak being honest with you about his record in power? No… [ He ] will tell you that he got inflation down. He didn't.
Inflation rose when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and it has only fallen because of the decisions taken by the Bank of England to hike interest rates, leaving homeowners paying higher mortgage bills.
As regular readers will know, I have long argued that this is utter nonsense. As even the Bank of England has acknowledged, inflation in the UK arose because of external factors. That began with price shocks from Covid reopening and then continued with oil and food price shocks arising from the war in Ukraine. These then created knock-on effects on other prices.
And, as I always argued, as these shocks worked through the system, price changes were always going to return to normal rates, as they have now done.
This is true for all major economies. The scale and speed of change vary a little, but the similarities are vastly more on iota than the differences.
So did the Bank of England's interest rate increases do anything to solve the problem? No, precisely nothing at all. The problem was solved by the shocks passing through the system.
This is confirmed by a new academic paper by IMF researchers:
As they make clear, the shocks were external. The inflation was not made here.
But as they also note, the decline from the peak rate of inflation - most especially in the UK - was simply because the shocks passed:
Monetary policy by the Bank of England eased both utterly unnecessary and simply created a new crisis caused by high interest rates and rents.
In that case, the analysis Reeves offered in the Daily Mail is totally untrue. Or wrong. Or unevidenced. Or grossly misleading. And totally unwise. You take your pick. Whichever it is, it reveals her as totally unsuited to be Chancellor because she simply does not understand what happened and why in the economy for which she wishes to be responsible. And that is profoundly worrying.
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:
It’s very hard not to say that the Labour Party should be re-named the Simpleton Party. Starmer and Reeves are simply crass!
“the analysis Reeves offered in the Daily Mail is”… a belief. You are making a category error challenging her “belief” using rationality.
This is Marr/Chompsky territory where the former is functionally unable to see why he (& in this case “she”) is in the position s/he is in.
Reeves is there because she is a safe pair of hands. It does not matter that what she believes is, objectively, inconsistent/stupid/irrational.
What matters is that she believes in what she says. That is all that matters. That & the theological support of the mainstream media, which stops UK serfs posing unanswerable questions.
As many know, I’m a professional power engineer. I was reading through a CIRED technical paper (written by engineers). Even there the tenets of neo-liberalism crept in via unsubstantiated assertions on cost/benefit of long lived assets. It was both sad & irritating to see clever engineers sucked into to the bullshit bossanova belief system.
You might think after 14 years of the Neoliberalism monster people in the UK would be questioning its tenets sufficiently not to want to vote for a continuation of it under Starmer and Reeves but it appears not. Those tenets definitely sufficiently good enough for forming a mindless cult!
Cognitive dissonance yet again reinforces someone’s beliefs!
Mike, with the “bullshit bossanova belief system” you have created or reiterated a memorable word string that could resonate with the public if it were seized on by our biased UK media. I am familiar with what provokes the media to print or publisize something: it requires a ‘Hook’. A hook might be a colourful or quirky picture that will capture public attention or a phrase that accomplishes the same dynamic. This is somtimes powerful enough to overcome serious bias. A perfect example was when British fashion designer Vivienne Westwood came out of lockdown to perch inside a giant bird cage, suspended 10 feet in the air, outside the Old Bailey. Despite hard core bias against Julian Assange, her protest against his continued confinement was a picture the press could not resist. That orange used by Just Stop Oil also captures press attention, but catch phrases are powerful too.
This unmisable picture of Richi Sunak getting soaked in the rain at his lecturn totally drowned out his message, while Ed Davie’s stunts are working well for the LibDems. The hook principal is also what creates headlines, which is why Boris Johnson’s lies about ‘Leveling Up’ boosted his campaign. Just the words “Bullshit Bossanova” could seriously resonate with the UK public’s serious disenchantment with the BS they are hearing from both Tory and Labour MPs. If that term ‘escapes’ into the press it could prove quite powerful in our fight to promote alternative candidates. I am hopless at creating hashtags, Tick-Tock and Social Media posts, but these options hold huge potential for Independents. What about creating a Tick-Tock to a bossanova tune with people dancing together wearing masks depicting well recognized MPs?
