Ten questions for a stunned elite on both sides of the Atlantic

Why did you let the banks expand credit far too much prior to 2007?
Why did you bring several banks down by refusing liquidity and not backing schemes for bank recovery,leaving others badly wounded in 2007-8?
Why have you gone for Quantitative easing and ultra low rates, which damages small savers and helps the super rich at the expense of everyone else?
Why didn’t you get on with the task of encouraging and enforcing recapitalisation of the banks so we can have a normal credit creating system again capable of financing recovery?
Why did you bring down a dictator in Libya without having a plan to rebuild a better government and society?
Why did you go to war in Iraq?
Whose side are you on in the Syrian civil war, and how is western military action helping?
Can you bomb people into accepting democracy?
Why did you back the Exchange Rate Mechanism, the Euro, the Remain campaign and the Clinton campaign, and what do you think of how they have done?
Why should people trust the economic and political judgements of the World Bank, the EU, the IMF, the Bank of England and the rest when they have got so many forecasts wrong?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

154 Comments

  1. Alan Hill
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 5:26 am | Permalink

    Funnily enough for some time I’ve been having similar thoughts, as have several million others no doubt.

    • Hope
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 8:50 am | Permalink

      JR, truly excellent questions. I am still at a loss why your questions in relation to 3&4 have not been addressed after 8 years when we were all led to believe the banks would be forced to change. Carney just reduced the interest rates and piled in more “funny money” that Osborne stated he would stop! After the Iraq war we thought no more after being lied to, still no action against Blaire, and were in disbelief Cameronncaused regime change in Lybia with the same disasterous result. Cameron needs to be investigated properly for the instability in the world it created, mass immigrantion, destitution, injuries and deaths under the guise of helping Banghazi.

      Your questions go to the heart why we feel disenfranchised by the politicos in dram world who suffer no consequences for their fanaticism, cruelty and stupidity.

      • NA
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

        I couldn’t agree more Hope

  2. Tim L
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 5:27 am | Permalink

    When will they learn that celebrity endorsement is counter productive? You have go back to Blair for the last time the rich and famous backed the winning team.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:50 am | Permalink

      Certainly we should nearly always do the complete opposite of what the Luvvies, pop stars, actors, the BBC and purveyors of “The Arts” suggest. On BBC political programmes it still seems to be about seven remainers for every Brexit supporter invited on. Yet well over 50% of voters supported it (this despite Cameron’s government blatantly sloping the pitch and Osborne threatening to mug them if they defied him).

      The people have a far better record than government at making such choices. This are they are at least trying to act in the people’s interests. Governments and politicians rarely are doing this they are far more concerned with their own interests, promotion, keeping in with party and their personal advancement agendas.

    • Anonymous
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:47 am | Permalink

      Indeed. Gary Lineker might defend his right to opine privately but it does not actually help the causes he purports to believe in. It damages them. He would be better doing so under a pseudonym as with most readers here.

      • Anonymous
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:50 am | Permalink

        Mr Lineker wrote “Don’t tell me I can’t opine on a private twitter account just because I used to be a footballer” which is true, but unwise for several reasons. He and his family are unaffected by the immigration policies which he supports. This goes down very badly with the ordinary voter.

  3. Leslie Singleton
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 6:21 am | Permalink

    Why hasn’t Nigel Farage been included in the Cabinet so that his undoubted ability to communicate and influence President elect Trump can be made use of for the benefit of the country? Too obviously the sensible thing to do I suppose. Why not elevate him to the Lords? Much better than the rewarded failures and worse that seem to end up there these days. He was brilliant on the News last night–Promethean might be the word.

    • Excalibur
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:18 am | Permalink

      Quite so, Leslie. I see this as a continuing failure by Theresa May. Why are politicians so unwilling to shelve their personal prejudices for the greater good. To describe Nigel Farage as an ‘irrelevance’ after he has caused a sea change in British politics is blinkered at best.
      Here we have an opportunity to gain influence for out betterment which is being spurned unreasonably.

      • Hope
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 8:51 am | Permalink

        If Farage were a Lord he could sit in cabinet, labour did it for Mandelson.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:44 am | Permalink

          Dear Hope–That was my point, perhaps not expressed well, but even absent that is there any reason (a real reason that is–not just noses out of joint) why Mrs May cannot have him in the Cabinet? If she cannot stomach doing that, at the very least her No. 10 should be told to shut up especially as she is a past mistress on meaning of ‘nasty’.

          • Hope
            Posted November 16, 2016 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

            Yes, she is part of Cameron’s new Labour. You might recall the labels Cameron gave those of us who voted UKIP. He also insulted his own supporters as turnip taliban etc.nthis is from his heirs smear and label people into silence. Cameronmgot it from Bill Clinton and recently Hilary learnt that the public do not like to be insulted.

            Sadly, May is fearful that it could turn her party back to something conservative which she considered nasty. You might also like to ask why Cameron appointed milburnmand other Labour ministers to undertake government work rather than say a Tory minister past or present? They went to great lengths to get Lord Odonis. She is no more a conservative than Cameron was.

      • Chris
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:51 am | Permalink

        There is apparently a vicious cabal inside government and the Conservative Party who are determined that Farage should not get anywhere near the government. You have only to listen to the latest disgraceful remarks by Iain Duncan Smith, reported in Telegraph online last night, to see the problem. I think he comes across as sneering, out of touch, foolish, and ignorant. As I wrote in a post yesterday, the politicians who adapt quickly to changing circumstances and employ the best tools available to meet the new challenges are the ones who will succeed and do the best for the UK. IDS is apparently stoking up further animosity in a feud which concerns the future direction of the Conservative Party, but he is not putting the interest of the country at the fore, which is what he should be doing. His and others’ vicious and vindictive smearing, belittling and marginalising of Farage make them look fools, I believe.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/13/theresa-may-facing-cabinet-backlash-over-refusal-to-deal-with-ni/

        “Iain Duncan Smith, the former work and pensions secretary, said: “Nigel Farage is just trying to get attention. This is an ego trip – not a diplomatic one.
        “While the PM focuses on sensible, measured diplomacy in Britain’s national interest, ALL FARAGE CARES ABOUT IS TALKING RUBBISH ABROAD”

        PS apologies for use of capitals but I haven’t worked out how to get bold print transferred to the comment. It always disappears when posting.

      • Qubus
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:55 am | Permalink

        A propo Nigel Farage.

        Whilst not being a UKIP supporter, I have to say that I find Nigel Farage the most interesting and charismatic politician in the UK (excepting our kind host of course !). We could do with a bit less of the “beer and fags” image and the almost constant grinning, but you have to take your hat off to him, he leads the rest of the pack by a country mile. It is generally acknowledged that, were it not for him, there would have been no referendum. As for the government referring to him as an irrelevance, I find it totally unacceptable. What planet do these second-rate, condescending politicos and advisers live on?

      • John C.
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

        Theresa May would not have been PM today but for Nigel Farage. Is she aware of this?

        • Hope
          Posted November 16, 2016 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

          No, the Tory remainers connived to get her as PM rather than a leaver. This was about damage limitation to stay as close as possible to the EU.

