The leaders of the three largest countries in Europe (excluding Russia) are behaving in an increasingly tyranical way as their ineptitude is starting to severely impact the lives of their citizens.
We Are Bombing Our Way Back to Prosperity
The UK economy continues its slide towards the edge of the cliff with tax revenues falling as a result of the disastrous budget presented by Rachel from Accounts, aka Rachel Reeves the Chancellor of the exchequer. Reeves, who proclaimed, on her resume, that she was an Oxford educated economist has made a complete mess of the public finances. When she was studying economics at Oxford, didn’t the subject of the Laffer Curve come up?
It probably is covered in great depth at Oxford university, where she claimed she had studied, but not so much at Oxford Brookes university where she actually did study. Oxford Brookes is essentially a glorified community college (it was formerly a Polytechnic) where foreigners pay a fortune to say they’ve studied at Oxford, even though it is not actually in Oxford – although in fairness they did have a room there once back in the 1890s.
Anyway, it was good enough to secure a job at the Bank of England where she said, on her resume, she worked for ten years. Except she didn’t, it was nowhere near that long. Then she claimed she was an economist at HBOS, except she wasn’t, she dealt with mortgages on the retail side; essentially, she was a glorified bank teller. But that didn’t stop her getting involved in an expenses scandal after which she moved on. She also falsely said she published a paper in a prestigious economics journal, except she didn’t. Her Wikipedia page still lists her fictional past deeds. You can read more about her issues with her resume here.
With that sort of resume the obvious future role for her was in politics and so, here we are.
Luckily, Sir Keir Starmer, or to be more accurate Morgan McSweeney his Irish, devout Kibbutzim, university drop-out, chief of staff, has come up with a plan to save the UK economy:
Oh goody! Another war.
Someone should have told Starmer that he couldn’t have any Yemen until he finished his Ukraine.
Anyway, this is how the Associated Press announced our glorious new military campaign, where we took out ‘Houthi’ military targets thus saving the world. The government were tight lipped on what these high value targets were, but sources in Yemen said they took out a girls’ school and killed two little girls. This one strike alone cost the long-suffering UK taxpayer over £1 million.
Of course that was nothing in comparison to the US airstrikes, which, amongst other civilian targets, took out an African migrant facility, which is run by the Red Cross, killing 68 innocent Africans.
All in all, the US and UK have conducted over 1,000 sorties against Yemen and achieved absolutely nothing, except to make the Yemenis somewhat annoyed. Only 4% of the air strikes took out military facilities, as the majority of them are buried deep inside the mountains, the rest hit civilians.
Meanwhile, Ansar Allah (The name ‘Houthis’ is a derogatory western name for the group – it’s like calling the US the ‘Trumpies’), dropped a hypersonic missile on Ben Gurion airport in Israel and announced an air blockade against them and a blockade of western oil deliveries from the Arabian gulf.
You can read about every US/UK airstrike and its aftermath on this website, this is a very comprehensive archive with photographs of the damage and eye witness reports. If you want a database of every casualty in Yemen going back to the Saudi/UAE air strikes on Yemen (which stopped after a $3,000 Yemeni drone took out a Saudi Patriot system and they then threatened to take out Saudi/UAE oil facilities), you can download the stats in Excel format from this website.
Britain has long fought a low-level war against Yemen going right back to the 1960s, when they drove the UK out of Aden. Throughout the late 1960s to late in the 1970s the UK launched a series of attacks, including air attacks, from their bases in Oman, all of which failed. The UK was also heavily involved in the Saudi/UAE air campaign, starting in 2014.
During that time a significant number of North Yemenis studied STEM subjects in Chinese universities and when they returned, they started work on their missile systems.
The result is that Yemen is one of only 5 countries – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea being the others – to have demonstrably working hypersonic missiles. These missiles travel at around 10 times the speed of sound on their re-entry phase and can maneuver away from air defense missiles, which is why the missile attack on Ben Gurion got through despite the presence of David’s Sling (essentially an upgraded Patriot system) and THAAD air defense systems’ attempted intercepts. Meanwhile, the US has (temporarily we assume) given up trying to develop its own hypersonic missile as they can’t get it to work.
