#38. Politics – a new template, part 4


Thus far in this mini-series on British governance and politics, we’ve seen that the real issue isn’t “Right” versus “Left”, but “Corporatism” versus what I’ve called “Libertarianism”. I’ve examined the nature of Corporatism in articles about the private sector, and the public services and government. This article concludes the series by examining what, if anything, might be done about it.

I’ll cut to the chase here. The rise of Corporatism has been bad for Britain. It has weakened our economy, undermined the living standards of the vast majority, driven Britain ever further into debt, corroded trust in the political system, and created a widening gap between “us” and “them”.

Relentless though the rise of Corporatism has been, it is by no means unstoppable.

Reversing the trend would require two things – organisation, and people-power. Later in this article, I’ll explain what this means.

First, though, I’d like to stress how bad the drift towards Corporatism has been for Britain. Once we understand this we’ll be better equipped to assess some solutions.

In economics, Corporatists favour both a low-wage economy (usually called “a flexible labour market”) and an economic system driven by consumption. The inevitable result of this is the escalation in debt that we’ve witnessed over the last decade and more.
If people are encouraged to consume, but at the same time the real value of their wages is held down, the only way of squaring the circle is to make debt easily and cheaply available, and that’s precisely what’s happened. In Britain, our dysfunctional housing market has been the preferred conduit for channelling debt into consumption.

In the public services, the hallmark of Corporatism is a system in which the organisation takes precedence over the public, and this is reflected in an almost total absence of accountability, especially at higher levels and even when things go horribly wrong.

Politics, meanwhile, has become centralised, such that two (or occasionally three) lookalike parties control everything from candidate selection to policy and presentation. Historic checks to centralised executive power (such as the Cabinet, the senior civil service, local government, party conferences, and local party organisations) have been eroded.

In the preceding article I described the power elite as “the directorate”, and the inter-linking of this directorate goes far beyond the “revolving doors” which enable individuals to move between government and business.

The State all too often looks the other way when major scandals occur, rather than imposing accountability on the officials involved. Activities which at a lower level would count as fraud become the more innocuous “miss-selling” when practised by large companies. Sanctions may be inflicted on companies (meaning their largely innocent shareholders), but are seldom if ever imposed on the decision-makers at the top of the Corporate structure.

The rescue of the banks became, unnecessarily and almost seamlessly, the rescue of the bankers. An estimated £85bn is handed out annually to big business in “corporate welfare”, and a further £28bn of taxpayers’ money is spent boosting the incomes of workers whose wages are too low. A Corporate-friendly low-wage agenda is given official sanction, and a policy of easy access to cheap borrowing is maintained.

Big business does tend to keep out of party politics – which has become almost irrelevant anyway – but the Corporate interest is evident in non-party issues, such as the recent referendum in Scotland. We should expect weighty Corporate lobbying in favour of continued EU membership if the public is indeed offered a referendum on the issue.

I wouldn’t want you to think that this is some kind of conspiracy, because it isn’t. Rather, the system has evolved in ways which favour Corporatism, and changes of this sort tend to become cumulative.

It does not require much imagination to work out where this process could end. Despite a rather tepid recovery, Britain’s economic viability is threatened by a dependence on borrowing which is most evident in property markets, in the fiscal deficit and in Britain’s dire financial relationship with the rest of the world. Her enormous debts, no less than her on-going dependency on borrowing, mean that Britain is very poorly positioned to confront the new financial crisis that I, for one, regard as highly likely. Politically, the combination of widening inequalities and the breakdown of trust in government has, historically, almost always ended badly.

What is required, then, is a process of reform which harnesses public opinion to roll back the Corporatist tide in ways that matter. The catalyst for this needs to be an organisation dedicated to channelling public opinion in constructive directions.

There are some pretty obvious chinks in the armour of the Corporatist system. First, and as recent events have shown, the public are quite capable of voting “none of the above” when what they are offered is the same old choice between two or three established Corporatist parties.

Second, there is justifiable public anger over a range of issues including inequality, low (and falling) real wages, immigration, scandals (like Stafford and Rotherham) and membership of the European Union.

An economic campaign against Corporatism should focus on the issue of low wages. Essentially, the case for the living wage needs to be supported. An independent, reputable organisation needs to award a “fair wage” kite-mark to any large or medium-sized business which undertakes to ensure that no employee is paid less than, say, £10 per hour. The critical issue is that the public should be persuaded not to give their custom to businesses which do not have this fair-wage mark of approval.