I have been trying to explore the line up of alternative candidates around the UK and assess their strength. A website called: ‘Who Can I Vote For’ is listing the candidates registered to contest each constituency. The flaw in this site is that you must enter a particular postcode to bring up the list of who is running. Great if you want to find out who is running in your constituency, but problematic if you want to find out who is running against the most toxic MPs up for reelection. On your new website it would be helpful to have a list of MPs whose removal we are seeking, with a postcodes to see if there are alternative candidates to challenge them. Prospective challengers who register to stand should also visit this site to enter their details and a picture ASAP. The website I refer to is at:
https://whocanivotefor.co.uk/elections/
I just visited your website again this morning, but I do not see any prospective candidates listed yet. There is already a really strong candidate, Andrew Feinstein, challenging Keir Starmer and Jeremy Corbyn is now running as an independent. Can you please start adding the names of candidates who have already declared their intention to run and have registered as independents, as they may well not yet know about your website. This is the type of joined up process that is necessary if you want your project to be a real success. Keep up the good work Mike and I hope this helps with the expansion of your project; I will keep checking the website.
Kim: Thanks for the kind comments. Regarding the http://www.indy2024.org.uk web site. This is a combo of “what are we about” and a sign up site. Once you sign up, then access to the blog & requests for help then follow. I have spreadsheets of where indy candidates are standing.
Your suggestion ref a hit list of toxic candidates is a very good one. I will incorporate this into the blog.
On a related note I understand that 150 consitutencies have yet to erm… select a Tory candidate. Oh dear.
Amazing….
This Link: https://whocanivotefor.co.uk/elections/parl.2024-07-04/uk-parliament-elections/ goes to a page on the ‘Who Can I Vote For’ Website that lists all of the constituencies updated for the most recent boundery changes. From the Constituency list it is possible to go to the page listing each of the candidates currently known to be standing in the 2024 General Election in those constituencies. This is where the individual independent candidates need to fill in their contact details, Bio and add a picture in order to gain the best exposure on this website. It might also help you to compile that hit list! I hope this helps with your project.
The objectivity of Cost Benefit Analyisis is highly suspect anyway as it depends on the money values (guesses) ascribed to “non-market’ goods.
Valuing human life and scenic amenity has always required a creative bent.
An ex lecturer of mine, John Adams, wrote an academic criticism of the CBA used for the 3rd London Airport enquiry in the 70s – the Roskill Commission – and firmly identified Hyde Park as the best solution.
He used the flawed methodology and unsurprisingly arrived at a flawed solution.
Reeves is obviously not acquainted with the Roosevelt Institute’s blog piece, by Joseph Stiglitz, A Victory Lap for the Transitory Inflation Team, published in November last year, which is prefaced by the following,
“More than two years after economists divided into opposing camps over the nature of the post-pandemic inflation, we now know which side was right. Disinflation has confirmed that the earlier price increases were “transitory,” driven largely by supply disruptions and sectoral shifts in demand.”
Perhaps she should broaden her reading (if, indeed, she reads anything).
Precisely
My irrational dream is that Starmer picks someone other than Reeves to be Chancellor, but there seems to be no possibility of that. I have never been less impressed with the credentials of an incoming Cabinet.
He could always choose Hunt instead, as a continuity option for Labour’s much vaunted ‘stability’. After all they have almost identical ironclad fiscal rules.
I’d also call for you to name some alternatives. I assume the chancellor has to be an MP?
Yes
There are very few who are sufficiently economically literate or courageous now
Good tweet from Chris Williamson @DerbyChrisW who is standing for the Workers Party GB in Derby.
·
May 26
Sir Keir Starmer’s claim that he has to make a choice between cutting #NHS waiting lists or scrapping tuition fees is economic hogwash. The UK is the world’s 6th biggest economy and issues its own currency. Starmer is making a political choice based on neoliberal ideology.