This air war against Yemen is a $1 billion+ failure, part of the problem is a lack of target data since the Yemenis took down a huge MOSSAD/CIA spy ring late last year (the article is well worth reading). Which has resulted in the US attacking an Israeli owned car transport ship, the Galaxy Leader, that the Yemenis had seized as well as a number of civilian targets. There is even evidence that the US hit targets that they got from X/Twitter:
The UK is doubling down by sending the car ferry aircraft carrier Prince of Wales (which was a Gordon Brown vanity project) to the eastern Mediterranean. If it transits the Suez Canal it may suffer the same fate as the Eisenhower Aircraft carrier which was damaged and driven out by Ansar Allah drone and missile strikes and the Truman which has now suffered a similar fate. Plus, Yemen claims to have shot down an F18 – the US said it merely fell overboard from the aircraft carrier. Yemen has a different take:
This is a humiliating result for the US/UK coalition and brings into doubt the sagacity of starting a war with Iran. You can read more on the topic here.
There are happier tidings coming from the northern front, in Ukraine, where yet another Blair has devised a cunning plan for total victory:
David Blair was Boris Johnson’s speechwriter, in fact many people credit him with coming up with the deal offered to Zelenzky; where, if he continued the war with Russia then he would get British citizenship, a nice house in London and personal protection from ex-SAS troopers.
Mr. Blair studied PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) at Oxford so we know that his solution will be well thought out, politically astute and would take into account the economic consequences.
So, let’s see what he had to say:
The sight of Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky conferring in the majestic calm of St Peter’s Basilica offers a reminder that all is not lost in Ukraine.
Yes, their encounter came straight after Vladimir Putin’s open-armed greeting for Steve Witkoff, the American envoy; true, Mr Trump’s seven-point peace plan obviously favours Russia.
He means this plan – the so called “Kellogg plan.” Note, the commentary was added by the Polish OSW ‘thinktank’. You can read their (OSW) plan for victory here.
It amounts to the West stopping calling President Putin bad names and the very, very vague possibility that sanctions may, possibly be lifted if Russia accepts defeat and hands over the receipts from its petrochemical exports to Ukraine and this, apparently, ‘favours Russia,’ even though it doesn’t come close to meeting Russia’s demands.
Obviously, we need a much sterner plan, which will allow President Trump to gain Mr. Blair’s favor, and Mr. Blair delivers his demands:
The president might yet redeem everything by giving Ukraine the clear American security guarantee that remains the only sure way of ending this war and deterring Putin from coming back for a third invasion. To maximise this chance, our Government needs to do something difficult and profoundly counter-cultural for many of our diplomats. There is no point fuming over Mr Trump’s folly or portraying him as the villain of Ukraine’s ordeal, or hoping that a miraculous combination of blandishment and flattery (a state visit!) might still win him over.
Is he sure that calling President Trump a fool going to help make his case? Well, no, you see we don’t need the US, we can do it on our own with his bold three-point plan:
That means taking three steps: seize the Russian assets, lower the price cap for Putin’s oil, and back the Sanctions Bill now in the US Senate.
Didn’t the US already pass a Russian sanctions bill back in 2017 in response to Russia’s supposed meddling in the US election? What did that one achieve aside from catapulting Russia’s economy from 10th to 4th place globally (based on PPP)? The latest one, authored by Lyndsey Graham and Dick Blumenthal seeks to impose “Bone Crushing Sanctions” on Russia if she doesn’t agree to their terms.
They will achieve this by introducing secondary sanctions and 500% tariffs on anyone who buys Russian energy products. They specifically mention enriched Uranium, of which a major buyer is the USA, or at least it was until Russia banned its export. Russia already has more sanctions imposed on it than any other country and they’ve thrived so they’ll just ignore it.
Russia has, through OPEC+, agreed to an increase in OPEC oil exports, so the oil price cap is utterly meaningless. And who will enforce it? Especially, as the current price cap failed to devastate Russia’s oil sales. The enforcement mechanism introduced by Janet Yellen was to deny insurance to tankers carrying Russian oil above a certain price.
This divided the world tanker fleet into authorized (insured by Lloyds of London) and unauthorized, or shadow, tankers (not insured by Lloyds), which resulted in a decline in shipping insurance underwritten by Lloyds (to < 50% according to some analysts) as other insurers stepped up. Is Mr. Blair intent on accelerating that process? As a matter of fact; yes, he is:
Britain is the biggest provider of maritime insurance in the G7. We could use that lever to impose our own price cap for Russian oil, say of $30 per barrel, and once again set a precedent for others to follow.
And as far as seizing the assets are concerned, if he has his way then London will no longer be a trusted depository. This is what made Sunak and Starmer avoid it up to now (although Starmer has been awfully tempted). The damage has already been done though, as the UK ministerial charm offensive to get the Oil rich gulf monarchies and the Chinese to invest their money in the UK has ended in utter failure.
Mr. Blair airily waved these concerns aside:
So why hasn’t it happened? There is a legal basis for pressing ahead, but seizing the assets would still be held to violate property rights, deter investment and damage the reputation of Europe’s law-abiding open economies.