The political corollary of the fair-wage initiative is that candidates at Parliamentary elections should be asked to commit to a simple “public contract” or “charter” (I would have called this a “pledge”, but that reeks of prohibition!). The contract idea is not new but, perhaps surprisingly, has not been used in any significant way for about 100 years.

This way this works is that, in each constituency, each candidate is asked if he or she is willing to make a four-point commitment.

The four points would be:

– A promise to support an in-out referendum on EU membership.

– A guarantee of support for legislation limiting net immigration to, say, 50,000 per year.

– A willingness to vote for legislation making the living wage mandatory for all large and medium-sized businesses.

– A promise to vote for an anti-profiteering law capping the earnings of former politicians and civil servants.

Of course, it would be up to each individual candidate to decide whether or not to sign up to the contract. The critical point then would be for voters to support those who did sign up to it, and ask pointed questions of those who, at least by implication, favour EU membership, high levels of immigration, a low-wage economy and the ability of individuals to move from government into ultra-lucrative private sector positions.

The proposed commitments on the EU and immigration would be designed to require candidates to support clear public preferences on these issues. In both cases, the obvious public preferences – withdrawal from the EU, and a strict limit on immigration – would be significant blows to Corporatism, which favours both EU membership and high levels of immigration.

The point about the living wage is that Britain’s established parties all, to a greater or lesser extent, support a low-wage economic model that cannot succeed. If a low-wage economy was the route to prosperity, Ghana would be richer than Germany, and Somalia more prosperous than Switzerland.

The reason why the low-wage economy is a mistake is simple – without well-paid workers, demand is weak. Combining a low-wage economy with pressure to consume leads directly to dangerous levels of indebtedness. The model that Britain should be pursuing is a high-skilled, high-wage, high-productivity entrepreneurial economy, not a form of “lowest common denominator” race to the bottom.

The restriction on the movement between government and business would be to ensure that government is not seen by the public as a road to riches. As envisaged here, a new law would cap the annual earnings of former ministers and government administrators at £200,000 annually for a decade after leaving post.

Such a limit can hardly be called onerous, and would leave former ministers and civil servants free to earn a very substantial income in the private sector. Set at such a level, this limit would be largely symbolic for the vast majority of those affected, but would send a decisive signal that government service is not a route to wealth.

To set the ball rolling, two forms of organisation are required.

One of these would have the simple task of awarding recognition to businesses committed to the living wage.

The second would organise the charter, giving each and every candidate for Parliament the opportunity to sign up to an avowedly populist agenda.

At the end of the day, there’s nothing very revolutionary about any of this.

It’s called democracy.

17 thoughts on “#38. Politics – a new template, part 4

  1. I agree with your analysis and conclusions. But as you’re an economist, and I’m a strategist, we “think” rather than “do” (which is often true of the sort of high value jobs we hope to see higher numbers of). I suspect that the majority of readers will be similar knowledge workers – well educated, politically unaffiliated. So the question is how to push these ideas to reduce the costs of corporatism into the mainstream debate?

    With an entrenched elite, and political parties collectively defined by weak leadership, lack of vision, my first thought is to promote this to UKIP. This isn’t about endorsing UKIP, or even believing that they will ever be a party of government, but it is about helping shape the vision of the most obvious political disruptor, which hopefully then galvanises the major political parties to adopt similar policies to avoid vote erosion? I’d like to believe that the day of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties is completely done, but there’s clearly a substantial number of voters who don’t, and for that reason those parties need to be dragged to the table. Any number of bilateral meetings with their policy wonks will not change their existing and flawed policies (and so would be a waste of effort), but as soon as (say) UKIP have a moderately coherent and appealing economic policy then the knee-jerking responses of the established parties can be used to make these ideas more widely debated and held.

    That contains risks – that UKIP is still seen as a comedy protest vote by the political elite; that it aligns your ideas with a perceived anti-European theme, and thus aligns a set of ideas against the business classes and the elite (leading to the threat of fear-mongering and misrepresentation by the odd bedfellows seen in the Scottish referendum). There’s also the challenge that none of the established parties understand that government needs to do fewer things better, and lots of things it should not do at all – they remain firmly parties of big government, high spending, and state control. Adopting a living wage mantra needs to be accompanied by more-than-offsetting cuts in welfare, and by tax policies that (for example) kill off employer’s National Insurance contributions. Imposing a withholding tax on global tax dodgers would also be a reasonable measure for restoring some equity to the system.

    What do you think, Dr Morgan, and what do other readers think about how to get these ideas into policies?

