Steve Baker, the former Conservative MP (he lost his High Wycombe seat in the 2024 general election), ex-RAF officer, and a business figure in the IT sector, drops some solid truths in his new Substack:
The evidence suggests that we cannot afford the state we have, not now and not in our lifetimes. Taxes are at historic highs and it is implausible to believe they can be raised usefully. Debt is heading into unsustainable territory and the National Insurance Fund will be exhausted in 20 years, putting a date on the currently inevitable default of the welfare state.
Moreover, the evidence is that currencies have been dramatically debased since 1971, manufacturing injustice on a vast scale in ways which are rarely and poorly understood, but which appear to be reflected in commonly-expressed grievances which have been leading to political radicalism.
The situation facing the UK and the world is extremely serious. When Rachel Reeves on Monday tells the Commons we cannot afford present spending, the Conservatives should make the most of it in the public interest.
Read it all. As Mr Baker writes, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, is due to address parliament on Monday (29 July) on the state of the UK public finances, claiming that they are so much worse than originally thought (which is disingenuous, to be polite), and hence pave the way for even more tax hikes. Mr Baker’s essay contains some fairly eye-popping charts and data points about where the UK is in terms of its total tax burden.
Yes the state is already vastly too big.
And the new government is going to make it BIGGER – it has inherited a vast government from the (weak) Conservatives, and intends to make it bigger – in both spending and regulations.
“What cannot go on forever wont” – I agree, but there is going to be no reform, there is going to be collapse. The former elected government was half hearted (at best) in resisting the officials and “experts” – the newly elected government AGREES with the officials and “experts”.
If you thought, for example, that the old C02 policy was bad (and it was bad) – the new C02 policy is much worse, it really is aiming at “Net Zero” (not just as a rhetorical slogan – but as an actual policy aim).
The conclusion of adding more government spending, on all sorts of things, on top of already crippling high government spending, and adding regulations on top of a vast (and insane) body of regulations (in all sorts of areas, such as “workers rights”, NOT “just” Net Zero) is obvious.
There is going to be collapse – not by some natural fate, but because POLICY (created by officials and “experts” – but also agreed to by the newly elected government) is going to create collapse.
Are they doing it intentionally – do they actually want collapse? I have no idea – I do not know.
But I do know where these policies are going to lead – “what cannot go on forever won’t” and talking about changing things in five years time is much-too-late.
Practical conclusion – if you are a wealthy person (I most certainly am NOT) then sell up and get your money, and yourself, OUT – whilst it is still relatively straightforward to do so.
“And go where?” I am not sure.
Sir Karl Popper went to New Zealand during a period of chaos in the world.
It is a long way away from everywhere (it is even a long way from Australia – far further than most people realise) and has the natural resources to sustain its population (as long as it does not allow vast international corporations – with the money handed to them by Credit Bubble banks, to take control of its farms and minerals – for “the world market” i.e. for the People’s Republic of China Dictatorship). Action to protect individual and family ownership in New Zealand is needed – and not just in production, in wholesale and retail (trading) as well. No artificial, Credit Money, advantages for corporate entities – and no tax advantages either (Milton Friedman was honestly mistaken – the corps do NOT serve individual “Aunt Agatha” style share owners).
New Zealand may be a good bet – although, yes, even there the threat of fiat money (money created from nothing and dished out to the connected) and the entities that get the fiat money (and use it to buy up assets – hello Cantillon Effect) and influence politics (as David Hume correctly pointed out – yes he was not always mistaken, or playing games) exists.
As for those of us left behind here – well if you are religious person (or even if you are not) then pray for us.
Hard to see what else you can do for us.
Even Argentina, good man though the President of Argentina is, has problems – for example the continued efforts to fix the exchange rate of the Peso to the American Dollar.
Such a policy nearly destroyed Chile under Pinochet – the policy only being abandoned after it had almost crushed the economy.
A currency can only be fixed to a commodity – and only if you actually have sufficient amounts of that commodity (be it gold, or silver, or whatever).
Trying to link a fiat currency to another fiat currency is folly.
The U.S. Dollar is not some noble thing – it is a corrupt Credit Money.
Linking your economy to that of the United States authorities (the Corporate State) is like chaining yourself to a large dog with an advanced case of rabies.
It will not go well for you.
And linking your economy to the People’s Republic of China Dictatorship – is like chaining yourself up and handing yourself to a slave-master.
Well forget the word “like” – it IS chaining yourself up and handing yourself over to a slave master.
One of the great mistakes of Mexico during the last years of the rule of President Diaz was the move from silver to gold.
Mexico had the physical silver for its currency (Mexico mines silver – lots of it) – its currency was silver that is what Mexican coins were made of, things would have gone well had it NOT tried to rig (“fix”) the exchange rate of silver to gold currencies. And then it tried to declare the Mexican Peso was gold – when the Mexican government did not have sufficient gold to, honestly, make that claim.
This was one (one – there were also other factors) of the things that led to the Mexican Revolution – years of savagery and chaos, which killed vast numbers of human beings (and which the sick creatures of Hollywood love).
How do you value your currency in terms of gold or silver?
Decide which commodity you are using (you must not fix the exchange rate) and then divide the currency units by the amount of that commodity you actually have – that is the value (no matter how small it is) that your currency is worth.
“But Paul – whether we judge by either government silver reserves or gold reserves, the British Pound or the U.S. Dollar are worth little, very little indeed, almost nothing”.