You mean they don’t?
These objections, once decisive, have surely been overtaken by the gravity of events. In fact, Europe has already crossed the Rubicon and undermined property rights by freezing the assets and using their interest payments to underwrite a $50 billion loan for Ukraine. But there is still no EU consensus behind full seizure.
So, he advocates Britain going it alone, against the “weight of Whitehall opinion” cautioning against it. And his over-arching reason for it is:
…we could tell every Russian that their own money was buying the shells and bullets killing their own soldiers.
No wonder the Johnson government left the country in such a mess, with people like this on his staff. You can peruse the whole bowl of tripe here.
The Magic of German Democracy
The crackdown on the AfD prompted an almost immediate comeback from Vice President JD Vance:
Followed by another from Secretary of State Rubio:
The Interior Minister Nancy Faeser gave her own response:
[She] called the assessment “clear and unambiguous” and insisted that the agency operates independently,
“There was no political influence whatsoever on the new report,” she added.
Well, obviously a government minister wouldn’t tell outright lies, would she? Or would she? So, let us explore the origins of this report a little bit to find out how truthful she was.
The report itself was written by this handsome chap:
He goes by the name of Thomas Haldenwang and up until the end of last year he was the head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV). This is the state ‘spy agency’ that issued the classification. He worked directly for Nancy Faeser and the agency came under her complete control, so the agency is not quite as independent as the minister asserted. And she has her own axe to grind.
Moreover, Mr. Haldenwang is a CDU politician, in fact he stood for a Bundestag seat in his hometown of Wuppertal, a leafy city in the West of Germany, and was soundly thrashed by the SPD/Green candidate. He even came close (6 points) to being beaten by the AfD candidate, although the constituency is far from the AfD’s East German heartlands. So, the further ministerial assertion that there was no political interference was also an object lesson in mendacity. Particularly as she gave a press conference last year, together with Haldenwang, that the Guardian covered, that set out what she wanted to see in the report.
Mr. Haldenwang is despised even within his own party, so much so that they tried to stop him being the candidate:
One of the interesting snippets from the Guardian’s coverage was the fact that Haldenwang said, when asked about anti-muslim attacks:
Asked if his agency had tracked a similar surge in anti-Muslim crime during the same period, Haldenwang said such a trend was “not observed”.
Yet, it was alleged attacks on Muslims that formed the core of his report.
But, according to the outgoing minister, we needn’t worry because:
“The new assessment will certainly be subject to judicial review as well. In a constitutional state, independent courts ultimately make the decisions.”
That is hardly reassuring as the German legal system appears to be fully subservient to the political class as this case proves.
If you take the time to read the actual AfD manifesto (you can find the English version here), they come across as a moderate right of center party that is bursting with new ideas. So why all the hate?
The reason is that the AfD want to restrict immigration and Haldenwang, Faeser and the rest of the German political class want to dramatically increase the numbers coming in.
Next, of course, we’ll see the government trying to ban the AfD, this will be covered in more depth next week.
Meanwhile, the incoming leader, Fred Merz, has all but declared war on Russia.
Unfortunately, President Trump took his toys away by denying him the use of Taurus missiles to hit deep inside Russia (they rely on US satellite navigation). Which is just as well as Russia has recently updated its nuclear doctrine such that even an attack by conventional weapons on Russia or its allies will be met with a nuclear response.
Meanwhile, “diplomatically isolated” Russia is expecting to welcome 20 world leaders to attend its victory parade on May 9th.
Britain is going to hold its own parade on VE day, with pride of place going to the Azov Brigade, the spiritual successors (as they proudly boast) of the Ukrainian Waffen SS Galicia brigade:
If we look at the facts and history…Primarily, the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) was created in 1943 as a volunteer Ukrainian unit under Nazi Germany, specifically to fight the Soviet Union. When first committed during the Lvov–Sandomierz Offensive, they were catastrophically defeated by the Red Army at Brody—thousands were killed or captured, and the division was routed as ineffective and cowardly. Reformed after this disaster, they were redeployed to anti-partisan operations in Yugoslavia, where they burned villages and slaughtered civilians, earning them a reputation as war criminals. At war’s end, instead of facing Soviet justice—as Stalin had demanded—the surviving Galician troops surrendered to the Western Allies and quietly settled in the West, mainly in Canada. This makes it unsurprising that today some descendants of these men might be invited to march alongside British soldiers in the remembrance ceremonies.
Moscow has condemned London’s decision:
“Inviting followers of neo-Nazi elements to Victory Day celebrations is not just disrespectful to those British veterans who gave their lives during World War II. It is blasphemy,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Saturday.