  2. Thank you for this very helpful comment. You put your finger on a, or indeed the, key point- translation from theory into action.

    Let me suggest first that the timing is good, and arguably is getting better. The existing parties are viewed by the general public with something close to contempt, and the point about “the directorate” is understood, even if it is articulated only vaguely as “us and them”.

    Selling anti-Corporatism to either Con or Lab would be impossible – it’s hard enough even to convince free marketeers that corporatism isn’t capitalism!

    UKIP is an interesting one. For all UKIP’s Eurosceptic definition, poll after poll shows that the EU is a long way down Joe Public’s list of priorities, way below health, immigration and incomes, for instance. So what UKIP is really doing is tapping into “anti politics”, just as other parties are elsewhere in Europe. In France, for instance, the big FN vote is anti-politics, not a popular swing to the Right.

    So, what I’m doing in this article is packaging a simple message for someone else to use. Here’s the recipe:

    – Persuade people that Corporatism is bad, and maybe call it “the Directorate” so people knovw what we’re up against.

    – Use consumer power to push the case for better wages.

    – And start a Charter organisation to ask sitting and would-be MPs to commit to four basic promises.

    Of course, this is not a sufficient agenda in itself, but would be enough to hit the Corporatist system pretty hard, and maybe even hole it below the waterline.

    Would UKIP be interested? I’m trying to think who I know within UKIP.

  3. What about speaking to fellow economist Tim Congdon a leading UKIP party member?

    I think the pledge idea is very powerful – and of great appeal to voters.

    I think we also need a Mittelstadt economic model – one we got rid of in favour of our ridiculous service-based b******t economy
    (finance, insurance, real estate).

    When I think of my father who left school at 16 to serve a toolmakers apprenticeship with Listers in the 50s then went on to establish an engineering business in mid 70s – sold ten year later and now a large successful firm.

    Where can I put my SIPP if not with these Leviathan PLC beasts?

    • That’s certainly an idea – I met Tim Congdon once, albeit a very long time ago.

      The pledge idea isn’t entirely new, but hasn’t been used in a hundred years, so far as I am aware. It would be extremely powerful if the press backed it, of course.

      What I’m thinking of doing is combining the four articles into a single pamphlet, something which could then be sent to anyone who might be interested.

  4. Thanks for these very helpful thoughts. I’d like to ask what you what form you think our relationship with Europe should take. I was bought up in the post-war years where European integration was considered essential to prevent another conflict and to help with reconstruction of a devastated continent which at that time was not even producing enough food to feed itself. We were all sent off to do exchanges, encouraged to learn languages etc. and all seemed optimistic. What went wrong? Is it just that the post war structures outlived their usefulness, and integration went too far and fell victim to overadventurous ideas such as the Euro? Yet total withdrawal seems a huge risk. This seems to me to be a debate we should be having and yet politicians seem to present us with overly simplistic ideas – are you pro or skeptic?

    • Interesting question. I’m not passionately pro- or anti-Brexit, but here are some thoughts.

      Many of the anti-EU brigade mistakenly believe that the EU is the source of all our evils. This is ridiculous, and the idea that leaving the EU would return Britain to a sepia-tinted vision of the 1950s is silly. Even where laws are passed in Brussels they are implemented, here, by British bureaucrats.

      Britain could go it alone, but not in her present state – neither our economy, our defences, our trade or our standing in the world is up to it, frankly. And leaving the EU would push us much closer to the US.

      I’m not a fan of the EU, not least because it’s so corporatist. But I do regard myself as European. Europe is a bizarre contradiction, home of the Renaissance but also of Ravensbruck, just as (to miss-quote someone) “the mystery of Germany is the distance between A and B, where A is Auschwitz and B is Beethoven.”

      The broader picture matters, and that’s dangerous. Quite aside from IS in the Middle East, there is an Islamist offensive going on right across Africa, if you join the dots between Mali, Nigeria, Kenya, Somalia and others. It wouldn’t be too extreme to call this an impending clash of civilisations, a re-run of what happened in both the 16th and 17th centuries.

      Looking east, Putin’s Russia may be nothing more than a kleptocracy – incredibly, 110 people own 35% of Russia’s wealth – but it’s still dangerous, and is getting closer to China.

      So, I’m keen on an alliance with our Western European friends – obviously, the original core of the EU, as far east as Poland and Ukraine, but not including some of the more recent members. If we could replace the EU with a Western European Alliance, involving both trade and defence, that would be the best outcome, with the US, Canada and Australia involved somehow.