Yes – that is correct. It is very unfortunate – but it is not my fault.
I seem to remember that, in his autobiography, Sir Karl mentioned that he and his wife would have preferred Britain, but in Britain he was offered a place as a refugee, while in New Zealand he was offered an academic position. Which means that he could have saved at least another life by declining the British offer in favor of somebody else; which he did, in favor of a Jewish member of the Vienna Circle, I forget whom.
Moving to New Zealand might have broadened Popper’s horizons, and in any case he greatly influenced Sir John Eccles while there.
Its all very well, but I don’t remember Steve Baker coming out with any of this when he was a government minister. I don’t recall him resigning rather than be part of a Tory government that was presiding over a massive expansion of State spending, huge money printing and record breaking tax raising. Perhaps the perks of office overcame his reservations……..
Thank you for the background information Snorri. As you know, the relationship between Popper and the Vienna Circle was complex – he knew them well, but rejected their central doctrine that “everything is either science or nonsense” (meaning physical science or nonsense) – as you know to Sir Karl Popper everything is “science or nonscience” – with “nonscience” being very different from “nonsense”.
Meanwhile the money institutions (via false front individuals) have put 200 Million Dollars into the campaign of K. Harris in a couple of days,
K. Harris is a despicable person – but they do not care.
K. Harris is talentless – but they do not care.
K. Harris is the daughter of the Marxist economist Donald Harris and, in-so-far as K. Harris has any principles at all, they are Marxist principles – but they do not care.
They do not care because the money is created from NOTHING, so they slosh it around – this is not Capitalism, this is a farce.
Ditto the Credit Money Corporations who, working hand-in-hand with the Bank of England, destroyed the Liz Truss government (for the “crime” of threatening the international tax cartel – London must NOT, according to them, have lower taxes than New York) and pushed a massive smear campaign – which convinced the public.
Again this is not Capitalism. In the past they may have acted in an as-if-this-was-Capitalism way (as recently as the 1980s I think they did that) – but now they have realised that this Credit Money economic system has no link to objective reality at all – so they can do what they like. Including being “Woke”.
But “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” will not be denied for ever – this system will not last.
@Paul,
Nah, even Donald Harris has principles, and he has essentially disowned K.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/20/kamala-harris-father-pot-1176805?fbclid=IwY2xjawET09hleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHcYf2kwmtck-p-gvrUdVbaGKu8CQQg8C44fWkuuH2-MU3LvS_erm5M7-Fg_aem_VqiG8VZnFm6x2RBKZDkSyw
For all of Donald Harris’ marxist pretensions, I get the feeling that the Harrises were a line of hypocritical bourgeoise land and slave-owners.
Which is, as we all know, par for the course.
Well, @PaulMarks, with Sleepy Joe thay proved beyond doubt that it does not matter who the nominal figurehead is. Harris will do as well as any other.
Jim, that’s a pretty silly comment.
He’s one of the few MPs I’ve known to explain the disaster of QE. Unfortunately, his counsel fell on deaf ears. As for the “perks” of office – he could have earned a lot more in private industry. He was a Northern Ireland minister, which tends to bring security and other hassles with it. Not much of a perk, if you ask me.
He also played an important role in getting a reasonable Brexit over the line alongside other Tory hardliners in the European Reform Group. We forget how close the UK came to Theresa May’s terrible deal. He helped prevent that from happening.
Unlike we keyboard warriors, Baker has been an MP, a minister, taken decisions and the flak that comes with it. He gets respect for me for that. Ultimately, if we want better government and less of it, it is going to mean people willing to run as MPs, understand policy – not just soundbites – and make differences where they can. Perhaps you can tell us, Jim, if you have ever had a go at standing for parliament.
Yes Johnathan Pearce – it is a hard thing to resign, because it means you no longer have any influence on anything – not even the details of policy where a minister can make an impact.
Both Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick resigned – but that was because they had direct responsibility for immigration and came to the conclusion that the “very nice man” Mr Sunak was making their job impossible by NOT supporting them against the officials, judges and “experts” – that the government’s pledges to end mass immigration were, therefore, a pack of lies.
The resignation of Robert Jenrick was especially interesting because he had the reputation for being a moderate (people forget that now) – he was just sick of all the lies (from Mr Sunak and others) on immigration, and was the minister for immigration – so he resigned.
Steve Baker was in a different position – he was never Chancellor or even a Treasury minister, so he could not resign over government spending (not being in the Treasury to resign from it).
The Wobbly Guy – interesting.
Mike Marsh – correct, this farce is the “democracy” the establishment claim is “in danger”. A puppet President under the thumb of the government and corporate bureaucracy (the corporations are also funded by Credit Money – their bureaucracy is much the same as the government bureaucracy, and is joined-at-the-hip with it) – the Corporate State.
The real reason they hate Donald J. Trump is that he does not automatically obey their orders (the order of the international public-private partnership of “Stakeholder Capitalism” – i.e. the Corporate State) – he has this odd notion that the elected President should be in charge, rather than be a puppet.
1971 was the removal of the last fig leaf – the commitment of the United States government to pay a set amoung gold when presented with Dollars by-another-government.
In reality the currency had been utterly debauched many decades before 1971 – President Nixon just admitted (or sort of admitted) the truth in 1971 – i.e. that the Dollar was basically worthless. But even 53 years later the farce continues.