The UK’s ministry of defense claimed that Kiev’s participation in the event “reminds us that Ukraine is now at freedom’s front line.” UK Defense Secretary John Healey described it as “fitting” that Ukrainian troops will be present at the event.
We’re Exploiting You for Your Own Good
So, Macron is selflessly going to assume the white man’s burden and ‘help’ those poor, benighted colored folks down in Africa. They’ve had over a century to improve the lot for the Africans and they haven’t achieved much except for more poverty and violence. So, what else will France be doing to ensure their progress?
And the answer is: they’ll keep stealing their stuff.
The problem is that with the increasing number of former French colonies who are going it alone, it has hit the French economy as they no longer have access to cheap African resources unless they pay market rates for them.
This has led to a growing socio-economic crisis in France. Take unemployment for instance, where the number of registered unemployed shot up by 3.9% in Q4 2024, a number last seen almost 20 years ago. The start of 2025 was even worse as unemployment grew by 8.7%, leading to 3.4 million people having no jobs. Energy prices are another source of angst with household electricity prices almost doubling in the past five years.
In addition, there is an acute cost of living crisis across the board, particularly in housing, leading to an ever-increasing number of homeless people, including children. And the economy is shrinking. As Le Monde puts it:
France’s budgetary difficulties, which Parliament is having such a hard time resolving, have been compounded by another threat. Since the start of September, the French economy has undergone a marked economic downturn. Investment is slowing down, the unemployment curve is reversing, redundancy plans and bankruptcies are multiplying, the country’s economic attractiveness is deteriorating, and the social climate is tense.
There are many reasons for this. Four years after the Covid-19 crisis, the measures taken to protect the economic framework are coming to an end, provoking a painful return to reality for the most fragile companies. Germany, the country’s main trading partner, is experiencing a recession which is beginning to have an impact on activity in France. And the political context is creating an unfavorable environment for economic decision-making. Faced with fiscal uncertainty, households are saving and business leaders are putting the brakes on investment.
Even the usually buoyant high-tech industries like semiconductors are facing increasing problems with the Franco-Italian chip maker STM laying off over 1,000 workers. And this is despite the European CHIPS act promising to throw €43 billion into increasing the EU’s semiconductor resilience.
The difference between the EU CHIPS act and the US one is that, in the time honored tradition the US is throwing money at the problem; whereas, the EU formed a committee (European Semiconductor Board) comprised of EU bureaucrats in order to draw up stultifying regulations for the industry. Silicon Valley was not created by a committee.
As a result, the market share of EU semiconductors has dropped from 10% of global trade when the regulation (it’s not actually an act, it is a regulation) was first established to a little under 7.8% today and as the STM and NXP (formerly Phillips) redundancies are showing this will decrease further as their main target markets (motor vehicles and TVs) are shrinking.
Another bone of contention is the increased militarization of the country. The people of France do not want to be involved in a European war and they are really unhappy at France’s increased interference overseas, particularly in the South Caucuses (those foreign legionaries that were expelled from the Sahel had to go somewhere).
As is their wont, the French took to the streets urged on by the CGT union with the slogan: “Against the far-right, for peace, freedom, and social justice.” Except it didn’t quite turn out as planned for the Socialists as they were the ones on the receiving end of the violence they usually mete out to others at the hands of the “Black Bloc’ far left agitators because they were seen to be supporting the Israeli attacks on Gaza. They had to be led to safety by the riot police.
Given the political ineptitude and contempt for their own people both at the French government level (As Sophie Binet, a union leader, says: “Macron governs against his people.”) and in the EU, what is France supposed to be offering to Africans that they aren’t capable of doing on their own.
We may never know: you see, Macron isn’t listening as he is too busy trying to get the Rothschild’s candidate for the papacy over the line.
Incidentally, following on from the story of Burkino Faso from last week, here is a video by the President Traore giving a lot of detail about what the colonial powers had done to his country and why the US and France are trying to assassinate him.
It Would Take A Heart of Stone Not to Laugh
With all of the furor about Zelensky signing the Ukraine’s minerals over to the US. He forgot one small detail; he’d already promised them to the EU.
My Dad Is Bigger Than Your Dad
Secure Payments Powered by Clover
I hope Michael Hudson chimes in on the nature of “tryants.”
I hereby object to the screenshot calling the SPD a left-wing party. It simply isn’t.
It once was, but that was a very long time ago.
Having gotten that out of the way:
The BfVs decision to classify the AfD as an extremist organization is not a crackdown, but a classification allowing the BfV and a limited number of other institutions to keep a closer watch on the AfD.
