I refer to Nile Gardiner, in his attack on the New York Times editorial that splendidly decries the British Government's lunatic excuse for an economic policy.
If Gardiner ever came here (and recent or ongoing events are such that, as a neocon activist, he might never again be able to), then he would know that most people in Britain would agree very enthusiastically indeed with that editorial.
The latest polls show the Labour lead as equal to the entire support for the nominally junior Coalition party, although it is in fact the one that could pull the plug at any moment and take away everything for which Cameron, Osborne, Hague and the rest have been plotting since they were five. Lib Dem support is eight per cent, and the Labour lead over the Conservatives is also eight per cent.
Even more than his foreign policy views, Gardiner's economic views are unlikely to make it onto the ballot paper for next year's Presidential Election as the GOP is now practically certain to nominate the prophet and apostle of socialised medicine, who ran for the Senate from Ted Kennedy's Left. So Gardiner would seem to know as little about America as he does about Britain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ed should make you a minister even if he has to make you a lord to do it.
ReplyDeletePatriotic as ever, Lindsay!
ReplyDeleteAnd yet it's America, not Britain, that's had its credit rating downgraded. Yes, Britain's economic policy is massively, massively blinkered. But it is at least soundly and sanely blinkered. Unlike America, where in a time of economic hardship it's seen as a good idea to carry on chucking money away in a never-ending Blairite spending-spree.
Who on earth still cares what the credit rating agencies think? Look at their record. Even Republican primary voters have clearly done so.
ReplyDeleteThe markets react to credit ratings. And they don't care.
ReplyDeleteBut politicians (across the spectrum) didn't always care about the markets, depending on what else there was to consider. Oh, to return to those days. Perhaps next year's American Presidential Election will be a step in that direction. Probably not. But perhaps.
ReplyDeleteIndeed! But that was when America was still a hyper-power and could control the market. To be honest, America's probably done for anyway. The Republicans don't want to win next year because they think if they let Obama win then he and the Democrat mainstream will support their candidate next time (just as Bush supported Obama in 2008). So they'll choose a hopeless candidate like Romney this time, with a Bush/Rockefeller-type Republican lined up for next time, and just assume everything goes according to plan.
ReplyDelete