Top products from r/ukpolitics

Why Priti Patel is wrong about overseas aid and immigration | Fraser Nelson | Coffee House

The Empire for International Development has a tough job justifying its deeply unpopular budget. In recent years, it has made out that development aid will stem the flow of migration. The following line appears in a piece that Priti Patel, the DFID Secretary, writes for the Sunday Telegraph today.

>We are taking immediate steps to protect our borders and tackle people smuggling. But the only way to resolve this crisis in the long term is to address the root causes. We need to create jobs across Africa and provide its growing population with a route out of poverty where they are.

Her overall point – about how Africa needs more capitalism – is brave and correct. But this idea about development quelling immigration is the opposite of the truth. Now and again, you hear this line trotted out – offering a Marie Antoinette-style view of migration. Do the Africans come here in rubber boats? Well, give them jobs! Hand them a rake! See if they can keep or roast some chickens! This misses the reason why people move. They want better jobs than those on offer at home; they want a better life. They want what we have; they want their children to have the chances ours have. And understandably so.

Emigration is a sign of development, not poverty, as I argued in my Daily Telegraph column a while ago. The only people who join the Great Migration are those who have the money – often thousands of dollars – that it costs. They seek better jobs, a better life. This is the most powerful force in human history, the force that created the United States of America, the force that led so many from Scotland and Ireland to risk their lives making the Atlantic crossing a few generations ago. They sold assets to pay for the journey – and moved to what they hoped would be something better.

Bill Clinton had an excuse when he repeated the ‘development means emigration’ trope: he was speaking a generation ago, before scholars had assembled the massive database of census data which today allows us to compare a thousand censuses from hundreds of countries. Results, from World Bank data, are below. When a poor country starts to become richer, its emigration rate soars – until it’s a middle-income country, like Albania. And only then does extra wealth mean less migration.

[Graph]

And for emigration flows, the same relationship holds:-

[Graphs]

Michael Clemens, the American development economist who published the graph, explains it thus:-

‘>In all years, there is no hint of a negative relationship between income and emigrant stock between PPP income per capita of roughly $600 (that of today’s Niger or Ethiopia) and about $7,500 (today’s Albania or Colombia). In this range of income, in fact, the relationship is positive. The rise in emigrant stocks associated with higher income levels in this range is statistically significant at the 5% level. The magnitude of the positive relationship is substantial. Early in the second half of the 20th century, richer countries in this range on average had emigrant stocks about three percentage points larger than the poorest countries. By the end of the century, this difference grew to nine percentage points, and seems to have continued growing since then.’

It doesn’t take too much imagination to work out why. Let’s consider our own recent history. In 1948, the UK government passed the British Nationality Act allowing all 600 million of Commonwealth subjects to live and work in Britain. Here’s Andrew Marr, in his History of Modern Britain:-

>‘It was generally assumed that the Black and Asian subjects of the King would have no means or desire to travel to live in uncomfortable, crowded Britain. Until the fifties, so few black of Asian people had settle in Britain that they were often treated as local celebrities. Officially, it was not even considered worth while trying to count their number.’

Indeed, hardly anyone took up this offer; even during the partition of India, which claimed a million souls and displaced ten times as many, there was no clamour to seek refuge here. The Indians and Pakistanis were far, far poorer than they are today – but that’s the point. They were so poor that not many could afford to come to Britain, not many had means of finding out that a better life was available. Why go to this cold, wind-battered island – which itself was losing people to the New World?

In 1951, the UK signed the UN Refugee Convention saying that we’d shelter anyone – anyone!—with a well-founded fear of persecution. Such offers were easy to make, then, because no one really had been showing up: the famous influxes were tiny by today’s standards: 50,000 Hugenots, for example. After the war we offered 200,000 Poles the right to live in Britain, rather than face the Soviets: about 162,000 did (pdf) – a fraction of today’s Polish population. Even in the early 1990s, immigrants were arriving at about 150 a day.