          • John C.
            Posted November 16, 2016 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

            Let us imagine that Nigel Farage had not existed. Would there have been a referendum on membership of the EU?
            No, there would not.
            Would Cameron have resigned earlier this year ?
            No he would not.
            I repeat, May owes the fact that she is PM to Nigel Farage.

    • matthu
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:26 am | Permalink

      Just speculating here, but isn’t the UK government prevented by EU law from negotiating trade deals with foreign states? Which puts Farage in a rather unique position of strength (as long as he is not given a formal government appointment).

      Apparently May has ordered her ministers not to speak to Farage (she has to be seen to be upholding EU law after all) but in all reality, they’d be crazy not to be doing just that.

      • zorro
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:46 am | Permalink

        I don’t believe that to be the case. We are unable to sign or bring any FTAs into force whilst still being in the EU. Nothing specifically or legally stops us preparing/laying the ground.

        There will be much gnashing of teeth in Downing St at the moment. They have been completely wrong-footed. Remainer May will be in ultra ditger mode I suspect…..

        zorro

        • zorro
          Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:46 am | Permalink

          Dither mode

      • Cary
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

        I suspect EU law is irrelevant in practice as there is nothing the EU could do to stop UK discussions on arrangements applying when we are no longer members of the EU.

        • Jerry
          Posted November 14, 2016 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

          @Cary; What the EU might wish to do to the UK is, as you suggest, irrelevant, but what is not irrelevant is what the EU might do to those countries we wish to negotiate trade deals with. If they have agreed not to negotiate with any EU28 member but rather the EU institution then they might be the ones with problems!

    • Mark Hodgson
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 8:27 am | Permalink

      A fair point. At the last election, almost 4 million people voted for UKIP, and their net return was a single MP. The same could be said for the Green Party – 2 million votes and one MP. Democracy? Is it too much to ask that 4 million people are allowed 2 representatives in Parliament, one in the Commons and one in the Lords?

      Compare and contrast with the massive over-representation of the SNP, for whom every vote at the last election was worth 149 times as much as every UKIP vote and 75 times as much as every Green vote in terms of MPS elected. I repeat – democracy?

    • Jerry
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 8:55 am | Permalink

      @Leslie Singleton; Perhaps because Mr Farage is neither a Conservative party member, a conservative party voter, nor an MP and surely if Mrs May was to bring Farage in from the (UK political) cold she would risk having a party within a party form PDQ.

      What was a failure of Mrs May (to pick up on something @Excalibur said), although more than likely due to her advisor’s, was the language being used towards Mr Trump before Nov. 8th, she should have instructed both ministers and Whitehall to treat both Trump and Clinton as the person the UK will have to do business with come next year and thus not publicly favour one or the other.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      Don’t bother with ennoblement, just appoint him as a special envoy.

      The Americans understand that concept just as well as we do.

      • Jerry
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

        @Denis Cooper; If Tory voters wanted to have Farage in government they would have voted UKIP, remind us how many people actually wanted UKIP anywhere near government…

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted November 14, 2016 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

          He wouldn’t be in government.

        • Anonymous
          Posted November 14, 2016 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

          Jerry – Dare the Tories to neglect their referendum promises having taken so many votes from Farage on the basis that they could provide a referendum ?

          • Jerry
            Posted November 15, 2016 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

            @Anonymous; Nonsense, on that rational there needs to be at least one LD involved too! After all the LDs did more than UKIP have ever done, without LD support (during 2010-15) we would not have had the referendum…

        • Edward2
          Posted November 14, 2016 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

          4.2 million Jerry

        • graham1946
          Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

          Roughly 3.9 million – 12.6 percent as against 4.7 percent for SNP with less than 1.5 million.

          Who got the seats? UKIP – 1, SNP 56

          So what exactly is your point? SNP more popular than UKIP? How? Bent system is the only reason for the result. This is the most shameful exposure of our corrupt electoral system.

        • John C.
          Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

          And if many UKIP supporters had not been unwilling to risk a Milliband/SNP government, they would have stuck to their core belief and added to the 4 million who voted UKIP. Still, if the Tories can find someone in their ranks who has not abused Trump in the last year, he/she might be more appropriate.
          Some retouching of history will be needed, I suspect. Always a bit embarrassing when you jump onto what you think is a winning bandwagon, only to find it stall.

        • David Price
          Posted November 15, 2016 at 4:25 am | Permalink

          How many people who voted Conservative actually wanted the current, or previous, people in government?

          I suggest much caution is needed. The Brexit vote will have shown everyone clearly just how many people are aligned with UKIP key policy and this time round UKIP will have had 490 councils (from wikipedia) to prove their mettle. Granted that is a fifth of libdem holdings but it is more councils than the SNP.

          If the members of the government, parliament or the HoL dilute, delay or derail the outcome then I think there will be an even bigger shock in the general election, maybe even sooner.

          In answer to your question, about 4m people in the 2015 general election.

          • Jerry
            Posted November 15, 2016 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

            @David Price; To take your last comment first, yes UKIP got 3.8m votes, thus surely if Mr Farage should be given a position within Brexit (if not government) on the mere number of votes cast then surely there should be two positions given eurosceptic Labour party members also, after all Labour got over twice the number of votes than UKIP did and some within Labour have been anti the EEC/EU for far longer than either UKIP or Mr Farage have been in politics, indeed longer than the UK has been a member of the EEC/EU…

            You ask; “How many people who voted Conservative actually wanted the current, or previous, people in government?”

            Well most will have wanted Cameron, or at least accepted him as PM, they will also have accepted that any of the elected Tory MPs could have been put in a position of power, either directly as Secretaries of state or as Ministers.

            “The Brexit vote will have shown everyone clearly just how many people are aligned with UKIP key policy”

            Hardly, do you really think that someone who supports the Socialist Labour Party, for example, voted Brexit because of what the UKIP said?! Stop trying to pigeon-hole Brexit into being about party politics, it wasn’t.

            Not sure what (local) council elections prove, other than all to often such local elections throwing up surprises as people let off steam, have a rant at the candidates and then cast a protest vote at the ballot box.

            If the government waters down Brexit there could well be an even bigger shock in the general election or when ever, but also if the government (especially Brexiteers within) try to carry on side-lining elected MPs when Brexit was sold to many on a ticket of returning democracy back to the UK and the British Parliament, and the backlash might be as much towards UKIP as it might be the current government.

        • Know-dice
          Posted November 15, 2016 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

          Wasn’t it about 4 million Jerry?

          About the same as those that voted SNP and got 50 odd MPs.

          • Jerry
            Posted November 15, 2016 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

            @Know-dice et al; Indeed, and as for the SNP and the luck of ‘winner takes all’ at the constituency level by way of the FPTP system, sure UKIP have been hard done by comparison but remember that if there was a PR system whilst UKIP would gain more seats so would the likes of the LDs and Greens, PR in 2010 would have killed any hope of Brexit, PR in 2015 would likely have killed the Referendum Act that has delivered Brexit.

  4. Iain Gill
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    Why did you implement a perverse version of so called “equality” which in fact discriminates against large groups most obviously the white working and under class?
    Why do you insist on imposing high levels of immigration which the vast majority do not want.
    What gives you the right to outsource jobs and intellectual property away from the workforce that created them?
    Why persecute the decent majority with everything from crazy planning, traffic, divorce, laws with no support from the public?
    Why do you think allocation and rationing is an acceptable way for us to access schools and healthcare?