Before 1913 banks (under the pro New York banks National Banking Acts of the Civil War era) Credit Bubble banks produced Credit Bubbles (that is what Credit Bubble banks do) – and, hence, boom-busts. This is what “modern banking”, as opposed to honest money lending (being a “Shylock” or “loan shark” – who are treated as criminals, when it is actually they who are honest money lenders – i.e. lending out money that really exists rather than money they have created by legalised fraud), BUT each bust returned the economy to sanity – or something at least connected to objective reality.
After 1913, with the creation of the Federal Reserve system, this changed – with the government now being in a position to bail-out the “financial system” (i.e. the legalised fraud) by creating money – this is what led to the massive Credit Money expansion of the late 1920s (a gold “standard” is USELESS – as the word “standard” allows the Credit Money expansion) which, naturally enough, led to the crash of 1929.
Rather than face up to reality – the regime (and it is just to call it that) decided in 1933 to rob all ordinary people of monetary gold and to dishonour all contracts, public and private. This vicious criminality was de facto allowed by the Supreme Court in 1935.
So the corruption of the monetary and financial system goes back a long time before 1971.
And restoring some token gold “standard” will fix nothing.
The physical gold (or the silver – or whatever commodity is chosen) is either the money or it is not.
Before someone points it out – I am aware that, technically, the last fig leaf of sanity was destroyed in the early 1990s when the new Swiss Constitution broke the last link between the Swiss Franc and gold.
It was not much of a link (10% of the note issue – and ignoring Bank Credit) – but the evil the new Swiss Constitution did, should not be forgotten.
From then on the final corruption of the Swiss monetary and financial systems was inevitable – these days they are no different from the farce of “Wall Street” or “The City”.
When he sticks to talking about money Baker still makes a lot of sense.
Get him talking about other stuff – immigration, Islam, multiculturalism, transsexualism and so on – he just sounds as bad if not worse than most Labour MPs.
The chancellor has access to more information than the general public. It is, of course, entirely likely that Reeves is trying to justify tax hikes that she pledged not to make, but it is also possible that there are serious structural problems with the debt incurred by the last few Governments. It’s also possible she’s just an inexperienced chancellor who is trying to do the right thing.
Reeves strikes me as quite a serious person. Her speeches have been consistent with her beliefs, which seem sincerely held. Her beliefs seem to be, generally and fundamentally, those shared by the vast majority of professional politicians in Britain, Europe and the U.S. She appears to simply want to prosecute the office she had been appointed professionally and in accordance with the widely accepted international ideas on good economic governance. Therefore I don’t think she is being disingenuous, I think she is being sincere.
Many regular commenters on this blog have criticized the past Conservative and Labour governments for spending money unwisely, for engaging in ill-conceived spending programmes that have added to the national debt without creating value in return. Many of us are philosophically opposed to such spending programmes, believing instead that the market will solve those problems or is at least better able to do so than central planning. Reeves is unlikely to share our convictions that the market is the better choice, though perhaps she is more sympathetic to those ideas than most previous Labour chancellors. However I think we must accept that she has been opposed to certain policies of the previous Conservative governments not because she believes they were bad ideas in and of themselves but instead because she thinks she, and a ministry run by her and her colleagues, would do it better or do it “properly”.
Still, I think this is somewhat promising. Reeves seems to operate, in whole or in part, from principles and convictions and then applies those to what she is doing in a rational, reasoned manner. Sunak appeared to spend money without much regard for principles or whether or not it was effective.
Alex – Rachael Reeve had all this information long before the election, it was public information. In short her claim to have suddenly discovered all this – is a lie.
Martin – when I first heard Mr Baker making bizarre statements about “The Squad”, a pro terrorist group of members of the United States House of Representatives, with Mr Baker claiming that President Trump was somehow “racist” for opposing The Squad, I contacted Mr Baker. Mr Baker either honestly did not understand what I was trying to communicate to him – or choose not to understand it.
The same is true in relation to his comments in relation to Marxist BLM – again when I heard his, radically mistaken, comments I contacted him – and, again, he either honestly did not understand what I was trying to communicate to him – or choose not to understand it.
I can not make “a widow into his soul” – so I will have to assume that Mr Baker did not understand what I was trying to communicate to him, and that the fault is MINE for not being clear enough.
With all the pressures a Member of Parliament is under (especially one like Mr Baker who had a well known obsession with “case work” – i.e. trying to sort out the personal problems of every constituent who contacted him) the communications of an non constituent (and I was NOT a constituent of his) tend to take a back seat.
“Every television and radio station, and every public servant and expert, is telling me X (about “The Squad”, BLM, and so on) and this strange person from Kettering is telling me the opposite of X – why on Earth should I believe this strange person from Kettering” may well have been the attitude.
And it is a quite understandable attitude.
It’s not (just) the money that’s been debased – but the populace.
Most are now too stupid, short-sighted, venal, and selfish to draw the correct conclusions from the collapse when it comes. Or make the mature decisions necessary for recovery.
By the way – on “Case Work” – if a Member of Parliament does accept that the personal problems of every constituent who contacts them are for them, the Member of Parliament, to sort out (as if they were a social worker or the local minister of religion) then most of their time is going to be eaten up with such matters – and the Member of Parliament will also be put under extreme stress (as many constituents will “dump on them” emotionally), a Member of Parliament put under this extreme stress for a prolonged period of time may well start making mistaken judgements – although with the best of intentions.
BenDavid.
I partly disagree – for example, many of my neighbours and near neighbours are making fairly sensible moves concerning their personal survival.