Now, it’s 1,500 a day. Globalisation has kicked in, global poverty has halved over 25 years. The poor world is becoming richer, so people are on the move. War acts as a catalyst; far more of those affected by violence have the means and inclination to flee. But globally, there is less war and less poverty than at any time in our history. The Great Migration should be understood as the flip side of the greatest triumph of our age: the collapse in global poverty.

Study after study shows this to be the case. When aid was given to poor rural Mexican villages in exchange for occupants attending school and health clinics, it led to them leaving rather than staying.

As I wrote the last time Priti Patel made this point, she would be right if she meant that when middle-income countries become richer, the migration rate falls. But even the politicians who make this caveat talk as if this process is a short-term thing. In fact, it takes generations. I’ll leave the final word to Michael Clemens:-

>‘At a healthy real per capita growth rate of 2% per year, it would take 133 years for a country starting from $500 per capita (today’s Niger or Burundi) and 63 years for a country starting from $2,000 per capita (today’s Cambodia or Zambia). At a strong growth rate of 3% per year, these durations would be 89 years and 42 years, respectively. These are optimistic growth scenarios, given that during 1960–2000 the average country experienced real growth in per capita income of 1.8% per year. And most poor countries grew more slowly.’

If Africa develops as Ms Patel hopes, then we can expect more rather than fewer immigrants. We’ll need a better strategy for dealing with the Great Migration than to hope that it will just go away.

>The common market and the single market are synonymous.

No. No. No. No. No.

Very different things, and represent very different things.

>Well, they aren't, but in the eyes of the EU they are -

Then your eyes are wrong. A common market is very different to a single market.

A common market still exists and the EU has one with many both non-EU countries in Europe and on the borders of Europe.

The common market and single market both exist and are existing at the same time. Supporting a common market literally means leaving the single market and its freedom of movement for labour.

It is nonsensical to argue that access to a common market can only exist with freedom of movement of people, because that is the thing among other that differentiates between what is a common market and what is a single market.

>Are you sure you know what he's advocating here?

Yes. He spells it out quite clearly in his book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Plan-Twelve-months-Britain/dp/0955979900

>He speaks favourably of both Norway and Switzerland

And Macedonia, as examples of how the EU has trade relations right across Europe and not just constrained by being in the EU, to lend credibility that they're not interested in not having a UK trade deal. He argues for the necessity for the UK to be able to negotiate its own free trade deals. Switzerland was in EFTA for 40 years before it decided to negotiate its own free movement of people deal and put it to a vote, for eight years they were in a European Free Trade Area that had access to a single market, formed by Maastricht, without any free movement of people.

If he says "Common Market" he does not mean "Single Market", however synonymous you like to think of them whilst admitting they're different things.

>Misinformation after all works both ways.

Yes, it does. And when I see it working the other way I'll correct them too.

But you are wrong.

Especially when you even accept it, when your own response's first line is,

"The common market and the single market
are synonymous. Well, they aren't, but in the
eyes of the EU they are"

>I'm intrigued by this, do you have anything more concrete in terms of how you would hope it would work? My personal view is that we should ban the concept of parties from the electoral process, but leave the structures and processes essentially unchanged.

The 'market mechanism', as I see it at present, is that MPs owe their future careers to the party machine, so they become lobby-fodder. If however they have a 'personal' mandate, having won selection in a competitive primary, I think the party machine has less ability to threaten them, while the prospect of future candidate selection primaries mean that they know they will have to face their electorates with the record of their actions, and should 'keep them honest'. They will act as independents, rather than cyphers.

There was an interesting article in The Guardian recently:

> Since MPs were first paid in 1911, just two governments have fallen as a result of parliamentary votes: Ramsay MacDonald's first Labour government in 1924 - in any case a minority administration living on suffrance - and James Callaghan's Labour government in 1979, which had seen its Commons majority in effect evaporate.

