Agree with almost all of this column. Except. A big reason why the Tories aren’t trying to privatize the NHS is because it isn’t popular. And it’s not popular because the idea is frequently talked about, and negatively.
Effort spent defending itself against privatization charges is not likely to be very large, and it is naive to think that it simply impedes good natured work towards reform. It’s part of what underpins the status quo.
It seems unlikely to me that somehow Brits are ideologically wedded to public provision. It’s what they know; and regularly contrasting it with other private provision models helps mould the view that what they know is best stuck to.
It’s worth noting that the idea of private insurance is alive and well in the right wing think tank world, and there are regular displays of ideological fealty to the private sector by Tory MPs and ministers. Quite similar to Brexit during the 90s and 2000s.
Finally, thumping the drum of public provision doesn’t axiomatically ‘blind’ you to the actual important power plays. You can have many thoughts at once! And express a few of them effectively.
Moreover, regularly pointing out the risks of privatization is not dissimilar to Tory tactics of painting Labour as spendthrift, or soft on crime. A subset of the tactic of 'which side are you and they on?'
If Dom were working for Labour maybe he would be pushing this strategy on the grounds that it perpetuates a myth that has a grain of truth in it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Wonder if Haldane will stick it out for much longer now we are told there is no new money for ‘Levelling Up’.
Can’t really expect The Department For Taking a Bit Away From Here and Adding it There to work miracles snd undo centuries of place based disadvantage.
White Paper 1: ‘we must take away a bit here and add it there’.
Musing aloud about the major global macro themes. These seem to be...
1. How much team transitory was wrong, initially, and what central banks will / should do about it. Complicated by the recent change in the Fed targeting regime which has confused things.
2. The vanishing labour supply, post covid. Super-imposed [particularly in the US] on the vanishing male labour supply longer term.
Old core Tory MPs. Totally ignorant numpties need upending. Entire system is a project. See 1960s Greenland rewilding or Taiwan film production. Unusual brains and fast dashboard info can rewire policy production. Smell the javascipt coffee or VL will make web war.
Classic SW1 think-tank rando. Remain to Brexit is dial-up to fibre. Whitehall simpleton-MSM is a vector of sleep. Manhatten Project was quick so anything is codable. Just need to kill procurement flunkies.
I don't think central bankers actually holding office should be proposing fiscal frameworks, or fiscal policy settings. The suggestions themselves are interesting and sensible.
The ECB, like other central banks, was given independence to protect monetary policy from politicicans who might be tempted to use monetary policy to create booms before elections; or to inflate away their fiscal problems.
This has a cost in that there is a loss of immediate democratic control over the operation of monetary policy. That is a cost if you think democratic control over policy levers is a good thing.
The university start-up fearlessly pursuing truth. Main point seems to be to market superstar public intellectuals. Not sure these people are best suited to delivering frontier content to students.
They are superstar intellectuals because they have specialized in making themselves superstars by writing popular books for people like me that pick them up at airports.
It sounds more like a cool podcast series. And a cool podcast series is not a new university. Or it's a very different kind of university!
Obviously, the first best thing to do about climate change is to get a collective agreement to stop emitting and prevent warming to the point where climate change impoverishes us and fellow species too much more.
But if you're a small country, your own good behaviour won't make much if any difference to the global outcome: if you think the likelihood of everyone else doing the right thing is low, the best thing to do is to tilt investment to adaptation/mitigation.
And if others think that you think that + will tilt investmenet to mitigation and adaptation, they might too, validating your own pessimism. Leading to us collectivey giving up on limiting climate change, or not doing enough to limit it as much as we could.