And WITHOUT any advice from me (I am the last person to be giving advice – I largely gave up on life years ago) – and without any warnings from me, they just seem to know that society is going to go through some very tough times.
They are, for example, starting to keep chickens (and are not obeying regulations to report them to the authorities – who not want people to have any autonomy from the Corporate State), grow some of their own food, learn practical skills, and so on.
Do they understand the grand political stuff? Well not totally – but they do have more knowledge than I thought they did, and (again) no the knowledge is not from me.
People are seeking out information that goes against the official narrative – as they have grasped that the official narrative is a pack of lies.
And his economic analysis fails to take account of the negative impact of immigration. Hard to keep state spending under control when you continually import low wage serfs and their dependents. Hence Britain’s combination of high taxes and crumbling infrastructure.
Reeves’ surname is Reeves not Reeve.
If you genuinely believe that all the salient information is public knowledge, I am astounded at your naïveté. From the head of the OBR earlier this year:
So we know that the government’s spending plans were laid out to only around 8 months from now, and people internal to the OBR described it in any case as “a work of fiction”. So I think it’s quite reasonable that Reeves is claiming that there is new information, as we know that there were known unknowns, and indeed probably unknown unknowns, as recently as January this year.
Unlike you I am not a supporter of any particular party, so I am neither defending nor attacking any party. I am simply saying that Reeves is not being disingenuous, in my opinion.
Alex.
I stand corrected on the typo. Although only a pedantic person would point it out – unless they were working as a subeditor on a publication (in which case they would have a reason to point it out).
As for the lady knowing all this before the election – of course she did, and if you “genuinely believe” that she did not then the “naivete” is yours not mine.
None of the above should be taken to mean that the last government did not spend too much money – of course it spent vastly too much money and people like Rachel Reeves demanded that it spend MORE money.
Of course “Reeves is being disingenuous” – that should be obvious to you Sir.
As for the Office of Budget Responsibility, OBR, it, like all government bodies, is a tool of the leftist establishment – for example it offered no great resistance to the utterly insane Covid “lockdown” policy – which did not “save lives” (indeed it will end up costing lives) and cost truly vast sums of money – the wrong headed (indeed incredibly harmful) Covid policies costing, in total, between 400 and 500 Billion Pounds (“not much if you say it quick”).
Nothing to do with “corruption” or “giving contracts to the mates of the Tories” – it was the principle of the entire Covid policy, the 400 to 500 Billion Pounds of spending, that was wrong, obviously and totally wrong. And Rachel Reeves and co wanted even more insane policies.
Yet the same OBR was against the modest tax reductions of Liz Truss. And the Bank of England and its “mates” the international financial enterprises worked against these reductions of tax rates – we must not have taxes in London that are lower than in New York as this violates the unofficial tax cartel.
I would also point out that the much chanted about “Human Rights Act” and “Supreme Court” did nothing about the tearing up of all basic Civil Liberties by the “lockdown” policy, no more than it defends Freedom of Speech against a whole series of statutes going back some 59 years.
Thus showing that anyone who thinks “Human Rights” legislation or the Blarite “Supreme Court” is about protecting the basic liberties of the British people, is utterly mistaken.
Whatever this stuff, whether at United Nations level, European level, or British level, is about – it is NOT about protecting the basic liberties of ordinary people.
Note that under legislation that is to be passed – all future major budget decisions, must be given to the OBR for them to write a report about.
This is an attack on what is left of Representative Democracy – on elected, not unelected, people making decisions. As the OBR will work to undermine decisions that it (i.e. the leftist establishment) dislike – before these decisions even become law, in terms of tax rates and-so-on.
Indeed this is part of the process of undermining democracy that goes back many years.
Already the judges are appointed by a Quango (thanks to Mr Blair), and most (most – not all) decisions, in all aspects of government, are really taken by people who have never been elected, and who ordinary people can not vote out.
Yes – applies to almost all Tories be it BoJo, Sunak, Cameron, Truss etc etc. Very panglossian views about immigration and it’s economic impact. They presided over unprecedented mass immigration, delivered a stagnant economy for a decade and a half and most of them will still insist mass immigration is great for the economy.
I genuinely didn’t know if it was a typo or you thought her name was spelled Reeve. It is a mistake I’ve seen several times, possibly because Reeve is also a reasonably common surname especially here in England. It was not an attempt to “score” a point in any way, I was simply ensuring we were discussing the same person. If I were being pedantic, I would have pointed out that her forename is also not spelled the way you spelt it. It just seemed to me that you weren’t necessarily that familiar with the new chancellor, which is reasonable as she was not particularly notable until recently.
Well, of course we can just dismiss all organs of the state that offer any contrary views to our own as being “tools of the [ist] establishment”. People on the left no doubt say the same in essence only with “conservative” instead of “leftist”. Obviously if that is what passes as reasoned debate then there is little point in discussing anything at all.
Martin – as Liz Truss pointed out in the interview on the “Lotus Eaters” podcast, any minister or Prime Minister who did not accept a positive view of the impact of mass immigration got threatened (and threatened is the correct word) by the OBR and other government bodies.
One must not go against the official narrative.
Now we might say that the lady (or someone else) should have “smashed the Civil Service – and the Quangos to”, but it is easier for us to say that, than it is for them to do it.
It is later than most people realise – democratic control of the government has been in decline for a very long time.
Alex – I say that these bodies are tools of (indeed part of) the leftist establishment – because that is what they are.
“Dismiss them” oh if only I could Sir.