>Now go back a hundred years in the opposite direction from 1911, and recall that every British government between 1837 and 1874 fell following a Commons vote. That happened again in 1886 and 1895. Political conditions were different, and politicians drawn from a narrow elite. All the same, there really was a golden age of parliamentary government, when the Commons was the master of the ministry - rather than the other way round, as now. And that was connected with the fact that for most MPs politics was not a "job" that they lived in dread of losing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/25/iraq-war-jacqui-smith-mps

There's a old interview with Douglas Carswell on YouTube where he talks about the potential of some of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SD3M5aMYzU

>increasing the interest and peoples potential involvement in the political process (outside of elections which I don't see as real involvement anyway..) is the key to increasing the size and diversity of the demographic from which potential politicians are drawn

In 'Big Bang Localism', Simon Jenkins argued that the decrease in local political involvement could be traced to the centralisation of power in the 1980s, and that to reverse it, power must be decentralised. People will not get involved in local politics, if they cannot effect change with their efforts.

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/publication.cgi?id=41

At the next election, I'll in a sense be voting for a fictional manifesto. I'd like to be able to vote for The Plan

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plan-Twelve-Months-Renew-Britain/dp/0955979900/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238366581&sr=1-1

But I'll vote Conservative in the hope that the Direct Democracy wing will push the Conservatives towards the greater democratic accountability that I want to see, they already seem to be moving in that direction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/17/cameron-decentralisation-local-government

It already has a sequel :


Slammed By The Substantial Amount Of Press Generated By My Book "Pounded By The Pound: Turned Gay By The Socioeconomic Implications Of Britain Leaving The European Union"

Buck Trungle is in serious trouble. Struggling to find the inspiration for a follow up to his critically acclaimed short “Pounded By The Pound: Turned Gay By The Socioeconomic Implications Of Britain Leaving The European Union", the erotica author finds himself desperate to stay relevant in the ever quickening press cycle.

But when Buck receives a love letter from the physical manifestation of his own book’s press coverage, he jumps at the chance to turn their short fling into something even more thrilling… something real. Soon enough, Buck and his sentient press are on a rooftop high above Billings, unraveling the secrets of The Tingleverse as they learn each other’s bodies.

Will Buck and his own living press find a way to prove their worth to the masses in the greatest meta spin-off of all time? Will a video of their hedonistic encounter be uploaded to the highest layer of The Tingleverse and that prove love is real? There’s only one way to find out.

This erotic tale is 4,100 words of sizzling human on physically manifested press action, including anal, blowjobs, rough sex, cream pies and living marketing concept love

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Slammed-Substantial-Amount-Generated-Pounded-ebook/dp/B01HWROW0W/ref=pd_sim_351_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=KWGSESCZFB79AENAPJYJ

https://www.channel4.com/press/news/brexiteer-jacob-rees-mogg-estimated-have-earnt-ps7m-investments-referendum-according

It's not a smoking gun but he runs a hedge fund that's made a packet since the referendum. And his father co-wrote the bible on disaster capitalism. Here's a taster:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Streets-Investment-Profits-World/dp/0446353167/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1563380879&refinements=p_lbr_books_authors_browse-bin%3AWilliam+Rees-Mogg&s=books&sr=1-1

There's money to be made in failing economies.

Bear in mind also the anti tax avoidance measures brought in this year by the EU targeting offshore tax havens, bypassed if we leave.

Is his push for Brexit, and that of others with large funds hiding in offshore accounts, about sovereignty or is it about financial gain and keeping prying eyes away from those accounts?

What about these guys:

https://badboysofbrexit.com

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/03/13/the-disaster-capitalism-club-vote-leave-backers-who-made-billions-from-brexit/

What do you think? Noble champions of political freedom in the face of EU oppression or chancers on the make?

Would you buy a used car from any one of them with confidence?

Edit: Clarity.

If you read Revolt on the right (which is the best book about UKIP right now) they suggest that the BNP hindered UKIP's success in the north when they were prominent and that up to 2010 one of UKIPs main aims was to squeeze them out iirc.