That classification is not a first step in the process of forbidding the AfD, and it isn’t even needed for that.
Whether the german government, parliament or bundesrat will start the process of forbidding the AfD is still an open question. If it happens, the decision will be made by the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVG), which is the most independent institution we have, and which hasn’t forbidden a party since 1956.
If the BVG decides that the AfD has unconstitutional goals or that the AfDs followers act unconstitutional, then the AfD will most likely appeal before the European Court of Human Rights.
Then, and only then, will a crackdown happen. 4 to 10 years from now, if at all.
btw: keeping a closer watch on possibly extremists might not be the worst idea, even if it doesn’t solve any of the underlying problems.
Friedrich Merz has already shown that his words have a net worth of zero. Which is going to be a major problem down the road.
Regards, Uwe
Thanks Kevin and Uwe for the report and the comment but in the case of the possible crackdown I beg to differ with Uwes evaluation. At first, the so called “Bundesverfassungsschutz” does not act to protect the constitution; its real function instead is – like any other secret service – to gather information for the administration in charge and to undermine serious opposition. The Bundesverfassungsschutz is not an independent authority but an instrument of the respective Minister of the Interior (§ 2 (1) Bundesverfassungsschutzgesetz). Further, the “classification” has certain political ramifications and will be used to undermine the AfD through persecution of their politicians and party members: While it is considered whether it is possible to clean the public service from AfD party members and to cut off the AfD from the usual “state-funding” of political parties because of “the classification”, in one federal state (Hessen) the administration began to uninvite AfD members of parliament from official events. So maybe it is not necessary for the party cartel to start the formal process of forbidding the AfD in order to get a crackdown.
And in case the “Bundestag” or the administration is going to start the forbidding process it is better not to count on the Federal Constitutional Court as a more or less independent institution. The judges are chosen by the party cartel and a lot of them were former party cartel politicians (for example Mr. Harbarth, the Chief Judge of the Court, was a high-ranking member of the CDU).
Anti-Spiegel made the sound suggestion that BfV has long infiltrated AfD.
And with Weidel far from being an honest idealist the party eventually won´t pose a serious challenge to any power.
Those who are serious or possess enough integrity eventually will be sidelined.
With BSW eclipsed and SPD and LINKE bases sold off or silenced the 2025 elections with the preceding 2024 media campaigns will go down as the unwritten and ignored history of the demise of any hope for political change in the FRG.
p.s. I am sure there are people within BfV who know all this. But they remain silent.
That is true, AG, the AfD is definitively not a beacon of hope for the working class (Weidel for example is a Hayekian economist) but “with BSW eclipsed and SPD and LINKE bases sold off or silenced” and apart from small and somewhat sectarian groups like DKP the only (limited) opposition left.
So I share your view that from within the “Berlin republic” will not be changed. There will be either change coming from outside or collapse.
It used to be that is was “from clog to clogs…”, but now Jonny Kraut has given us “from genocide to genocide in three generations”. Absolutely consistent with what my dad said when I expressed a smidgen of optimism when Willi Brandt came to power.
Sadly Brandt was the symbol for the irreversible divison of Europe. Brandt became only eligible after CDU had accepted the existence of the USSR and with that given up on a forceful unification 1000% opposed to any rapprochement with USSR lest accepting neutrality as the Stalin Notes had suggested.
Only when the status quo between the superpowers was not jeopardized by Germany any more (i.e. CDU and Adenauer) did the Germans receive more meaningless diplomatic liberties.
As a matter of fact when Strauß in 1954/55 had fierce dispute over Germany, Bundeswehr and NATO with SPD, he asked latter if they were willing to give up on NATO for the sake of better relations with USSR. SPD remained mute and helpless because in essence they shared Strauß´s views or were fearful of admitting that they were sympathetic towards the Russians which would have been political suicide if done by individual politicians only.
Of course one must consider that Stalin´s conduct in Eastern Europe at least on the surface did little to raise confidence among everyday Germans to believe the Russians were honest brokers. He made it easy for Western media to picture him as a monster.
Naturally this was also in the interest of the US and Adenauer. Had they been genuinely interested in a unified Europe, without nukes and without NATO – or with USSR part of NATO – they could have created an adequate campaign and sold that to the people. They never wasted a single thought on that.
So nothing has changed since USA rebutting Molotov´s suggestion for Russia to join NATO in 1954 and Putin´s exact same suggestion 2000 and his final offer for non-nuclear Europe 2021.
I like Mr. Haldenwang’s wonderful tie.