  5. Mark B
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    Bloody hell, Mr.Redwood MP sir, you’re not thinking of running for Party Leader again are you ?

    I think it is like this. We simply do not live in a democracy. Representative Democracy has been hijacked and subverted by the Global Elite. This was touched upon yesterday by others. You see, when the people finally are allowed to have a say on something they usually vote in their own best interests and not those of the Global Elite. That is why the EU is so important to them, it’s the Blue Print for the future. A Future where we the people are kept well and truly away from power. And people are now beginning to wake up as see what is happening.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:58 am | Permalink

      Just why on earth did MPs prefer to jump off the cliff with the absurd (ERM fiasco and not even an apology) Major rather than JR or someone else? Why are most Tory MPs so daft?

      • Chris
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:06 am | Permalink

        There is indeed a swamp here in the UK political scene to be drained, I believe, of some fools who put Party (Conservative) before country, in order to perpetuate feuds and try to ensure rivals do not get near the levers of power. This applies most clearly with the whole Farage business. However, I fear Mr Redwood has ‘suffered’ too because I believe that over the years he has kept his distance and dignity and refused to be pressured.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:32 am | Permalink

          But even a pet stuffed rabbit would have been better than Major.

          Being proved consistently right never seems to be much of an asset in politics. Even now we only have “we have control of our borders in the EU under Schengen children” (and now it seems you cannot speak to Trump’s mate Farage oh no) Theresa May.

    • libertarian
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:33 am | Permalink

      Mark B

      Absolutely correct

      Its also why in the UK we have an electoral system that is so far removed from democracy that its a joke. One person one vote ( as with a referendum) highlights exactly what the majority want and the neoliberal elite dont like it one bit.

      Until we scrap the House of Lords and have direct elections for the position of PM we do not have democracy in the UK

    • Peter Parsons
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:35 am | Permalink

      The vested interests are not interested in allowing the people to have a voice. That’s why the UK still uses the FPTP electoral system. Most of us live in safe seats where one lot can take us for granted and the others see us as electorally irrelevant and things will carry on like this until the system is reformed such that we all have a voice and everyone’s vote matters, which means introducing Proportional Representation. (If it is good enough for Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and London, it’s good enough for the rest of us).

      Moreover, PR would not just be more democratic (the evidence is that democratic engagement and levels of satisfaction are both higher in countries which use PR), studies also show that countries with PR systems do better economically.

      The evidence shows that countries with PR systems have, on average, higher economic growth, lower national debt levels and a tendency to run budget surpluses, whereas countries with “winner take all” systems (such as the UK) have, on average, lower economic growth (by an average of 1% of GDP per year), higher national debt (65.7% more) and a tendency to run budget deficits.

      Parties and politicians whose position is retention of the current system are arguing, by extension, in favour of lower economic growth, higher national debt and budget deficits. However, if you want higher economic growth, lower national debt and governments that run surpluses, advocate for electoral reform.

    • Mitchel
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:21 am | Permalink

      In a way it is also a return to serfdom with the serfs tied in to serving the elite and their vast bureaucracy via debt.And just like in 19th century Imperial Russia,serfs can be mortgaged on the basis of what they might produce for their masters in the future.

  6. SM
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    Why?

    Hubris. Virtue-signalling. Vanity. Lack of empathy. Sense of self-entitlement.

    In the last 50 years or so, the world has changed probably more than at any other time in human history – government everywhere has yet to catch up, comprehend the enormity of this change and manage it WITH us, not just ‘for’ us.

    • libertarian
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:36 am | Permalink

      SM

      Excellent post

      You are spot on. I would add that political parties have also failed to keep pace. There is a total lack of entrepreneurial creativity amongst politicians too. There has been a glaring “gap in the market” for a 21st century political party that has so far gone totally unnoticed

  7. Gary C
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    All questions we have been asking for years, I doubt you will get any answers though.

    Their response to the financial disasters . . . . . . . ‘Nobody saw that coming’
    Those that did back then were ignored and will be again in the future, our system of cheap loans and ever increasing house prices will be sure to bring about another crash.

    • Mitchel
      Posted November 15, 2016 at 11:02 am | Permalink

      I’m currently reading Lenin’s “Imperialism -the highest form of capitalism”and his scathing analysis of transnational finance capitalism.

      Approaching it with an open mind at the distance of a hundred years,I’m inclined to think that Lenin might have been right.A good read for anyone with an open mind,regardless of political persuasion.

  8. Lifelogic
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    Why indeed. All very good questions.

    Why can the banks, even now, get away with paying 0.2% (or even less) on deposits while charging 15 to 150 times this to borrowers. Usually borrowers who are a far better credit risk than the bank is itself.

    Why is there still no real competition in this market? Where is the competition authority?

    Why on earth are we going ahead with HS2, Hinckley and possibly even the bonkers Welsh lagoon(s), all with vast and pointless tax payer subsidies?

    • Bob
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:02 am | Permalink

      @lifelogic
      0.20% wow!
      HSBC are offering 0.07% p.a. on their “Business Money Manager” account.
      Thanks to Mark Carney’s “legalised theft” interest rate policy.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:06 am | Permalink

        Dear Bob–Absolutely–I think Lifelogic must be getting a preferential rate–Surely illegal under Equality Laws. At least there is the small mercy that the Bank seems no longer to be guiding us towards even lower rates. Personally it pains me as I have said that we have nine members of the MPC (plus or minus Carney) all of whom without a single exception apparently thought that a change in rate from approximately zero to still approximately zero might achieve anything other than make a lot of prudent people poorer out of thin air. Do they all use the same (very wrong) model or what? In any event, why waste money on such a large Committee if they are all going to say the same thing??

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:36 am | Permalink

        I see that my major bank “Premier” account overdraft facility (that was as 2.5% over base when I opened it) now charges about 17%. What a joke these banks are and still they struggle to make a profit!

    • John C.
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

      Because there seems to be some sort of law which operates in the highest circles which goes something like, “If a policy is clearly disastrous and opposed by most right-thinking people, it will certainly be put into practice.”

  9. matthu
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    John, are you suggesting there is a common thread to these questions?

    I am intrigued by how much will ever be revealed about why there was so much obfuscation and lying about the Benghazi attack. Do we know why the US were still in Benghazi long after everyone else had left?

    • zorro
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:49 am | Permalink

      A training mission ??

      zorro

    • Chris
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      There is a considerable amount in the leaks released before the US election. It does not make good reading, I understand.

  10. Ian Wragg
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    Joe public knows the answers to all these questions. The establishment is all about impoverishment the 95% for the enrichment of the 5%.
    Yesterday we had Le Penn saying exactly what we the plebs think.
    It has the new sneering title of populism.
    5 months ago we voted to leave the EU but we seem to be in some phoney war whilst the government tries to dilute the decision.
    All over the world people are wakening up to the fact they are being royally shafted and they are angry.
    Ignore them at your peril.

  11. Lifelogic
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:56 am | Permalink

    We seem to hear almost nothing from T May, let us hope she says something sensible in her speech today.