When you say "Radicalized" do you mean, like UKIP, because if so I highly recomend Revolt on the Right.

I assumed you meant non-fiction, but if you meant fiction, perhaps you'd like House of Cards.

Other than that, books are usually released at the end of a particular era in politics such as Tony Blair's Premiership, although I haven't read it. One of the political memoirs of either himself or Alastair Campbell.

Hope this helps.

There are no books that can adequately cover British politics to the extent that you're asking. Also, politics and economics are intertwined to the point that you cannot understand one without the other. Freakonomics, for example explains how the two cannot be meaningful separated and is an interesting place to start any political journey.

Depending on your background knowledge 30-Second Politics can give you a grounding of what all the different terminology means and Sex, Lies and the Ballot Box provides useful insight as to the difference between how politics is preached and practiced. Also, The Plan is essential reading to understand our current government.

You've already mentioned Douglass Murray's Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, which I would also thoroughly endorse. Further to that I'd recommend Thomas Pikkety's Capital in the 21st Century which although about economics is so closely tied to current political thought that it really is extremely useful reading

https://i.imgur.com/gRQ3u8T.jpg

Pounded By The Pound: Turned Gay By The Socioeconomic Implications Of Britain Leaving The European Union

> When Alex learns that Britain has decided to leave the European Union, he’s shocked by just hold normal everything seems. But the calm doesn’t last as Alex is suddenly accosted by a giant living coin from the not so distant future.
>
> In this horrific future where Britain has left the EU, four story busses lie strewn about the streets of London after a failed plan to cut costs, the Queen’s Guard have been replaced by flying reptiles with machine guns and the River Thames runs red with molten lava.
>
> Now Alex and his handsome sentient pound must travel back to the past and sway the vote for European solidarity, by proving that all you need is love.
>
> This erotic tale is 4,200 words of sizzling human on monetary unit action, including anal, blowjobs, rough sex, cream pies and living pound love.

>don't realise that when guys like Carswell and Hannan

You should read their manifesto The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain. Central to their idea of freedom is radical decentralised democracy. There is a lot to like in it even for the left.

This is not about the Guardian and 'what it believes'. If we can be mature for a moment, this is another fascinating article by the irrepressible Matt Goodwin and Robert Ford, professors at Manchester University and regular columnists to the Guardian, who have spent 10 years surveying UKIP support and have a greater understanding of their support-base than anybody else right now.

Their credentials are indisputable. If you don't like well researched observations (rather than bigotry and arrogance)... you can always lump it and bury your head in the sand.

If you give a shit (and I have a feeling you don't), read, their widely acclaimed book on this subject

Personally I think this is better Brexit inspired Fiction.

(Warning, a bit NSFW)

Well, Carswell certainly made his own position on the NHS very clear in his pro-privatisation book, The Plan.

A very fresh and good read on the subject:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1472942248/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_uIbizbVKHXXQP

I kid you not this book is often left in our office by people who are reading it:

Dangerous Hero: Unmissable new biography of Jeremy Corbyn from our best investigative biographer https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0008299579/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_XZ2BDbE7VDV60




I work with a few Jewish people and they are all convinced that he hates Jews.

That isn't the full loop - this has been going on since the founding of the party under the original leadership of the SWP. Nick Cohen chronicles a full history as part of "What's Left".

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Whats-Left-How-Lost-its-Liberals-Their/0007229704

Meta-book about the popularity of the book


Slammed By The Substantial Amount Of Press Generated By My Book "Pounded By The Pound: Turned Gay By The Socioeconomic Implications Of Britain Leaving The European Union"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B01HWROW0W/ref=pd_aw_sim_351_3/253-0503810-8471017?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=V9H82KP5S6WBD6SGYYPK

Andrew Marr had two tv series with tie-in books that were a fairly good overview of the 20th Century in British Politics.