I’m all for a good dogpile, but you should remove the line about Reeves studying at Oxford Brookes University. I think it stems from a misreading of a line in the Daily Mail article, which compares lying about the econ journal publication to lying about going to Oxford when one went to Oxford Brookes. It’s not actually saying Reeves did the latter. From everything I can find, she did indeed attend New College of Oxford, proper.
Yes, that’s clearly untrue. Reeves is a PPE grad and LSE post grad. Plus, OBU it nothing like a ‘community college’, its a large and relatively highly rated university in its own right – the comment smacks of quite a nasty snobbishness, whatever its origin. Oxford is more than just its colleges.
Yes, Reeves did study PPE at Oxford and then at the LSE. This ill informed section within the piece even refers to the Laffer Curve, a somewhat ignorant comment, as irony is not evident.
Oxford Brookes has a very good reputation for Architecture and Built Environment, amongst other specialisms like health care and accounting. But Reeves did not study there.
Unfortunately, the piece doesn’t demonstrate any useful knowledge of how the UK political elite, plus its wannabes, seek to develop their career paths. The Oxford PPE course is a classic door opener. A
PPE followed by a period as a SPAD for an MP is the direct route for ambitious young politicians of either main party. (No real world experience is necessary for a Special Adviser).
The PPE at Oxford is straight down the line neoliberalism, including such conventional and long debunked concepts as the displacement theory that public investment squeezes out private investment in terms of economic growth. Reeves has publicly supported this notion on several occasions.
This is bog standard stuff from Mankiw’s Macroeconomics, and well demolished by both Steve Keen and Bill Mitchell.
The Oxford PPE is the standard entry level qualification for ambitious Tory politicians – including David Cameron, William Hague, Chris Huhne, Jeremy Hunt, and Philip Hammond.
Reeves has simply followed that noble conservative tradition.
That Reeves (and an increasing number of Labour technocrats) has studied and accepts the Oxford PPE conventional wisdom means that her economic education will inevitably direct her towards conservative neoliberal policies – which is exactly what she has done as Chancellor.
Very hegemonic.
The Labour policy disasters of not raising taxes but targeting benefits, such as the OAP fuel allowance, 2 child policy and more recently disabled benefits, came home to roost as a vote losing doorstep issue during last week’s local elections.
But, as a set of policies, it is a direct result of Reeves’ PPE style neoliberalism.
The bias in UK conventional undergraduate economics education and shortfall in critical thinking was first highlighted during the 2008 crash, when it transpired, though possibly a myth, that the Cambridge economics degree course did not even include a basic module on Keynes, himself a Cambridge academic, and that virtually no UK educated economist had ever heard of Hy Minsky, let alone be familiar with his financial instability work.
Yet, the Treasury economists then advising Brown were obviously happy with his ‘end to boom and bust’ mantra, but even the Queen asked why no-one had spotted the risks.
Reeves has repeatedly stated that the public sector does not contribute to economic growth with growth only being driven by sector private investment. This is strangely uninformed considering that public expenditure is fundamental to the GDP equation – ergo, any increase in the public sector actually creates GDP growth.
How she then claimed to have supported Bidenomics simply confirms her dubious claims to competence.
This underpinning economic illiteracy is what will come to define her hopefully brief tenure as Chancellor. However she is likely to be succeeded by another neoliberal, so continuing the slide of British Labour as a left of centre party.
Indeed PlutoniumKun is 100% correct. This is snide. The fact is, there ARE good reasons to attack PPE at Oxford and Economics at Cambridge. You don’t need to resort to “making shit up” as Yves would quickly call it.
For people who don’t understand the college systems at Oxford and Cambridge, here is the quick and dirty explanation, tailored especially for people in Federal systems like the USA. Cambridge and Oxford are both FEDERAL systems. Lectures and the exams and curriculum are set at the university (Federal) level. You must pass this stuff to get your degree. It’s all neoclassical garbage these days but that’s just how it is.
The “states” are the colleges. THEY administer the “supervisions” (typically hour long sessions with up to 4 students, with a COLLEGE fellow expanding upon subject material, setting weekly essay or mathematics tasks etc). Historically the states held the power: half of East Anglia (our MAJOR ports) is owned by certain Cambridge colleges. The College fellow may or may not (also) be a university-employed lecturer. So traditionally people held two jobs; a College Fellowship (giving them often a rent-free room(s) to live in if they wished) plus food (Fellows’ dining hall) which paid about one third of their salary plus a university position similar to a more modern uni (to give lectures and do research). Nice little earner.
Trouble is, the colleges started to get stingy and an increasing number of hires accepted the uni position – often with salaries boosted heavily (via science parks like the big one Gates funds in Cambridge) – but not a college position, which offered too little money for too much work. “Retired” Fellows were drawn upon increasingly to do the supervisions.