    The advance releases do not look very inspiring, just more of the usual professional politician waffle and dog whistles.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      Dear Lifelogic–I wish she would stop making embarrassing comments about showing the World the way–It was thinking like that that got us the Climate Act

  12. Ian Wragg
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    I work a 12 hour Sunday night shift in a power station and the government takes 52%. They then waste it on the EU tribute and overseas aid. My wife has to wait 3 weeks for a doctors appointment when people are walking into the country and being treated immediately. Then you wonder why we’re angry.

    • Bob
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 8:54 am | Permalink

      @Ian Wragg You have every right to be angry, and you should you express your feelings whenever you find yourself in a voting booth.

      Also, remember that your TV License Fee will be used to promote the so called “progressive liberal” agenda, which is Frankfurt School code for destruction of the nation state in favour of world government.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:42 am | Permalink

      Indeed taxes and NI get higher and higher and retirement dates later and later, Yet providing so much as a public loo, the odd library, streets without pot holes, HRMC phone lines that are answered, old age homes that are remotely decent, doctors you can get to see and for the appropriate amount of time needed, police who do much to deter crimes and find culprits or very much else is totally beyond them.

  13. Nig l
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    You consistently voted for the Iraq way, were mysteriously absent for the vote on Libya hardly the action of someone prepared to stand up and be counted and I guess did little against the ERM. Isn’t hindsight wonderful.

    Reply I opposed the ERM and wrote a pamphlet before we entered it explaining what a disaster it would be. I tried to get the Conservatives to oppose the Iraq war and accept I should have voted accordingly instead of voting with the whip. I opposed Libya and made clear my opposition. The final motion did not give them permission to go to war and even so was voted down.

    • Nig l
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:24 am | Permalink

      Re the ERM, ok, you wrote a pamphlet but you didn’t resign from Major’s government in protest nor were you fired so I presume you must have supported it when called upon. Career first because you did resign to fight for the Leadership. I know that is how politics works but it is what appears to be a two faced approach that fuels so much of the voters current anger.

      Reply I resigned to defend the pound, which I helped save. The ERM was brought in by Major in Thatcher’s period in office. I did not resign from her government as I was well aware of the vulnerability of her position, and did not wish to undermine it further.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:44 am | Permalink

        Your record in general is excellent. But being consistently right never seems to help much in politics alas. Quite the reverse very often.

    • NA
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

      In a live televised debate Trump said to Jeb Bush, “they said their were weapons of mass destruction, there were none, AND THEY KNEW THERE WERE NONE”.
      Jeb Bush just changed the subject in reply.

  14. Anonymous
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    11th question:

    Would you prefer that The People in Western countries, where remnants of democracy does actually exist, were disenfranchised ? Because it bloody well looks like it.

    (Open defiance of Brexit and Trumpism is going to be… interesting. A pretty decent second best to the real things)

  15. David
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    Good questions, I look forward to hearing you on the BBC’s point of view – or maybe not

    • Mitchel
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

      Very,very interesting edition of RT’s discussion programme “Crosstalk” today( “Feel the Trumplash”) with guests including famed investor Jim Rogers and writer on international affairs ,Pepe Escobar, who is always his own man and frequently has insights worth listening to.Far better than anything you will have seen (or likely to see)on BBC/Sky/TV re the current situation.

      Apparently Paul Krugman in the New York Times has written that America is becoming a failed state with Trump’s election and paraphrased (consciously or otherwise) what Yuri Andropov,the last President of ancien regime USSR before perestroika,said -we thought we knew the USA but we don’t know our own society.

  16. R.O'Connor
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood,is it not the case that you voted to go to war in Iraq?

    • NA
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

      Mr Redwood,is it not the case that you voted to go to war in Iraq?

      >
      One MP once told me they have to take into account what the military industrial complex wants. So they convince themselves of nonsense. It happens all the time.

      • Handbags
        Posted November 15, 2016 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

        What’s the ‘military industrial complex’?

        Can you point me to their website?

  17. mickc
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    Brilliant stuff!

    However, you won’t get any answers from them….

  18. William Long
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    These all all questions which the governing elite should certainly be asking; I just wish I had any confidence that this is what they are doing. Mrs Clinton for one seems only to be able to think of the head of the FBI as the reason for her failure and I am quite sure that those present at the EU foreign ministers’ meeting/dinner were in total denial of the reasons for their ‘project’s’ unpopularity. At least the UK and French foreign ministers had the sense not to attend.
    The next step in the march back to sanity looks like being the Italian referendum.

  19. Iain Moore
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Why did they ever think mass immigration was a workable policy? But really the question that informs their policy on mass immigration was why did they lost faith in their country and people, for if anything that has seen them being rejected by their populations, it is that their populations have noticed they hold them in contempt, and prefer other peoples to them.

    • Edward2
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

      Some in the Labour Party like open borders and no nations.
      Others in the Labour Party felt every extra new arrival as one more vote for them.
      Some in the Conservative Party felt cheap labour would be good for big business.

      • James Matthews
        Posted November 14, 2016 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

        That’s about it. Regrettably your post could be changed to the present tense and it would still be accurate. Six hundred and fifty MP’s in Parliament, the overwhelming majority from the “host” community and not one, since Enoch Powell, has ever suggested that, for most in that community, mass migration has been a terrible destructive mistake. Surely, during that time, there must have been one or two who thought this. Of course , to say so would probably be career ending, but I doubt that this is the reason for such universal silence. Whatever the cause, you can’t mitigate the consequences of a disastrous mistake (ts is obviously too late to rectify it) until you accept that one is being made.

  20. margaret
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    I was watching the classic film Pompeii last night and there was something about it which reminded me of our lives. I couldn’t in any way make comparisons between myself and the elite there, as we sometimes tend to do , but ourselves as slaves to the rich was easy.

  21. Kenneth
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    Unwashed versus the brainwashed.

    These brainwashed elites are in their cloud busy re-enforcing their own extreme ideas, oblivious to reality and real people.

    The BBC, in its desperation, has resorted to wild conspiracy theories about Facebook news manipulation.

    They still don’t get it

    • Chris
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:15 am | Permalink

      I would say the elites are not brain washed, but they have formed an alliance with some brain washed left liberal luvvies against the normal or “little” people.

    • Mitchel
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      “They still don’t get it”

      No,they can’t and won’t get it.Their project is divinely ordained-I’m not sure what the divinity is though.They need to be swept away like the Bourbons,the Hapsburgs,the Hohenzollerns and the Romanovs.They were never serious about reform and would always row back from reforms offered when the masses became restless.

  22. Bert Young
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    The established approach to all matters – whether its economic or political , has been flawed and needs to change . People have put their trust in systems and individuals that have so often been wrong ; their forecasts and actions have often been baseless . When trust is let down the only way to go is through ones own beliefs .

  23. hefner
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Why did you not push for a real separation between investment and commercial banks? Why no comment on Trump’s likely rejection of the Dodd- Frank act?

    Instead of asking questions relevant to the past, why not address questions likely to be relevant in the future?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:24 am | Permalink

      Here’s one for you then: do you think that with Trump as US President rather than Clinton it could be significantly easier for the UK to protect and develop its trade with countries outside the EU, in the face of diplomatic pressure from some EU member states for those third countries to join them in punishing us, organising economic sanctions against us as if we were some rogue state? I do, provided our government can smooth over all the past insults and avoid antagonising him in the future.