The Making of Modern Britain Book and DVD


History of Modern Britain - Book and DVD

Edit: stream availible here:
http://britain.docuwat.ch/videos/history-of-modern-britain/history-of-modern-britain-01-advance-britannia-1945-1955-

I know the author splits opinions, but Nick Cohen's book What's Left? really is an excellent deconstruction of the Corbyn-style left in Britain. It's never been more relevant than now, I read it recently and it's spot on in many of it's arguments and insights.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Whats-Left-How-Lost-its-Liberals-Their/0007229704

Yes it is.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chavs-Demonization-Working-Owen-Jones/dp/1844678644

I'd recommend reading The Spirit Level and The Price of Inequality.

There appears to be a correlation between inequality and rising crime rates, ill-health, and social deprivation.

Part of this comes from the choices people can and do make when they live in a society where there is a wide gulf between the top and the bottom. It helps to reinforce class distinctions which creates a barrier around social mobility.

Inequality isn't bad in-of-itself, but that's like saying having a McDonalds in every major town isn't bad in-of-itself - the issue is that it almost always exasberates existing social problems.

But they've got detailed drawings of the plan how to carry it out profitably.

(edit: They've already written the book)

Portfolio Before Country.

He and Daniel Hannan have certainly worked closely together in the past - they co-authored "The Plan".

Ok less opinions, more facts -

Reese-Mogg is estimated to have made seven million off the back of the referendum result.

Reese-Moggs father literally wrote the book on profiteering from a financial crash

I read one of his books for my degree and plagiarised was influenced by much of its commentary, so I have a personal debt of gratitude to owe Anthony King.

I'm currently reading http://www.amazon.com/Austerity-The-History-Dangerous-Idea/dp/0199389446 and the author is quite clear that Greece was the only European economy that was guilty of over spending.

Read Jacob Rees Moggs dads book then.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Streets-Investment-Profits-World/dp/067162735X

Jacob Rees Mogg's father wrote the bible:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Streets-Investment-Profits-World/dp/067162735X

This, in that case, might be right up your street:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pounded-Pound-Socioeconomic-Implications-European-ebook/dp/B01HJXVP8G

(Very NSFW)

"Pounded By The Pound: Turned Gay By The Socioeconomic Implications Of Britain Leaving The European Union"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pounded-Pound-Socioeconomic-Implications-European-ebook/dp/B01HJXVP8G

Bestseller IIRC.

Carswell wrote a book called The Plan.

rees-mogg.

​

His dad even wrote a book about it https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Streets-Investment-Profits-World/dp/067162735X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1542357454&sr=8-3&keywords=blood+in+the+streets

​

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Strange-Death-Europe-Immigration-Identity/dp/1472942248

You might not ever get round to it, but you should read this book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0241954290/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475004996&sr=8-1&pi=SL75&keywords=the+spirit+level

My view that the EU is bloated comes from this book.

I rate Anthony King highly.

> Source: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0091909104/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_dp_T1_FP1DzbHRDJYXC

Alternatively, Watch the documentary here;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1IvMLTQ6ew

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Story-Brexit-Ladybirds-Grown-Ups/dp/024138656X

has someone put a Ladybird book of the EU in front of him?

​

oh heck, there's a spoof one

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Story-Brexit-Ladybirds-Grown-Ups/dp/024138656X

It wasn't in an article per say but you can read all about it in his book Captive State

Don't be silly. This is post-Brexit Britain.

Bit wishy-washy at times although he did contribute to The Plan with Carswell, not sure how much though.

Perfect for disaster capitalists, as [advocated by Rees-Mogg's father.] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Streets-Investment-Profits-World/dp/067162735X)

If you'd rather stay in denial by reading critical literature through a skewed eye glass, then fine.

I don't recommend you try this one then.

This list badly needs this book in it. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pounded-Pound-Socioeconomic-Implications-European-ebook/dp/B01HJXVP8G

Read All Out War by Tim Shipman, it doesn’t have many kind words for Cameron

No worries, Chuck Tingle's got your back fam!

https://www.amazon.com/Pounded-Pound-Socioeconomic-Implications-European-ebook/dp/B01HJXVP8G

Why does a quote from a book not make sense?