PPE and Econ at Cambridge have an “official syllabus” (to pass the exams and get your degree) that is neoclassical rubbish. Your college might have made you work really hard via very onerous essay/math problems weekly but ultimately you must conform to something approaching what is in Whitehall known as the “Treasury View”. Reeves has clearly followed this to the letter. So you CAN criticise her for not getting heterodox stuff taught to her via her Oxford college (unlike me, who had a very very eminent Director of Studies who was the Senior Economics Fellow at my college who spent the last 5 mins of every supervision essentially saying “that’s all crap – write it in the exam but here’s how the economy REALLY works”).
So yes indeed Oxford and Cambridge are more than just their colleges. Plus, unfortunately for outsiders, you REALLY need to know whether a public figure like our Chancellor got exposed to “real” economics during college supervisions or not. This information is generally not public and you must have gone through the system to know. So PK is right to call out the snobbish uninformed comment. I could make a relatively informed guess as to whether a public figure was imbued with the Treasury view or not, though my knowledge is ageing rapidly as college Fellows die off. Ed Davey and Ed Balls both did PPE at Oxford, which is MUCH more likely to mean they follow the Treasury view, given college weakness in economics (much to my chagrin since they’re alumni of my school). Cambridge Econ graduates are more likely a 50/50 chance of knowing about such things as land vallue tax, principles that ultimately became known as MMT etc. BUT the federal degree doesn’t want this so they are encouraged not to learn it.
My response should be read in conjunction with that of TiPi. In short Reeves is execrable…..but not for the stated reasons. It took me many years to unlearn the official Cambridge Econ syllabus and sites like this helped.
But PLEASE do not repeat trashtalk. There’s plenty we can pin on her without making shit up. This is downright lazy and makes me worry. I’ve said plenty in las day or so about why the average person in the Midlands is fed up. Don’t give extra ammunition for them to vote Reform who LITERALLY ADVERTISED FOR HOME WORKERS WHEN THEY’RE FORBIDDING IT AT MY LOCAL COUNCIL. Sheesh.
Thank you, Terry. You are of course absolutely right.
As an Oxford man (but not, I hasten to add, PPE), I could just add that in my day (many decades ago) PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics)was regarded as the soft option for undergraduates. Many of the people who went on to represent the University at sport read it because it allowed them enough spare time to train. Cambridge Economics, on the other hand, was regarded as a much more serious Economics degree course, as it was 100% Economics as opposed to just 33%. I rather suspect many PPE students took as many politics papers as possible (most chance to waffle, I imagine). Things may have changed since my day of course, but then perhaps not?
At our place, what you call supervisions were of course called tutorials. For those who are not familiar, this is a teaching method which can be a huge privilege for those who benefit from it. In my case I got three meetings a fortnight one on one with one of the world’s leading experts in my field. The teaching method used was the Socratic, that is to say the tutor taught the student by asking him questions. You had to turn up for your tutorials having read everything you had been given to read beforehand, having prepared an essay and then be grilled by this world expert for an hour to check you had done the work, which meant not just having done the reading but also having done the thinking such reading should have prompted. As an exercise in stretching a conscientious student it was extremely effective. Being one on one, you were the only one there to whom the questions were addressed. No chance of someone else helping you out.
It is well over 50 years ago now but I remain eternally grateful to have had this experience. No intellectual challenge in later life was as daunting!
Many thanks. There is so much I could say (good and bad) about the supervision/tutorial system. On the one hand you got some of the best one-on-one teaching in the world. On the other hand, is that good if you’re taught loanable funds nonsense?
PPE, as you say, was known to be “soft” compared to Econ (Cantab). Thus why Ed Balls, Ed Davey and others went for it (that’s snide BTW).* Though, to be fair, 25% of the first year Cambridge Econ course was political history and I since learnt that a lot of that was *ahem* sanitised. So I’m not gonna big up Cambridge too much.
What scares me is that by the mid 1990s when I completed my degree, there were very few people at Oxford or Cambridge who really KNEW money and history and thus provided the anchors for what came to be known as MMT and LVT. I had the luck to be taught by someone who was real old-school SNP who KNEW all about Henry George, National Income Accounting etc. I got the chance to thank him when invited back to give a lecture to the Cambridge Stats groups around 2005 shortly before he died. I had a lump in my throat, I’ll freely admit.
To see people like Ed Balls interview his WIFE (Labour minister) on national TV, and the main TV programs give ridiculous amounts of coverage to minorities, whilst those who support Labour and others from a MMT/LVT perspective are ignored is despicable. Have you come LOOK at our (formerly posh) local suburb?