As for the government being wildly too big under the last government – yes it was, and I assure you that the sort of people who make up the OBR (and all the other “independent bodies”) wanted it to be even bigger.
And government is going to get even bigger and even more interventionist – and that will lead to the collapse of this society.
What you, Alex, think of as part of the solution – is really part of the problem. The Bank of England and all the rest of it.
They are not firemen – they are arsonists.
As American readers will be thinking – yes it is the same in the United States, of course it is. The Federal Reserve system and the government agencies, including the intelligence agencies, are a disgrace – they do terrible harm.
It is the case in most Western countries.
This is what the European Union (and all other international bodies) means by the “Rule of Law” – the rule of unelected officials and unelected judges pushing a leftist agenda, for example notice that when a new government was elected in Poland (and there was a massive international campaign to make sure that election went the “correct” way), and started the “legal” persecution of its opponents, all the E.U. whining about the “rule of law” vanished – and the money that Poland had been denied, started to flow again.
And notice when an elected government does actually have some control over the unelected government machine and follows independent policies on some things (for example migration over the borders of their country) the “international community” (the public-private partnership of government and corporate officials) denounce that democratically elected government as “authoritarian” and a “threat to democracy” – i.e. a threat to international rule of the unelected leftist elite.
The great and the good think that things can go on forever, just as they are.
Pretty sure that a similar attitude and belief system was prevalent in pre-Revolutionary France.
We all know how that turned out.
People are not entirely stupid; the days when the only “smart people” who had access to the requisite information were a part of the “great and the good” demographic are long, long gone: Kitty’s out of the bag, and there are people out there who know and understand precisely what the cons are, and how they’re being screwed over by them.
If you think is a recipe for things continuing to eventuate as they have been for centuries, you’d be mistaken.
Dunno where it’s going to come from, don’t know how it’s going to start, but the end state is going to be “They” not being in charge, any more. Do remember the Dutch solution to a corrupt manipulative government… I wouldn’t be a part of the “Great and the good” for love nor money, at this point in history. They’re going to get a comeuppance, and it won’t be pretty. May not even be survivable…
Kirk.
Look up the old British television series “1990” – shown in 1977-1978 and never repeated.
What is going to happen over the next few years “life scores” (social credit scores) “Department of Public Control”, and so on, has been well know to some of us for many years.
Perhaps we managed to delay it a few decades – it is 2024, not 1990 and it may be a few years yet before tyranny is fully in place, but it is playing out how we (including the man why made that television series) thought it might. As for the nonsense that passes for political discourse (the drivel trotted out by the “organs of the state” as Alex puts it – including the pet politicians), Terry Arthur wrote about it 50 years ago.
“95% is Crap” was the title of Terry Arthur’s book 50 years ago – and he was just about correct.
I hope you are correct about tyranny being overthrown – but, even with economic and social collapse, it is difficult to see how (specifically) the incredibly powerful forces ranged against us, will be defeated.
Alex:
Can’t we just leave out the [ist] bit?
All organs of the State, the media, and academia that offer views contrary to my (infallibly correct) views, are tools of the Establishment.
Whether the Establishment is labeled “”leftist”” or “”rightist””, is of little concern to me. It says more about those who do the labeling than it does about the Establishment.
Re:Case work
Maybe it’s done differently here in the USA, but a huge part of any pol’s staff here works in Constituent Services. I spent my time there long ago. Every dollar spent in CS is worth 2 or 3 dollars spent in the GOTV efforts.
When I was a boy, a Turkish Lira was worth about a quarter. In 2001, a million TL would not buy a cup of coffee in Istanbul. It’s been renominated and collapsed twice since then.
There’s a deal of ruin in a nation.
@Johnathan Pearce: So SB declares now (after he’s been chucked out as an MP) that the UK must face the fact that it is in effect broke – it cannot afford the lifestyle to which it has become accustomed (which is a pretty serious charge) but thought it best not to mention this while pulling in a minister’s salary? And that reflects well on him?
A man of honour would have refused to serve in such a travesty of a ‘Conservative’ government, but he had no problems serving in it, so is tarred with the same brush as the rest of them.
Kirk,
the Great and Good don’t need things to go on forever, only until they’ve kicked the can far enough down the road that it’s the next generation’s problem, they’ve gotten theirs, and are either on some beach enjoying a nice retirement or dead where the mobs can’t do anything to them.
Is there any list available of what government in the UK actually does? I would expect that there is not, just like there is no such list for the US. In both cases, you cannot meaningfully find the least useful bits unless you know what the bits are. This makes cutting spending inordinately hard.
Thanks for the mention and interesting comments. Over the years, I have been glad of broadly supportive articles here: it’s one of the places my journey began.
I’ve no idea what Paul Marks is talking about re “The Squad”. I’ve no recollection of it.
Casework is a fact of life for MPs. If you desperately needed help with the state gone wild, you’d be glad of an MP who took it seriously.
As for BLM, I think some of you are inventing my opinions. Footballers are not CRT ideologues and I’m glad I and friends ended people making a fuss about their gesture against racism.
On immigration, of course it should be controlled – again, it’s weird reading other people’s ideas of my views.
As for the comments about the perks of office: those are contemptible remarks. Goodness knows I have done enough resigning and rebelling for several parliamentary careers. The fact is, to get anything serious done, you have to get up the ministerial ladder, and that means obeying the ministerial code. Talk of “perks” is offensive and ignorant.