You want me to find you a copy of the book really?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Friends-Voters-Countrymen-Boris-Johnson/dp/0007119143
less than 10 seconds that took.

Ohh wait let me guess you want me to provide you with a pdf link to the full book? No. It's Illegal, Do your own research and don't be lazy.

If inequality means that my neighbour has a Porsche Carrera GT in the driveway and I've just got a 10 year old Mondeo, big deal.

But that's not what it means in the UK.

• People in the top income decile have a lot more political influence. So much for democracy.
  
  
• People in the bottom income decile often have to live in shitty substandard housing.
  
  
• So their kids have to go to the sort of school you tend to find in areas with shitty substandard housing, and they get an inferior education.
  
  
• They can't afford stuff for their kids which give useful formative experiences, such as holidays and school trips.
  
  
• So their kids are likely to end up being in a similar position when they grow up. This limits their opportunities.
  
  
• And if they have any skills, it limits their usefulness to the rest of us. Instead of becoming useful contributing members of society, they end up competing for the dwindling pool of unskilled labour.
  
  
• If you like capitalism, inequality is bad when it means that not enough people can afford to buy your products.
  
  
• If you believe The Spirit Level then inequality also leads to a nastier, unhappier, more unpleasant society.
  
  

>The only book to tell the full story of how and why Britain voted to leave the EU.

>This is the acclaimed inside story of the EU referendum in 2016 that takes you behind the scenes of the most extraordinary episode in British politics since the Second World War.

>With unparalleled access to all key players, this is a story of calculation, attempted coups and people torn between principles and loyalty. It is a book about our leaders and their closest aides, the decisions they make, how and why they make them and how they feel when they turn out to be so wrong.

>In All Out War, Tim Shipman has written a political history that reads like a thriller, exploring how and why David Cameron chose to take the biggest political gamble of his life, and why he lost.

If you were only allowed one book about Brexit, it’s the one most people seem to recommend

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chavs-The-Demonization-Working-Class/dp/1844678644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346952718&sr=8-1 it's nothing new. It's part of the culture now that people think everyone who receives benefits is some sort of lazy, anti-social layabout. It's quite frankly disgusting

I know you're being sarcastic, but for those who don't realise it here's a book on how to make money when economies go to shit, written by mogg's dad.

In short, rich people are responsible for poverty through government and industry policy, then they convince us all the fault actually lies with poor people for being poor and not sorting it out themselves. For further reading: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chavs-Demonization-Working-Owen-Jones/dp/1844678644

> The fact that he's representing the UK on an international level horrifies and embarrasses me.

Well I think he's absolutely fine. Educated in Brussels, Eton and Oxford. European correspondent for the Telegraph, MP for Henley, Cabinet member under two different Conservative leaders, (three now). Mayor of London for two consecutive terms and author of several highly regarded books spanning history and politics.

Talking of which, how many of them have you read?

I can recommend this one and this one

I don't think he need give much of a fuck about what you're "horrified and embarrassed" by to be honest.

I hate to be that guy but a trade deal with U.S is really necessary. The only thing is that we should be really careful at all the small writing in the trade deal. We could be desperate enough to accept anything but that would be bad. I have very little faith in Trump and U.S. financiers as a whole. People may complain how imperialistic the EU turned out to be, the U.S. is much worse.

Source: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0091909104/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_dp_T1_FP1DzbHRDJYXC

>Actually naziism isn't compatible as a philosophy with sikhism

Then stop promoting nazi propaganda.

>But I guess that anything a nazi said is wrong by virtue of having been said by a nazi?

It's both wrong and nazi propaganda, both of which have been repeatedly demonstrated throughout this thread.

>I'm not lying about Jewish people you idiot.

You lied about the Rothschilds, who are Jewish.

> I'm saying that the banking system has nothing to do with Jews

"Yes the World Bank and Federal Reserve etc are controlled by a small group of private banks, which includes the Rothschilds"

You literally said it has to do with Rothschilds, who you singled out.