    • ian wragg
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:21 am | Permalink

      Indeed, what about the preposterous CCL which has our parliament passing bills to phase out all gas heating and cooking by 2030.
      We have a 50Kw boiler in our kitchen which heats 10 radiators and provides hot water.
      Gas is about 20% the price per kilowatt as electricity so to replace the boiler would see my fuel bills rise about 400%. This is besides the fact that we would have to build another 250 GW of generation or if wind power, about 1000 Gw.
      This is totally unachievable but still the posturing 1,600 in parliament continue to adhere to it.
      Lets have some sensible questions addressing the next 20 years, things which we can control.

    • A different Simon
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:29 am | Permalink

      hefner ,

      What you suggest should reduce systemic risk to synthetic derivatives exposure but things need to go much further .

      Investment banks used to derive their income from fees and commissions on services to business .

      Now , a lot of organisations which get called “investment banks” and have banking licenses derive huge proportions of their income from trading on their own account .

      It’s time to call these organisations which have a primary business of trading on the own account what they are : hedge funds , and revoke their banking license .

      • Mitchel
        Posted November 16, 2016 at 10:22 am | Permalink

        I fully agree with you particularly the last point.Plus they have been allowed to become so large that they can rig markets quite easily,particularly when there is a revolving door between them and the regulators and other public authorities.

    • Ken Moore
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

      The past is a safer place than the future. The collapse of paper money is on it’s way – those close to it just don’t want to admit it and cause panic.

    • acorn
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

      I keep trying hef, but my comments don’t get past moderation; on this site any more, (but they do where it counts) which tells me everything I need to know about Brexit MPs.

      JR refers to the “stunned elite”, but never tells you who they are or, how they have come to prominence by the actions of western governments since the late 1970s.

      US and UK governments particularly, were mesmerised by “monetarism”. The current ranks of the “1% elite”, are swelled by the likes of CEOs of global corporations, particularly, casino banks; arms manufacturers and Oil and Gas conglomerates.

      Neither Capitalism or Socialism is the problem, nowadays, both are neo-liberal, the latter adopted neo-liberalism to try and get elected. The problem is Corporatism.

      Capitalism is self sustaining, Corporatism is not, it has to keep expanding its “market” domination to keep the dividends and bonuses flowing. That is why they lobby for huge trade deals like TPP, CETA and TTIP. These are purely global corporate cost reduction scams, and that’s all.

      “Theresa May says Britain will be ‘unashamedly pro-business’ after Brexit”. So, basically sod the little people. Frankly, I am unsure where JR is at this time.

      • Mitchel
        Posted November 16, 2016 at 10:26 am | Permalink

        I mentioned elsewhere Lenin’s views on transnational finance and monopoly capitalism as expressed in “Imperialism-the highest form of capitalism”.His analysis from 100 years ago is more relevant than ever today.

  24. stred
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    One of the reasons that politicians get things wrong so often may be that they think verbally or emotionally and not rationally. This is why they manage to get elected- by spouting rubbish to a none too bright electorate. Even people who are highly educated may not be able to think rationally or look outside the conventional political status.

    This is why the Liberal and Socialist politicians equate the wish to reduce or control immigration with racism. When the BBC and others repeat this mantra the population gradually come to accept it. My Polish tenant of 15 years came to believe that most British people disliked Poles after graffiti was written on the Polish centre, which may not have been done by British idiots, and there was one murder in rough area. She left the country and told me that Nigel Farage was to blame and he resigned without taking responsibility and becoming prime minister. Totally illogical and badly informed after listening to political nonesense from the liberal elite.

    Today, Sky had Chukka Omoana on talking about Trump, Farage and economics. He concluded that the reason they had electoral success was that the poorer electorate had suffered from globalisation, but he took issue with them was when they blamed Moslems for their plight. This is a man who may one day become a minister, but he can’t tell the difference between freedom of movement of labour and capital and security problems arising from religious extremists. Is it any surprise that they get so much wrong and currently wish to ignore all qualified advice and continue with totally uneconomic projects.

  25. A different Simon
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    A company I’ve got a small position in received a takeover from a bank .

    Didn’t there used to be a convention/regulations which kept banks competing with main street ?

    Finance is completely out of control and needs to be downsized so it serves society rather than masters it .

  26. Denis Cooper
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    All good questions, JR, and another one is why on earth EU leaders think the election of Trump as US President merits an emergency meeting of their foreign ministers. I was glad that Boris Johnson decided not to take part in that nonsense, now I’m more than a little surprised that the French also opted out from it.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted November 15, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

      Dear Denis–Subsequent engagement je pense

  27. Original Richard
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    “Whose side are you on in the Syrian civil war, and how is western military action helping?
    Can you bomb people into accepting democracy?”

    I read at the weekend that the UK government intends to try to persuade the US President Elect, Mr. Trump, to change his views on the Syrian conflict and accept that Mr. Assad should go.

    I would have hoped that the election of a new US President, who does not believe in regime change in the Middle East, would have provided the UK government with a face-saving method of changing this disastrous policy.

    Or will we be bound by April next year to follow the EU’s foreign policy decided by QMV ?

    • Mitchel
      Posted November 16, 2016 at 10:33 am | Permalink

      The Neo-cons and(in that part of the world)the Saudis run our foreign policy for us. Notice how Boris reversed his position on Syria and Ukraine days within days of becoming FS.

      If Trump can eradicate the neo-cons from their entrenched position in the foreign policy and defence establishments,change might happen.A big if though.

  28. Jack Snell
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    You’d want to get Michael Moore of film documentary fame in to do a six hour series to get the answers to some of these questions. A much more direct question would be- what made the British people commit economic suicide by voting to quit the EU – to turn their backs on a market of 500 million people and for what? for an unknown and uncertain future where we can scratch around in the wilderness- looking for what? maybe new trading deals? but where? India? America? SE Asia- I think not.

    Reply We are not turning our backs on the EU market!

  29. Denis Cooper
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    “Why have you gone for Quantitative easing … ” is a question which has never been properly debated by our MPs, even though it may have involved the Chancellor and the Treasury in borderline illegality through their exertion of excessive influence over the Bank of England on monetary policy.

    Which could have been avoided, if the government had asked Parliament to approve the activation of reserve powers under Section 19 of the Bank of England Act 1998:

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/11/section/19

    And if the government had moreover decided that every tranche of QE would be made the subject of a proper Commons debate, followed by a vote.

  30. Prigger
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    “…stunned elites on both sides of the Atlantic.”

    Politicians perceived by the elites as heterosexual, Christian, nationalist, patriotic, anti-drug abuse, very strict on fighting crime are always on their hit lists. Even when hard evidence thwarts the accusations of the elites and what appears to be their very own media.

  31. Peter D Gardner
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    Very good, John Redwood. All of which means we should reduce government to a purely administrative role at about 25-30% of GDP and force it to leave us alone to live our lives as we wish.

  32. NA
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    I am sitting outside a canal side cafe having breakfast and coffee and reading the papers and two chinooks have just flew over my head at about 40 feet. For the 2nd time in 4 days. This is unusual for Warwickshire. I am in the beautiful countryside.