      Sorry that’s inconclusive – but that’s where I’m at on the EU.

  5. Tim

    I’m curious as to how you see this intersecting with things like fossil fuel/eroei depletion, climate change or other macro scale issues which will likely become bigger and bigger drivers of how the economy behaves in the future.

    Part of me thinks that problems of such a scale can only really be addressed by large scale action, which would potentially require government or organisations of a never before seen scale to co-ordinate actions or responses. In the future things such as rationing may also be necesarry, which again would probably require more burecracy or government oversight.

    However, on the flipside democracies thus far seem paralysed and utterly incapable of meaningful action when it comes to climate change (this doesn’t really surprise me), and any sort of recognition of fossil fuel depletion and the havoc it could wreak is never even mentioned. It seems that our current system works acceptably for dealing with times when economic growth and prosperity are assured, but isn’t up to the task when unpleasant choices need to be made.

    • Sam, let me answer you like this.

      1. For the reasons you mention – EROEI, principally, plus ludicrous levels of debt-dependency – things are going to get tougher. Indeed, they already have, and I think the message is finally sinking in, certainly amongst central bankers, that we’re not going to get back to “business as usual”, i.e. growth.

      2. Corporatism, and the “directorate” linking corporate economics and corporate politics, is inefficient. It makes our economy less productive than it could be.

      3. In the past, we could afford the cost of Corporatism (“cost” both financially and socially).

      4. Now, we can no longer afford it. We’re in a zero-sum game where A’s gain is B’s loss.

      5. This is why Corporatism is slowly becoming recognised, at gut instinct level, by the public.

      6. The fundamental economic change is, therefore, feeding through into politics – most notably in worldwide disenchantment with existing governments and institutions.

      7. So, do we want the change to be evolutionary and peaceful, along the lines sketched in this series – or do we want something altogether nastier?


    • A response to Sam Taylor:

      You comment that democracies are paralysed on climate change, and I’m puzzled at you arriving at this conclusion.

      The EU claims to be a democratic organisation. I’m unconvinced myself, but let’s bear with that definition. It has signed into law rigorous climate change targets that it is ratcheting up, and national government have signed these into law. Germany has paved its southern half with solar PV so that it has no need of conventional generation on a sunny summer afternoon. Spain and Italy are in a similar situation. The UK is despoiling the countryside and seascapes with thousands of wind turbines, Germany is doing the same for its northern half. Vast subsidies are being scraped from energy users to pay to the owners of “renewable” generation. A carbon tax was introduced on fossil fuels (the ETS), but when it worked exactly as a market should, the EU didn’t like the outcome and changed the rules to raise the tax In the UK I estimate that around £24 billion has been spent or committed on renewables. We have the bold heroes of the EU parliament deciding how much power vacuum cleaners can use, and having drunk from the heady elixir of such control, we can expect these people to start mandating all manner of other limits on what power devices may use.

      On top of all these EU and European activities, the British government introduced a carbon floor price that would have worked perfectly (in the sense that success would inevitably be the complete de-industrialisation of Britain) although they’ve back tracked slightly on that. Policies are in force for the mass of energy users to pay taxes in their energy bills to individual wealthy households installing PV, biomass or heat pumps. Users of electric vehicles pay nothing for the upkeep of the roads, no fuel duty, road duty (so a circa £1,500 a year subsidy), get a £5k grant towards the car cost, up to £2k for a charging point, exemption from the showroom tax. The Green Deal Home Improvement Fund throws hundreds of millions of pounds a year of public money at insulation measures. Energy suppliers are required by law to spend around £2 billion pounds each year on “energy company obligation” which installs more efficient boilers, insulation and related activities on specific measures decided by the state, for people largely selected by the state. As part of future energy policy government has agreed to pay EDF twice current market prices for electricity to build the unproven EPR design at Hinkley Point. Money is liberally thrown at trials and research (eg around £60m a year frittered by OFGEM on the “low carbon networks fund”). New building standards are being progressively tightened, and now include limits on total energy use, with a legal requirement to upgrade private sector rented properties to minimum standards by 2018, with subsequent tightening inevitable. Over £10 billion quid will be spent in the UK rolling out smart meters in the belief that these will encourage lower consumption, and if not the functionality will permit disconnecting consumers if they exceed a maximum load, charging much higher prices for power in peak periods (I’ve seen trials undertaken involving charges up to four times the current flat rate domestic tariffs), charging for the maximum capacity, and for the maximum actual demand, all on top of standing charges. Most fossil fuel generating plant is now uneconomic to operate, and the only reason that it will continue to operate is because of the government’s “capacity mechanism”, which is simply a subsidy to keep this plant operating (needed because the recklessly subsidised solar PV achieves annual load factors of 9% in the UK, and wind power struggles to achieve the high twenty per cent range). Having recognised that the UK will never have enough wind power, the policy makers are plotting future schemes to strengthen power links to Ireland so that British power users can pay subsidies to carpet Ireland in wind turbines as well. That’s still not enough, so there’s vastly expensive dreams to link the UK and Nordic power grids, in the misbegotten belief that other countries following similar policies will magically have spare power at the time the UK needs it.