Fair point. It is easy to snipe from the side-lines at people trying to do things, which involves getting your hands dirty with actual (gasp) politics.
Mr Baker:
It is very heartening that you read these comments and choose to engage. I think any adverse comments here about you come from a place of disappointment. I was disappointed by the way you apologised to the Republic of Ireland for your pro-Brexit views. I felt this was unnecessary and gained you nothing. And I was disappointed that you had anything to do with the Windsor Framework. I felt this changed little with regard to the disgusting Northern Ireland agreement, which no state with any self-respect would have signed.
I have always been of the opinion that if the EU insists there should be a hard customs border between the UK and the Republic, the let it be on the soil of the Republic. Faced with the consequences of their actions, the EU would soon find a workable solution. I find that the UK seems all to willing to bend the knee in negotiations of this sort, and I find it profoundly depressing.
However, thank you again for deciding to take part in the discussion.
Mr Baker – that you can not remember implying that President Trump was being racist for attacking “The Squad” does not surprise me.
You were well known for taking up the cause of every constituent who was in need of your help – and the emotional pressure that was have put upon you must have been utterly awful. Add to that the terrible burdens of government – of being surrounded by people who are (perhaps by no fault of their own) not giving you accurate information.
Although I once, many years ago, worked for a Member of Parliament (yes Bobby b – some Members of Parliament do have staff) the burden in those days was a tiny fraction of what it is now – especially for a Member of Parliament who took these responsibilities as seriously as you did. To be frank I am astonished that you managed to maintain your sanity.
I hope that I have not added to your burden Sir.
I certainly did not intend to add to your burden with my comments – I was, in my horribly clumsy way, trying to explain to the people who were attacking you what a nightmare position you were in.
It is bad enough for a local councillor (going into council buildings with far left flags outside them, voting for motions that one knows make-no-sense, because the alternatives offered are even worse, – and so on) – for a Member of Parliament and Government Minister it is a thousand times worse.
Perry is correct.
It is very easy for people like myself to burn with rage over Covid “lockdowns”, the dismissal of Early Treatments, the pushing of unsafe injections, and so on – and to burn with rage over the increase in government spending and taxation and regulation, the failure to repeal Blair-and-Brown’s constitutional measures (such as the Supreme Court and judicial appointments), the failure to repeal even the Environment Act and the Equality Act – and the general “Woke” agenda of censorship and persecution.
Rage is easy, anger is easy, I have spent the last 14 years either in a rage or in despair – twin sides of the same coin.
But it does not actually do anything constructive.
JohnK.
I agree with you – if the European Union (and their puppet government in Dublin – which is increasingly hated by ordinary Irish people in the south) want a customs border – then let it be in the Republic. But then I have never been a Member of Parliament, and if I was a Member of Parliament I would never be made a minister.
The betrayal of Northern Ireland by Mr Johnson disgusted me – although, technically, it could be argued that it was NOT a formal betrayal as he had not fully read (or understood) the agreement with the European Union – like Mrs Thatcher with the Single European Act of the mid 1980s Mr Johnson was dependent on government officials and government lawyers. If one works with people every day, and can not sack them, then (as Steve Baker has mentioned more than once) being openly hostile to them, and assuming that everything they say is a lie, will not work.
Still the reality was that the Unionists were told that there would be no customs barriers or other restrictions between themselves and the rest of the United Kingdom – and they woke up to find there were these things.
It seemed like a betrayal – even if, formally speaking, one could argue it was not a betrayal as there was no formal intent to betray.
So how to respond to this situation?
One could respond as Paul Marks would have done – fly into a rage and tell Dublin to go burn in Hell, or as Steve Baker did – try and make the best of a bad situation.
Which is the more constructive response?
TMLutas.
What the British government spends money on is not that difficult to find out – the reports are published every year.
British government spending, even as a proportion of the economy, has been on the rise since the 1870s, but was still relatively limited up to the First World War.
In the 1920s and 1930s government spending and taxation was very high indeed by historical standards – and this was the first period in British history when spending on domestic schemes, such as education or welfare (health, pensions and so on) became higher than military spending.
Government spending was not always too high on everything – it was sometimes too low in some areas.
For example, Singapore was not properly fortified on the landward side, there were no real stores of area effect (as opposed to armour piecing) shells, there were no tanks (the excuse being that they could not travel in the jungles of Malaya – this ignored the fact that the British had built ROADS which the Japanese used in 1941-2) and hardly any antitank guns or modern aircraft in the Far East (although there were some Hurricane aircraft – one should not forget them).
Politicians such as Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were NOT “anti military” (although the Labour Party certainly was) – but they put on a higher priority on funding “Social Reform” – and politicians that one might think would be different, such as Winston Churchill, were, in practice, not different – see Churchill’s record as Chancellor, very much the health, education and social programs first – the armed forces second.
As for NOW – indeed since World War II, what government spends money on, and much it spends on what, are available.
But I warn you TM Lutas – it is incredibly depressing to read this stuff, the tax and spending stuff since World War II, especially after the early 1960s – in the late 1960s the whole thing just goes bonkers (and has stayed bonkers ever since – till now 2024). The defence of the Realm becomes an after thought (if even that) and everything is just thrown at the Welfare State, health, education and welfare schemes – unlimited funding that was supposed to banish poverty (it did NOT).