  33. Christopher Hudson
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    We’re “Occupy” now, so lets all just reflect on that for a moment

    They couldn’t manage it, it needed doing, so we’ll do it

    You’ve got to pick a pocket or two

    Strange times indeed

    ?

  34. Christopher Hudson
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    The thing is we can organise, get everybody on the same page and get the shit done

    There is hope yet

  35. English Pensioner
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    I have just read elsewhere that Cameron has just been paid about the PM’s annual salary to give a speech to a property & investment company in America. For someone who did so well over his Brexit predictions of doom, a don’t think that I’d be prepared to pay the proverbial brass farthing to hear his views on the economic future or of the EU. If I was an investor in the company concerned, I think I’d be looking for somewhere else to put my money.

    But as far as a direct answer to your first six questions is concerned, my response would be “Because they were Idiots” or possibly something stronger. The answer to the rest would be “Because they haven’t got a clue”.

  36. Qubus
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    JR, well spoken.

  37. Rebel Yell
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    The “stunned elite ” deserves not desires not questions/debate ( even rhetorically ) . The fog lifts. Manipulated media. Their media has not worked, we must expect more subtle persuasion mixed with the violent.
    What today, is the opiate of the people? I would say crime left unsatisfactorily punished.Corruption, nepotism, cronyism, left almost totally alone cancerously festering.

    Essential the restoration of our free speech. Political correctness is part of the elites’ violence against their “own” people.Our language jailed, tortured, twisted, its spine crushed beyond enough.

  38. Brigham
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    My question is, why are you all doing jobs above your competency level.

    • James Matthews
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

      Nicely phrased as a “when did you stop beating your wife” question. My answer, if I were an MP, would be that we were elected by you lot. If you doubt our competence why did you select and elect us?

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted November 15, 2016 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

        Dear James–Fautes de mieux

  39. Antisthenes
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    Simple answer to your questions. Decision making has been centralised and handed to the few. Those who have gained their decision making positions by virtue of either being a politician or a political appointee. Nothing new in that governments/leaders have always been charged with making decisions to enhance it’s society security and well being. They have rightly surrounded themselves with people to advise and administer. It works after a fashion but it has the disadvantage that quality of decision making is inconsistent, abuse of power, corruption and exploitation of the citizen is possible.

    It is price society decided is worth paying for the benefits of it as long as the governments powers are restricted to the few areas where government can do that which individuals and private enterprise cannot. They are not many. However over years the roles and size of government have increased considerably and they are making decisions that they should not. Your list of damaging outcomes from government decision making are because they should not have been taken by them.

    Better mechanisms exit than socialist and progressive means of state command and control and interference. They are the market place and the democratic process. The latter unfortunately deficient in quality and the way it is applied. It is improving slowly. Too slowly that is why government has been allowed to do so much that it should not. Brexit and Trump tells me that democracy is making headway and starting to address the problems of not being dominant enough.

  40. Des
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    John, I completely agree with your questions and the implications of the answers to those questions.

    The left wing elites are in my view guilty of a new form of paternalism. Is this not always the problem with idealism?

    However Trumpxit appears to be the result of these issues being swept under the liberal carpet

    Why are you not in government?

    • Mitchel
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

      It’s far more sinister than mere paternalism though it may have developed out of that original motive.

  41. ian
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Its the one percent that control parties, you might have election but they are just for show, everything that has been done by parties has benefited the one percent and the neo con libs mouths which they are many at the top and coming from uni like cam and ox and a like, they are all still going strong no pay cuts, in fact most have had 100% pay increases or more, so it pays to be a neo con lib, it like everything, money talks and it helps more tax cut for them coming now, more reward for their good deeds, it does not get any better for them and john pushing for tax cuts for them what more do they need.

  42. ale bro
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    Cameron should have enobled Farage in his resignation honours list – that would have signalled acceptance of the Brexit vote. There’s no-one in either house who has any credibility on Brexit at the moment.

  43. acorn
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    The economic aspects of your questions JR, could be solved by Trumpism. As my comments are suffering high discard rates at the moment, I hesitate to suggest the following as worth having a read.

    “Trump might do us a favour – expose the myth of central bank independence”.

    Prof Mitchell concludes, “In fact, I would go much further than the suggestions advanced by Wolfgang Münchau [(September 28, 2016) in the Financial Times]. There is, in fact, very little need for a separate structure called a central bank. A progressive position (consistent with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)) would merge the central bank with the treasury.”

    “This would release thousands of bright former central bankers via retraining into the workforce to use their brains doing something useful, and also dismantle the public debt issuance machinery, which works against governments pursuing public purpose because the public debt is a primary target for negative politicisation – aka peddling lies about government insolvency.”

    “Fiscal policy would become the dominant tool for stabilising the economic cycle and sustaining full employment and short-term interest rates would be set at zero.”

  44. Ben Gallagher
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    John – as normal you hit the nail on the head. Can you confirm if Theresa May has learnt any of the lessons from these questions? We still have QE, low interest rates and we’re still trying to interfere counter productively in Syria. If not, what’s actually holding her back – the public I believe are crying out for common sense policies and for someone to get on and lead; she could go down in history as one of our greatest ever Prime Ministers, but only if she has the courage to grab the opportunity.

  45. David Williams
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    The political elite of the UK should swallow their pride and get Nigel Farage into government immediately.

  46. PleasureFactor
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    “stunned elite” ?

    Insomuch the elite includes their media spokesmen and those in the political sphere, no, not “stunned”

    BBC Daily Politics and BBC Question Time politicians display agitation, jerkiness in speech and body behaviour, increase speed of speaking, stressed interactions. The polish on their previous performances, that slushy supercilious fungal puff-ball oozing and canon shot of comfy sanctimoniousness—gone. They appear like unprepared inexperienced amateur persons first time on the box but lacking their underdog genuineness. Not stunned. But amazingly frightened.
    What thoroughly good and exquisitely entertaining and hilariously funny programmes in politics the Beeb now does. Ha ha haaaar!

  47. Maureen Turner
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    The questions you pose JR are ones we frequently ask ourselves but the damage is now done in the case of Iraq and Libya so all we are left with is – If only they ……………

    We read today in the Daily Mail ex PM Cameron is following in his mentor’s lucrative after dinner speech activity. Seemingly a recent speech lasting one hour to Wall Street financiers netted the tidy sum of £ 120,000. These £ 2,000 a minute words must be AAA grade pearls of wisdom.

    One question I would liked to have seen on your list of ten is. — Why did Mr. Cameron campaign for Remain in our EU referendum when prior to the 2010 GE he sold himself as a Eurosceptic and what were the reasons for his conversion?

    • John C.
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

      But you know the answer: he was an opportunist with no real principles beyond self-advance.

  48. stred
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    It seems ex- President Obama still hasn’t got the message. He’s coming back to tell us ‘Yes we can’t’. I wonder who is paying for the mission. If he turns up in April 2017 and Mrs May or May not is still all words and no action, things will be getting interesting. He should bring a nose clip to avoid the stink of rotten eggs.

  49. stred
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, This was on the Guardian site but was before the referendum.