      The simple reality, that is not understood by the wider population, is that the EU and national government have set themselves on a war footing over climate change. In a way not seen since the second world war, every policy – business, employment, energy, transport, even health, they’re all dominated by the religion of climate change. Every government investment has a “climate change” impact statement. Every business is charged a “climate change levy”. No cost is too great in this fight, and if government can’t find the money it will simply expropriate it from some other group. The weakness of the science behind officially approved climate change views is ignored, and anybody who dissents is labelled a “climate sceptic”. Policy has been directed by NGO’s and small “swing votes” in the EU parliament; calls for further change are led by hand-wringing archbishops and self-aggrandising popstars. Even then the eco-types are still ringing their hands that more needs to be done, but in fact they’ve had everything they ever asked for, regardless of its effectiveness or cost.

      Rising regulation and high energy costs have been a contributor to the zero growth malaise that afflicts Europe. Just as there has been a huge economic impact of mis-investment in property, we have sown the seeds of a similar outcome in our climate change policies. This is in large part due to the excessive directional interference of governments that decide to pick winners amongst the solutions (eg promoting solar in the UK when we have no sun), tries to force the wide scale development of immature technologies (eg intermittent renewables without the ability to store power), and is incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Even if carbon is the great satan, then the current “solutions” is fundamentally wrong. The intended advent of widespread electric vehicle adoption and space heating through heat pumps will add far more demand than either new or old power systems can instantaneously deliver, and dramatically increases total electricity demand at the expense of gas or oil based fuels. This means that these new electrical loads need to be controlled to avoid collapse of either generation system or the local electricity distribution systems. And if you’re automatically controlling a large rise in electricity demand, then you end up in the situation that you can (and have to) flatten the daily demand curve. If you have a flat demand curve, the answer is simple: Nuclear. Not crummy, inadequate, unproductive, intermittent, grid destabilising renewables. And because you’d have constant demand round the clock, nuclear power plants would get far better average power prices, leading to lower requirements for subsidies (ideally avoiding them at all). We really could have a secure, low carbon economy and this could have been the case by 2030 – but this nirvana will never be delivered by renewables, and it won’t be delivered by the current misguided policies.

      Meanwhile, in response to the EU commitments on renewables France is backing away from its historically hugely successful nuclear programme. Germany, living in fear of tsunamis on the Rhine and Elbe has decided to shut many perfectly serviceable nuclear plants.

      If you think that this pell mell rush to over-invest in poor quality unproductive assets is paralysis, I have to ask what you’re sniffing? I’m also concerned that your post implies that you think more government control is needed – the evidence is that government have systematically taken poor decisions that have pushed costs far higher for the most paltry of environmental benefits, and the main reason they’ve done this has been the moral panic over climate change.

  6. Wow, where to start?

    On man made Global Warming (CAGW, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) it’s a fraud. There’s been no warming now for 18 years 2 months, satellite figures, which can’t be messed with. wattsupwiththat.com
    which is a climate science site of impeccable reputation. Also http://www.thegwpf.org
    Nigel Lawson helps run this equally good site.

    The incidence of more severe weather events, hurricanes, droughts, etc etc, is down, not up, on historic norms : http://www.stevengoddard.wordpress.com
    A simple example : the 1930s in the US were hotter than now when we’re supposed to be suffering from global warming. The important point about this is that man made CO2 is agreed to be only able to affect, in theory, temperatures through the greenhouse effect, post 1950.
    In the past 18+ years, CO2 levels have risen steadily by about 10%, & temperatures haven’t risen at all. There is an obvious disconnect between theory & practice. Another disconnect is that ice core studies have shown that CO2 rises AFTER warming, as warmer oceans give up their CO2. CO2 is, therefore, an effect NOT A CAUSE of warming, & this can be demonstrated as a consistent fact, down the geological records of the past 500,000 years & 5 ice ages.
    Maggie Thatcher’s science adviser, Lord Christopher Monckton, is a most competent mathematician, has studied both the science & politics of the CAGW scam, & come to the conclusion that the farce is a non existent panic generated in the attempt to establish a totalitarian One World Govt.