I remember Brian Walden, an ex Labour Member of Parliament who became a television presenter, he got so sick of people talking about “cuts” (and other absurd lies) in relation to government spending, that he used to spend the first half of his television programme (“Weekend World”) showing bar chants and pie charts (television can do this – it does not have to be all “talking heads”) which showed what government spending was in relation to the economy, and what proportion of the budget went on what, and who paid what proportion of taxation.
Then, and only then, would he interview a politician – after half the show had presented the basic facts to the viewers.
That was the secret of the old Weekend World (before it was ruined after Mr Walden left) – there was no point in the politician telling lies in the interview (talking about “cuts to the health service” or “the rich should be made to pay their fair share” or all the rest of the lies) because the viewers had just been shown the truth, clearly and in detail.
There is no television programme like that today – not on any television station in the United Kingdom.
We did not understand what an exceptional programme Weekend World (under Brian Walden) was – till we did not have it any more.
But again – yes the accounts are available, if you want to sicken yourself looking at them.
By the way – it is not that difficult to find out a broad outline of American Federal Government spending (although its accounts are more confused than any of the 50 States – even California, which is run by a crook, has less dishonest accounts).
The truly big items of spending are the entitlements – Social Security (which is NOT funded by investments – the “trust fund” just has government IOS in it – just like Britain), Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and so on.
One must not forget debt interest – the debt is now over 35 Trillion (yes Trillion) Dollars, the money is created from nothing (by the Federal Reserve system) lent out to Wall Street entities and then borrowed back again at a higher rate of interest. YES it is disguised Corporate Welfare – but as the corporate entities include Pension Funds it is all a bit problematic.
Then we have the Pentagon – the Department of Defence, which is indeed as incompetent and bureaucratic as its reputation would suggest.
The other Federal Departments are much the same – but smaller than the above.
As for the State level accounts.
As “Truth in Accounting” (yes I do read nerd websites – because I am a nerd) makes clear…..
Illinois and New Jersey are the most in debt – but California is perhaps the wildest spender (of the States – the Federal Government is much worse). “Wildest” does not mean highest – if one means strictly the highest spending-and-taxing State and local government area then it is New York (even as a proportion of its economy) since at least 1967.
The best State for controlling spending – South Dakota, but it is has less than a million people.
Of the really big States probably Florida and Tennessee are best at controlling spending, but Tennessee has a city problem – a few big cities whose local governments are a real mess.
Although not as much as mess in terms of local government government spending as the cities of New York and Chicago – which are really in a class of their own when it comes to insanity. NYC and Chicago seem to be in a race with each desperately trying to destroy itself first.
I can go on for hours about all this stuff, in Britain and the United States, but I find that people tend to lose the will to live if I rant on at them too long.
Paul:
I wouldn’t have told the EU to go to hell, but they are a very intransigent empire to deal with, and have to be treated as such. They turned the Northern Ireland border into a despicable betrayal, because we let them. The very idea of any sort of internal customs barriers within the UK is an anathema. I remember seeing film of Boris blithely telling Unionists that there would be no paperwork involved for trade between GB and NI, but he was a bluffer and a bullshitter. He always told people what they wanted to hear.
As regards Singapore, Britain willed the ends but not the means. Politicians believed Singapore was a “fortress” when it was anything but. Even Churchill believed it. The capacity of politicians to believe something to be true, merely because they want it to be true, is depressing, and sometimes disastrous, as Ed Miliband will prove when he destroys our economy. He’ll do more damage than the Luftwaffe, but he will truly believe he is doing the right thing.
JohnK.
Absolutely Sir – you have summed up things well, and I have nothing to add.
@Jim, I see that Mr Baker has dealt with your opinions more effectively than I would.
Steve Baker made enough of an impact on the Brexit issue alone to justify his position in government. And sure, resigning in a huff over economic policy would do what, exactly? You do what you can do from a certain position.
It seems to me quite rum that there are people free to throw rocks, but (with the exception of very few) willing to get involved in the process. I don’t find it very edifying, or even honourable.
@JohnK – my apology to Ireland was not for my Brexit views. It was for not always behaving in a way which would encourage them to trust that we respected their legitimate interests.
It was very carefully worded and it worked, in the sense of making it possible to advance to a deal. If we had sought to act unilaterally, the Conservative party would have fallen apart and we would have gone nowhere. Sorry, but I know of what I write.
I made a series of speeches with both humility and resolve: the humility to recognise Ireland and the EU’s legitimate interests, plus the demand they respect our own. In the end, the Windsor Framework was a very hard compromise for Unionism, Eurosceptics and for me, but it was nevertheless a considerable advance and the alternative to accepting it would have been disaster for the country and the Conservative party. And whatever one may think of the Conservative party, I have always believed it is the best hope we have of good government, as small and poor a hope as it may be.
All that said, people as usual heard what they wanted.
Each of us will press on as best we can to fight for a free future. I hope the illuminati here will not mind if I refer to my contribution on Substack: https://stevebakerfrsa.substack.com
🗽#FightingForAFreeFuture
Mr Baker:
I am sure that you did your best, and you were better than 99% of MPs. But the damage was done by the Northern Ireland Agreement. The Windsor Framework may have polished that particular turd, but it does not change its essence.
I still say that the EU are bullies, and we let ourselves be bullied. By the time you got involved, it may well have been too late to do anything but try and ameliorate the situation. Boris wanted to “get Brexit done”, and it seemed that the little matter of the union between GB and NI was of no interest to him. I do not resile from my low opinion of him.
Best regards.