  50. Ken Moore
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Why does the government believe that the debt pyramid it is growing will carry on forever ?. At some point investors will cry STOP.
    John Redwood cannot tell us the awful truth because he knows it may cause panic… but he knows that the bond market is resting on a bed of nitroglycerine.
    Perhaps if the ‘conspiracy of silence’ had been broken 5 years ago when the mountain of debt was just 1 trillion and bonds yielded 4% (now down to 1%) the problem would have been more manageable. But now we have almost run out of road.
    Trump & Brexit are a logical reaction to complete FAILURE on a raft of policy fronts.

  51. E.S Tablishment
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    As part of the elite, probably the most important part, I reject this.

    We are the ones whose good idea it was to get rid of the 100 year-long dog licence fee of 7/6d ( most regrettably old money ) and replaced it after intense discussion over many years with: a compulsory plastic chip injected into your doggies’ necks by complete amateurs.
    The horrid accusation that intrusive surgery can only be carried out because of a medical imperative is just the kind of whingeing animal-loving nonsense of portraying animals as having rights we the elite have fought against since we fed the world by spearing the first mammoth. The world owes us a living.

  52. David Lister
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Dear John,

    I struggle with the definition of ‘elite’ as it seems to be a catch-all for those, including it seems yourself, who want to make a complaint about their lot to some unidentified person.

    I’m curious, do you include yourself in the ‘elite’ category?

    (I would have thought that to the vast majority of people a sitting member of Parliament in one of the worlds largest economies is surely an ‘elitist’).

    If not, what do you think is the meaning of the word – it gets banded about a lot without much thought.

  53. Bryan Harris
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    PURPOSE

    All of these points indicate how much we have lost our way – how we have become befuddled with the dogma of the left ….

    As a nation we have lost purpose and this perversion drains down to affect every individual in the country.

    BREXIT is something we can use to get us all moving and thinking together, and that will help, but we need a real purpose to carry us onwards….

    Perhaps its indicative that as religion has become less important in the West, so our purpose for living has declined. We need remining in a sensible way that we are all spiritual beings.

  54. Jane Moirhouse
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    Excellent. I think perhaps we are all tiring of the pro EU MPs. It is time for direct, honest questions like yours. This oppressive and destructive regime needs to be stopped in its tracks. In Theresa May I believe we have a PM who will steer us through. The BBC and the Guardian etc would love to bring her down and are frustrated that she is determined to keep them out until she is ready. They seem anti British whereas we are Pro British, pro Europeans and anti EU. These questions need to be answered. Most intelligent people knew a crash was coming. When people can self certify to obtain a mortgage in a house price boom, collapse is inevitable. When we bailed out the banks we bailed out the fraudsters leaving us the ordinary people to foot the bill. The banks continued to defraud yet no one was brought to justice and left with millions for their failure .

    • NA
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

      In Theresa May I believe we have a PM who will steer us through.

      >
      Don’t get your hopes up

  55. Chris
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    May I add Sir Crispin Blunt and Sir Malcolm Rifkind to the “elite” who are not only stunned but also apparently horrified by Nigel Farage himself and are determinedly against him playing any role in future UK government relations with the US. What supreme arrogance their words and faces display. Will they not learn? The electorate does not take kindly to this sort of treatment. I gather BBC have had much adverse reaction to the Rifkind latest.

    • John C.
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

      I wish it were a matter of being “stunned”, but what riles me is the arrogant, sneering dismissal which such as Blunt displayed. They really need taking down a peg or two.

  56. Ed Mahony
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    The new Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and Raoul Castro of 2016: Comrades Donald Trump, Nigel Fararge and Boris Johnson. Going to rescue the working classes of the US and the UK, and put all those greedy, international, elitist globalists as well as those bureaucratic, EU blooding-sucking vipers in their place.

    Arise ye workers from your slumbers
    Arise ye prisoners of want
    For reason in revolt now thunders
    And at last ends the age of cant.
    Away with all your superstitions
    Servile masses arise, arise
    We’ll change henceforth the old tradition
    And spurn the dust to win the prize.

    PROLETARIAT OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

  57. ian
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    I am now looking forwards to there next financial crisis of clean out bank accounts, saving accounts, brokerage accounts, funds on and offshore, you may say how will they get by, you will usually fined that they are tap into government payment system in some way or there companies will be tap into the people treasury in some way or will know where to put their money as being a inside person like wet & mad with all his mate.

    If you notice it only on shore money that get hit not off shore money, i have never heard of a offshore client of a bank complaining that they have lost money or can not take money out of their bank or money gone missing, so it must follow that if you put your money in a offshore bank it will safer than in a onshore bank, better to go with people and companies that do not pat tax, you are much safer.

  58. Ed Mahony
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    (sorry … I couldn’t help it, i think some of the comments here are a bit Utopian – i’m fairly sure that only the hard grind of boring – but good – moderate/centre, right-wing politics is going to make things better for the working classes – not Trump, Nigel or Boris Johnson)

    • Anonymous
      Posted November 14, 2016 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

      ” but good – moderate/centre, right-wing politics” Is exactly what Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson stand for and I haven’t actually heard anything from Trump that is too far off the mark either. Yes. His presentation leaves a lot to be desired but these men talk plain old common sense.

      Would Thatcherism fit your definition of boring conservatism ? Or would that be a bit wayward for these days.

      • Ed Mahony
        Posted November 15, 2016 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

        Would Thatcherism fit your definition of boring conservatism ? Or would that be a bit wayward for these days.

        – Mrs Thatcher was GREAT – for a few years to roll back socialism.

        But we don’t need a Mrs Thatcher now in terms of the economy (i think she’d be great at reforming the EU though).
        What the economy needs now is a politician (with lots of first-hand knowledge of businesses) and using soft, sensible and objective investment and planning where necessary to:
        – encourage and help businesses as much as possible in creating new great products and services
        – being more competitive in what they already produce.
        Other than a few tweaks to our economy here and there, politicians are just going to be interfering with things, making things worse.

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted November 15, 2016 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

          In other words, successful economies should really be about about business leaders / people in busines do NOT what politicians do (instead of bigging up politicians – whether Mrs Thatcher or whoever – we should be bigging up business leaders / people in business more). Give the businesses all the support they need, and then let them get on with creating the economy we need (and politicians back off and stop interfering).

  59. Atlas
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    I would like to have been a fly on the wall when some unfortunate had to show Mrs May the picture of Trump with Farage !

    I find the posturing about Farage sadly amusing as it fits the narrative of the elite not still not comprehending the anger of the electorate. I have in mind here an interview on the Andrew Marr TV programme on Sunday – but other similar opinions exist in today’s newspapers.

  60. Rumbled
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    “Why did you go to war in Iraq?”

    Much the same reason why , reportedly, US troops when patrolling on Vietnamese jungle paths would at a perceived break of a twig or an animalistic noise,open fire without properly sighting targets. Subsequently being ambushed and wiped out by the VC who heard their approach four miles away.
    Why the Labour government went down that kind path after them in the case of Iraq was because Tony Blair is not the class of person you would find aside a track with a stem gun and grenade awaiting the enemy

  61. a-tracy
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    Why have EU Countries not been paying the requisite 2% GDP into NATO? Why are some Countries allowed to opt out of defence altogether (Ireland?)?