    It’s a vast Global Conspiracy.

    Sounds too crazy ? That’s because it is too crazy. But it’s also true.
    This World has never been logical.

    The 97% scientific consensus is a fabrication. 79 replies from a biased survey of about 3.500 scientists & doctored to show a false consensus. There exists a far less well advertised survey of 31,000 scientists, 9,000 of whom are PhDs, denying this false consensus.
    http://www.petitionproject.org is a must-view.

    I’ve studied this quite closely over the last couple of years, am quite certain of my conclusions, & am prepared to debate the subject with anyone.

    Lord Monckton knows the subject in great depth :
    Or, put in search box : An inconvenient truth, Al Gore Exposed by Lord Monckton Climategate, a clip from Apocalypse ? No !
    9.59 mins
    A fuller, very scientific exposition : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPtC5K8wck8
    Or, PISB : Apocalypse ? No !
    1 hr 27 mins.
    Put 97% consensus in the search box at wattsup, & look into this.
    Lord Monckton posts essays quite regularly on wattsup. Put his name in the search box & browse his posts. One of my favourites is “The Empire of The Viscount Strikes Back.” Most amusing. Put anything you like in wattsup search box.

    The situation is both more serious & more deadly than I have shown.

    I’m sorry not to comment on the Brit or Global economic situation, Dr Tim, but I’m forced to conclude that until the CAGW con is understood, the fact that we are all living in a false paradigm sustained by dishonest govt, dishonest scientists, dishonest media & dishonest “Green” groups, is understood, then commenting solely on economic policy is kind of like fiddling while Rome burns.

    This is a far larger & more important problem to understand.

  7. Tim

    This is an excellent piece and, to my ‘man on the street’ interpretation, the ideas here feel important. I have long felt that there is a huge mood change coming in our political system and although UKIP looks like far from being the answer it will probably have a vital role as the catalyst for that change. The crony capitalism assessment has been around for a while now but to ordinary voters it is an elusive concept and the full range of associated issues are hard to get to grips with. Your series of essays, has in my view, pulled together all the economic and political issues in a remarkable and understandable way and the pledge idea is something that could be easily adopted and understood. I have not seen this expressed quite so well before and, as I said, your path to a solution feels important. Please get this in front of someone of influence in UKIP as it could be a major and popular plank in an economic policy that has up until now felt a bit incoherent.

    Many thanks.

    Phillip Downs

    • Philip

      Thank you, and I’m glad you find it helpful. My plan now is to put the 4 parts together, suitably edited, into something that can be downloaded.

      Thank you especially for your remarks about the pledge. I must say it seems to me very easy – just ask all Parliamentary candidates for a yes/no to a simple list of anti-corruption/anti-corporatist pledges, what could be easier than that? I think it was used in UK politics before WWI, but not since.

      I’m also mulling something else – just a vague outline at this point. It seems to me that not all that many people know what “capitalism” is, and fewer still know what it is NOT, i.e. corporatism. So, as my publishers have suggested a second book,…..

  8. Pingback: #47. Britain – the dangerous democratic deficit | surplusenergyeconomics

  9. The BBC is a fatally corrupt organisation.

    It lied outrageously when it claimed that climate science was now “settled” & that therefore it could ignore its charter duty of impartiality to back the climate change scam wholeheartedly.

    BBC claimed a panel of 28 “experts & scientists” had convinced it in 2006. BBC spent probably hundreds of thousands of licence fee payer’s money defending a lone pensioner’s FOI request
    for the 28 names. Ludicrously, Tony Newbery lost his court case because the tribunal deemed the BBC a private corporation.

    Maurizio Morabito got the 28 names, legally, from the wayback machine:

    Importantly, Maurizio’s first global scoop was to discover the 1974 CIA (publicly funded) report that unveiled the coming 30 year cold spell.

    If you want to get a glimpse of BBC reality, pop down to your local library & see on the kids’ shelves a book by Terry Deary: The Horrible (or Wicked, I’ve seen both titles for the same book) History of the World. Aimed at 7 to 13 year old minds, this work denigrates every single human achievement. Cities, laws, explorers, the family unit itself is denigrated.

  10. Pingback: #50. Everyone a loser | surplusenergyeconomics

Comments are closed.