Yes – applies to almost all Tories be it BoJo, Sunak, Cameron, Truss etc etc. Very panglossian views about immigration and it’s economic impact. They presided over unprecedented mass immigration, delivered a stagnant economy for a decade and a half and most of them will still insist mass immigration is great for the economy.
I am not sure if any of them think that mass immigration without qualification is great. Surely a lot depends on who is doing the immigrating – is it skilled workers, entrepreneurs, scientists and technologists, or is it not? And then there is the point that much of this latest influx occurred at a time when central banks, as Paul Marks of this parish never tires of pointing out, flooded the economy with cheap money, enabling firms to engage in financial engineering rather than building value through R&D, new services and products. (All those corporate “zombies”). It is certainly arguable that without some of that immigration, the economic situation would have been far worse than it was. After all, the UK non-immigrant population’s fertility rate has fallen to below replacement rate, producing an ageing population, which tends to correlate with sluggish growth, risk aversion, etc. And look at how many adults, of working age, aren’t seeking jobs at the moment. That cannot really be pinned on immigration, and yet I would wager it is a major reason for our crap growth. Far too many people aren’t pulling the wagon, but are sitting on it.
Context is important. In the post-Civil War period, the US took in vast numbers of people, often very poor, from places such as southern Italy, and the country boomed all the way to 1914. West Germany, with its cities reduced to ashes, took in refugees and other fleeing communism, and the country’s GDP per capita had overtaken that of the UK by 1960, despite receiving less Marshall Aid than the UK.
It may not be as constructive as fixing things, but pointing out problems IS constructive. In our current climate, it is half the battle to be willing and able to do so.
Silent resignation, on the other hand, only empowers the rascals.
The successful migrations you listed were comprised of people who wanted to be in their new place, who wanted to participate, who saw their destination as an improvement because of, among other things, a better culture. They wanted a melting pot, because they valued the pot.
The new migration in large part consists of people looking to invade and conquer, to wipe out the current culture and replace it with their own crappy failed cultures.
(In large part, this is why I am somewhat favorable to migration into the USA from the South – Mexico, Latin America, etc. These people are migrating for the improvements that are on offer here. They want to be Americans. We still need some of this kind of migration. Maybe not quite so much as we have, but . . . )
The new migration in large part consists of people looking to invade and conquer, to wipe out the current culture and replace it with their own crappy failed cultures.
Apart from looking at the behaviour of certain groups (Muslims, but not exclusively), how are you able to prove this? Have you interviewed these immigrants? “Dear sir, why are you coming to the UK/others, often at risk to your life?” Answer: “I want to build a shithole in the UK and make everyone submit to Allah and lock up their wives at home.”
Bobby, please engage a bit of historical perspective. When the Irish came in big numbers to the US in the late 1840s and after, they were often portrayed by the existing inhabitants as drunkards, prone to violence, and overly fond of politics. The southern Italians and Sicilians were not exactly given an easy time of it, and of course there were plenty who worried about what sort of habits they brought with them, and never mind the Mafia stuff. The Cubans post-Castro who went to Florida had to endure for years the assumption that they were coke dealers, etc. Chinese immigrants have been smeared as overly secretive and devious.
I am afraid the idea that the type of immigrant who comes to the UK to work as a hospital orderly, software programmer or fruit-picker is somehow of a magnitude more difficult, antagonistic etc to the host country than those of a century ago does not, in the main, hold water. There is, true, a specific problem with those from Muslim countries who take their hatreds with them, which is why the immigration system needs to strictly limit numbers from such places, and put in other structures in place to ensure that only those who want to work hard and contribute value come to the UK.
Anyway, this is only indirectly related to the original post.
Why would I feel a need to prove it “apart from looking at the behavior of certain groups”? I’m speaking of those certain groups.
bobby b – concerning what you said about at least talking about problems rather than being silent.
Agreed.
For example, I have been thanked by victims of the Covid injections – I have done NOTHING for these people, other than agree that they have been wronged by a dishonest establishment. But even these words of support seems to be of value to the victims of injury – and to the families of those who have been killed.
The Wobbly Guy.
On rereading what Donald Harris wrote I think I see his “issue” with K. Harris.
Donald Harris is a Marxist economist – he is “into” Classical Marxism, although (like certain Cambridge economists) he mixed it with Keynesianism (which it is not logically compatible with – but leave that aside).
K. Harris is “into” “Identity Politics” – Frankfurt School “Critical Theory” or “intersectional – oppression and exploitation” Marxism (the “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” or just “Equity” agenda).
This “Cultural” Marxism was really hated by Classical Marxists such as Joseph Stalin – because it destroys society, and they (the Classical Marxists) wanted to rule a strong society – not die in a heap of ashes.
A Classical Marxist, vicious murderers though they are, would be just as disgusted by, for example, lots of vagrants on the streets injecting drugs, as a conservative would be.
Whereas a Frankfurt School, “intersectional”, Marxist would be amused by the sight – especially if children were involved.
The aim of the former (the Classical Marxist) is POWER – for which they are prepared to destroy and to murder, the aim of the latter (the “Cultural” Marxist) is DESTRUCTION – really destruction for its own sake.
Although they pretend, perhaps even to themselves, that they want to build a wonderful new society – on the foundation of ashes and dried blood that they have created.
Radical feminists influenced by the Cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse (a man) chanted, in their motivational meetings, such things as “we will destroy society” “how will we do that?” “by destroying the family” and on and on.
Joe Stalin, mass murderer though he was, would NOT have approved.