>But also kind of ironic that whilst I argue that the corruption of World banking

Can you even explain what "World banking" is, because it clearly isn't the US central bank for the rather obvious reason that it doesn't operate globally. Is it the World Bank? Is it both?

----

ReAd A BoOk

Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain by George Monbiot [2001]

> The Dome, the lottery, the Scottish Parliament, the Manchester tram scam, the destruction of the railways and London Underground: these are all scandals we know about and which make us think the lunatics are running the asylum. We feel bewildered disempowered, ripped off and plain scared for the future of our country and the world.

> None of these episodes is covered in this book. Yet through its coverage of the Skye Bridge, the Coventry hospitals, the “regeneration” of Southampton, genetic engineering in agriculture and medicine, the takeover of our universities - and much, much more it explains everything about the decline in quality of life, accelerating gap between rich and poor, and the total destruction of anything remotely resembling “democracy” which is going on all around us while we sit there swigging Special Brew and watching reality tv.

> If Monbiot never wrote another thing he would have entirely justified his existence with this book which is quite simply THE most important book on politics in Britain this century. In reading it you realise that you are not mad after all and neither are “they”!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Captive-State-Corporate-Takeover-Britain/dp/0330369431

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Whats-Left-How-Lost-its-Liberals-Their/0007229704

"From the much-loved, witty and excoriating voice of journalist Nick Cohen, a powerful and irreverent dissection of the agonies, idiocies and compromises of mainstream liberal thought.

Nick Cohen comes from the Left. While growing up, his mother would search the supermarket shelves for politically reputable citrus fruit and despair. When, at the age of 13, he found out that his kind and thoughtful English teacher voted Conservative, he nearly fell off his chair: 'To be good, you had to be on the Left.'

Today he's no less confused. When he looks around him, in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, he sees a community of Left-leaning liberals standing on their heads. Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam that stands for everything the liberal-Left is against come from a section of the Left? After the American and British wars in Bosnia and Kosovo against Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansers, why were men and women of the Left denying the existence of Serb concentration camps? Why is Palestine a cause for the liberal-Left, but not, for instance, China, the Sudan, Zimbabwe or North Korea? Why can't those who say they support the Palestinian cause tell you what type of Palestine they would like to see? After the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington why were you as likely to read that a sinister conspiracy of Jews controlled American or British foreign policy in a liberal literary journal as in a neo-Nazi rag? It's easy to know what the Left is fighting against – the evils of Bush and corporations – but what and, more to the point, who are they fighting for?

As he tours the follies of the Left, Nick Cohen asks us to reconsider what it means to be liberal in this confused and topsy-turvy time. With the angry satire of Swift, he reclaims the values of democracy and solidarity that united the movement against fascism, and asks: What's Left?"

> My point was that the debt to GDP ratio isn't so high that it couldn't go any higher, such as due to a recession.

Ignore anything before 1865. That is not the stick to measure against for historical records as the structure of the economy was wildly different. Since 1865, a period of time where the economy of the UK was starting to resemble what it does today, the only times where it has been the result of international crises.

>My point was that the debt to GDP ratio isn't so high that it couldn't go any higher, such as due to a recession.

It can go higher, sure. That isn't necessarily a good thing though and, given the constraints we've put on ourselves into, it won't be nearly as manageable without drastic restructuring.

>Austerity was a political choice, not a necessity.

What is the relevancy of this? We are not on about the policies of the United States or Weimar Republic we're on about the circumstances that lead to the GDP-Debt ratio in the UK being higher than it was now, namely the Great Depression and two world wars.

>See this book about Austerity or any lecture by Mark Blyth about austerity on YouTube. Also Google for Modern Monetary Theory while you're at it.

No, because a) it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion, b) I have other things to do and c) I am more than aware of MMT, Keynsian economics and the drawbacks of austerity already.

> Japan's net debt to GDP is still about twice ours.

And most of that is still held domestically.