“She’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.”
– British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, talking about Hillary Clinton back in 2007
This is going to be so good 😀
|
|||||
|
“She’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.” – British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, talking about Hillary Clinton back in 2007 This is going to be so good 😀 In truth, the appointment of Boris as Foreign Secretary is just about the most awesome thing ever.
How perfect is that? Words can scarcely describe how much I am looking forward to seeing this unfold 😀 Of course the appointment that really matters is David Davis to head up Brexit. I simply cannot imagine a better choice for he is staunchly free market and was known in EU circles as the “charming bastard“. I have been banging on for weeks to anyone who will listen that all this talk about the importance of getting good trade deals is nonsense. All that is needed is unilateral free trade. Just now I stumbled upon an article in the Guardian, of all places, discussing just that. Even talking about “the unilateral free trade option”. A group called Economists for Brexit seem to have got it in the paper. Jolly good work! Yes, Cameron has finally handed the keys to No.10 to the even more dismal Theresa May. Frankly the only REMAIN who should still be in Downing Street should be Larry the Cat. Remember this ‘honourable gentleman’ (Dave, not Larry) said he would invoke Article 50 if REMAIN lost? He lied. And that he would remain PM if REMAIN lost? He lied (thankfully). Good riddance. It would be very easy for Theresa May to pleasantly surprise me, given that I fully expect her to be the worst Tory PM since Edward Heath. She is a known quantity: inept, unprincipled, had a nice word for Sharia law once, and is also authoritarian, which is a hell of a combination. What that means is she is tough, but only against soft targets. And she voted the opposite way to the majority of Tory voters on Brexit. When I started writing this posting, the invaluable Guido Fawkes had, at the top of his invaluable ongoing list of “seen elsewhere” items, a link to a Conservative Home piece by David Davis MP, with a long title on top of it which includes the words A Brexit economic strategy for Britain. It deserves to be quoted at length, so I will now do that:
So much for the “jump-start” bit. Now for my own additional argument that this could well happen very quickly. The anti-Jacobite sentiment captured in an old verse of the National Anthem emphatically does not seem dominant today, despite Mr Murray’s moment of rebellion on the morning of the Scottish independence referendum. It is not a silly question to ask what effect Andy’s second Wimbledon Championship victory will have on how people in the various parts of the UK feel about Brexit and the possibility of Indyref2. The BBC has provided a reminder of the distant past, the early 1970s, when Ted Heath was Prime Minister and Mrs Thatcher was the Education Secretary. Despite a long feud between them after Mrs Thatcher’s rise to lead their party, Mrs Thatcher reportedly thought highly of Mr Heath.
Let’s see what the BBC has to say about that time:
As if. It is true that Mr Heath privatised Thomas Cook, a travel agency (it was nationalised during World War 2 after the German occupation of France as it had become French-owned by then), and some pubs in Carlisle. Yes, that’s right, the British Government had nationalised pubs around Carlisle during WW1, to ensure that munitions workers weren’t too drunk, and with the Kaiser safely in the past, the time was ripe for final privatisation of the remaining pubs came in 1971. Perhaps every town should have a nationalised pub as a reminder of the ordeal of the drinkers of Carlisle, which effectively lasted a drinker’s lifetime. At a relatively small cost, we could have a live reminder of nationalisation in every town.
Inflation, that mysterious dragon that is scared off by high interest rates but which feeds on high oil prices, so the collapse of Bretton Woods and Nixon’s repudiation of the dollar/gold link had nothing to do with inflation, nor did wild printing of money. Here is a pub price list from the time of decimalisation, 30th November 1970: A pint of beer in the same pub now, even with gentrification, costs not 12 new pence but something in the region of £3.60p, a 30-fold price increase in nominal terms. ![]() However, what did Mr Heath, one-time friend of Deng and Saddam, decide to do in the face of inflation, and demands for pay rises? Reminder, a great many people worked in nationalised industries, and their pay rates were ultimately political decisions. Furthermore, going on strike (i.e. refusing to work) was often seen as the way to muscle a pay rise out of the government, rather than a route to bankruptcy.
So what happens if you control prices and pay? We are not told. Is it too obvious to need to be said, or are there still people who deny that price controls can lead to distortions? Why not look at Venezuela for a grim current example? (it’s OK, he’s doing it to curb inflation). And this ‘trade-off’ between unemployment and inflation? That other mysterious relationship that is simply assumed to exist? How about seeing if a market can clear without distortions? And note, there was no dispute at this point between Mr Heath and Mrs Thatcher over Europe, Mrs Thatcher was completely for membership of the European Economic Community. In some ways, we have come a long way from the absurdity of the political consensus of the 1970s, yet the State still looms large as does the passing off of old economic fallacies as realities. And what is Mrs Thatcher reported to have said of that time?
Quite how Mrs Thatcher got her reputation is a mystery to me, but not how Roy Orbison put it. Remain voter and quintessential Guardian writer of the old school Simon Jenkins now says,
OK, you’re angry. But ignore the vote and tanks could be on the streets. If you wanted to convulse the country with rioting on a revolutionary scale, to cause a lethal rupture between the governing class and the governed and even to provide the conditions for the rise of 21st-century fascism across Europe, here’s what you do. After a referendum in which an unprecedented number of voters took part, and in which well over a million more people voted for change than for the status quo on our membership of the EU, you declare that the decision cannot be allowed to stand, chiefly on the grounds that the people were too stupid. – Dominic Lawson (article behind Times pay wall unfortunately). In the run-up to the EU referendum there was a widespread conspiracy theory that
Pathetic delusions. The elite have much more sophisticated methods than that:
I suppose that one should not be surprised that people who saw nothing wrong with the EU’s favourite strategies of ignoring inconvenient popular votes or having referenda repeated until the (almost invariably less well-funded) opposition is worn down see nothing wrong with these views:
This leaflet, Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK, was sent by the Government to every household in the UK some weeks before the referendum. On page 14 it says,
An oft-repeated argument of those who seek to use a procedural trick to overturn the result is that the Leave campaign won as a result of ignorant tabloid-readers believing lies. If it turns out that the biggest lie of all was that the votes of the common folk would count equal to the votes of the quality, expect trouble. |
|||||
![]()
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||