    If the EU wants its own EU army what would each EU Country spend of GDP be?

  62. Denis Cooper
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    The House of Commons Library has just issued a research briefing which should set alarm bells ringing very loudly:

    http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7763

    “Brexit and the EU Court”

    “The High Court has ruled that the UK Government does not have prerogative power to give notice under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union for the UK to withdraw from the EU. The Government is appealing to the Supreme Court. Some press reports suggest the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) would have the last word on this. But can the CJEU rule on matters of UK constitutional Law? Many experts believe that the question central to the case, but not ruled on by the High Court, was whether Article 50 notice, once given, could be withdrawn. If it can be revoked, then the argument that Article 50 notice leads inevitably to a loss of rights under the European Communities Act 1972 might not hold. This paper looks at the questions of revocability and referral to the EU Court.”

    If the government reverses its previous position about the revocability of an Article 50 notice when the case goes before the Supreme Court it will be no good if that then helps it win the appeal, because inevitably the bad losers will ask the Supreme Court to refer the case to the ECJ where it will be stuck potentially for years.

    It is not clear to me whether that would even bar the government from asking Parliament to pass an Act authorising it to serve the Article 50 notice, but certainly it would mean that it could still not use prerogative power to do that before the ECJ had confirmed a verdict of the Supreme Court in its favour, if there was such a verdict and the ECJ did eventually do so.

    So far the government is not proposing to reverse its position in its skeleton argument for the appeal to the Supreme Court:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/567516/Grounds_of_Appeal_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union.pdf

    but even if it sticks with that we may not avoid this further legal obstacle.

  63. ian
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    How are my non voters doing, if i win richond, i will be up 100% in four years for independents MPs and then who know brother, i think i can double that at the next election no problem, my non votes are the largest group, if you’ve notice support is picking up for independent MPs, more people are rallying behind me with there money, look at the un taped non votes i have brother and how many votes do you think can be taken from parties, watch this space.

    Big moon tonight, all good for me,

  64. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    “Can you bomb people into accepting democracy?”
    It worked on Germany. We wish.

  65. treacle
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Why did our politicians fail to see that Trump had a good chance of being elected President, when this was obvious to many people outside the politically correct London bubble?

    Why did they abuse and insult him?

    Why did they hold a debate in Parliament about whether he should be let into the country?

    Why was Cameron in particular so offensive about him, when the Conservatives and the Republicans are supposed to be friends?

    When is Mrs May going to sack those aides who posted offensive tweets about Mr Trump?

    When is Nigel Farage going to be given a peerage and appointed as a special envoy?

    When is anyone going to acknowledge that Mr Trump is half-British, i.e. as British as Mr Obama is black?

    Can we have an honorary knighthood for Mr Trump please? It is not every day that the son of a British citizen becomes President of the USA.

  66. hefner
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    Is Johnson Boris part of the elite? and isn’t it a bit rich from him to tell the other EU ministers to stop being tough with Erdogan and his death penalty for opponents? specially as the UK is on the leaving path.
    When is the UK reinstating the death penalty?

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted November 15, 2016 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

      Dear hefner–The answer is : as soon as we have a (binding) referendum on the subject–It’s crazy that Parliament should believe it has superior judgement on such a decision just because in the case of MP’s they have been elected or in the case of the Lords for no identifiable reason at all

  67. ian
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    Independent bring pace and profits.

  68. ian
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    Tramp was always going to be more dangerous outside the white house than in side the white house, inside not a lot to get up to with everything being water down, outside the white house no telling how big he would of become.

  69. anon
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Why are certain countries mounting legal actions to determine if population transfers can be forced on them, legally that is. Obviously democracy is out of the question.

  70. Snap time
    Posted November 14, 2016 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

    Her hair looked very nice. Mrs May at the Lord Mayor’s banquet in the City of London tonight. I believe the pride and joy of our business community were there. Lots of them . I don’t know which shift they were on. But she started her speech at 8.55pm. If they were on the dayshift they would have been too tired to listen as they would need to get to bed.If on the afternoon shift they would be too tired to listen and then too big a meal before bedtime. If on the nightshift they would have been wide awake but it was to early to eat their meal of a couple of meat paste sandwiches, an apple, a biscuit and a plastic cup of coffee from the machine.
    So whatever shift they were on obviously required great personal sacrifice on their part. The United Kingdom and indeed all of us are proud of them.

    Mrs May said “too many people had been left behind” ( in liberal pursuit of globalism.) At this point the entire assemblage looked around this way and that but discovered no-one had been left behind at all as all the dinner seats were occupied.

  71. ChrisS
    Posted November 15, 2016 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    It seems that Downing Street apparatchiks just keep on digging a bigger hole for themselves over the Farage/Trump issue.

    Why on earth are they so short sighted ? The Government has bridges and relationships to build and they need to do it fast. Brexit makes it even more important. A dynamic and determined organisation would use every asset at its disposal to make it happen.

    But not this lot. Insulting Nigel Farage just makes matters worse and sends a very bad message to the Trump Team and the millions of our voters who supported UKIP and Nigel in the European and UK elections.

    A majority of the 17m who voted for Brexit know only too well we would never have been given the opportunity of a referendum had it not been for Nigel. We owe him a debt and I can’t imagine too many of us are very impressed to see him treated with such disdain.

    • Anonymous
      Posted November 15, 2016 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

      They don’t want Brexit so they don’t want bridges built with Trump. Trump wasn’t part of the plan – his election was a bit of a shock to say the least. He’s made it more difficult to justify not having Brexit.

      Having voted Leave I’m more confident than ever that I made the right decision and I bet all others are too. Our hopes are spiked on news from America.

      I suspect Ms May (record immigration Remainer) is dilly-dallying over A50 in the hope that some insurmountable blockage gets in the way. ‘To the back of the queue’ is one blockage which can now be removed but only if the establishment actually wants it.

  72. hefner
    Posted November 15, 2016 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Re: questions 1 to 4, and 10: why were MPs so useless (or at best reluctant) at defining boundaries to be applied to the international banking industry?
    What is the role of the “elite’s” dominant neoliberal thinking? How independent are MPs from this dominant thinking?
    What was the impact of the TINA way of thinking on addressing economic and economy-related questions (i.e., most of them)?
    How is the present Government different from the previous ones in that respect?

    Very nice of JR to play the imprecator? But what does he propose practically? If it is only this type of blogs, I just find them the occasion of further stirring up pre-insurrectional comments from some of his more revolting contributors. If it is the conscious underlying intention from someone who might be thought to have a sense of history, it is just a disgrace.

  73. LordBlagger
    Posted November 15, 2016 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Question 11.

    How much debt has the welfare state run up?

    John, you promised to publish the numbers, yet they are not included as a liability on the balance sheet.

    Question 12.

    By how much did Osbourne’s cuts to the state and civil service pension conditions reduce that liability?

  74. Fred
    Posted November 16, 2016 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    All the questions regarding banks and wars can be answered simply. They were ordered to by the bankers via their Washington flunkies.
    Your other question about why should we trust the establishment? Nobody should ever believe anything said by any government, bureaucrat, main stream media prestitute or other statist shill. Ever.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page