* I have READ Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. It’s boring AF. The guy was terrible writer and people argue to this day whether the pin factory was a real observation or him merely concatenating a series of observations regarding specialisation. I’ve read SECTIONS of his Theory of Moral Sentiments which seem better……I sense Smith realised that if you make a person do the same job 9-5 they go insane.
I’m SICK of late stage capitalism. I now realise why so many of my Cambridge supervisors drank themselves to death. I think I’d rather do that than be a Labour Minister.
I remember Steve Keen observing a long time ago that one issue with the Oxford PPE degree was that effectively, the students only covered one year of an undergraduate syllabus in each subject, although as I understand it, in the final stages they can do extra specialist study in one of the subject areas.
Whatever the case, if many of our leaders went through this, and then stick to “the Treasury view”, no wonder we in the UK are in the mess we are, with no light at the end of the metaphorical tunnel.
When considering sources, always double check the Daily Mail. But that said, it is just an odd analogy and the Mail doesn’t seem to have it wrong.
Do you REALLY think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to falsify enough records to enable the Daily Mail to cast aspersions on her? She’s been checked out. She has a kosher education but that is part of the problem you effing moron.
OK. IMHO she’s uninformed but she has clever subordinates. QUIT WITH THE LIES. I do NOT want to have my screen contaminated by your shite. I’ve been here for 15+ years and say WHO I AM. WHO are YOU? Stand up and make your claim. Otherwise we shall assume you have a 1 inch penis cause I personally am SICK of trolls on here.
Don’t hide behind MAKING US DO HOMEWORK TO CHECK DM. THAT IS A VIOLATION OF NC POLICY SO YOU’VE AUTOMATICALLY BROKEN THE RULES. FUCK OFF. Yves has said REPEATEDLY that the only area the DM seems to be ahead of the curve is in healthcare.
I don’t think anyone wanted to have their screen contaminated by whatever this post is, but here we are.
Congrats you’re on public forums for people to seek you out!
A thorough and informative recap of the ongoing crapification of the EU! Thanks so much and keep ‘em coming!
A web search returns that Rachel Reeves attended the Oxford New College.
Perhaps you interpreted the Daily Mail incorrectly? They are not claiming she went to the other college, they’re providing an example of the kind of dishonesty she pulled with the journal publication.
https://www.new.ox.ac.uk/news/congratulations-rachel-reeves
This has been debunked already. Don’t be surprised if you get a permaban. Yves is looking into this.
I certainly don’t want my pages full of your BS. She did PPE. Only available at University of Oxford.
Is an American tossed salad nice?
Captain Starmer: We must cut fuel subsidies and other social programmes in order to uphold Democracy™ and bomb the Houthis.
Well, donchano
ƒ¨ç˚
At first, I misread “uphold Democracy” as “upload Democracy”…not all that wrong. LOL.
UK Marcie Frost, sounds like.
Great (dark) update. Any comment on recent surveys that show Poland was the only country in the EU with positive consumer sentiment? https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/05/02/poland-only-eu-country-with-positive-consumer-sentiment/
Thanks for the very extensive tour de eu. Some cold comfort in knowing that when it comes to crazy it’s not just us.
Although I guess many would say elite malfunction across the pond is also us. At any rate good to know what’s going on.
I’m starting to think that there is a contest among the elites to be the most incompetent.
We should stop use of “elites” as if these people are better than us. The terms to use can be insiders, as in Nancy Pelosi demonstrates how to be an insider trader, or figure heads.
By this stage in the game, the term “elites” as used here and on other like-minded blogs is almost a pejorative. One can almost see the sarcasm tags bracketing the word “elites” now.
Of course, some of us are much more cynical than the run of the mill commenters, agreed.
Great info and captures, but: the text and graphic inserts with smaller text are so fuzzy as to be difficult to impossible to read. They’re all almost as bad as printed faxes. I haven’t seen this problem on NC before, is there a simple tech swap that will eliminate it? Thanks, would love to read it all!
Great review here, Kirk. Thinking about it, I am reminded of that adage about shirtsleeve to shirtsleeve in three generations. I think that the Chinese have a similar one where they talk about rice paddy to rice paddy in three generations. So you will have an ambitious person that can only afford to wear shirtsleeves build up a business through grit and determination and learning the hard lessons of how to get to the top. The second generation also struggled growing up working with their parent(s) and so kept sight of the same lessons and maintain if not extend what was built up. By the third generation, they never had to learn those harsh lessons so end up squandering the lot and end up only wearing shirtsleeves themselves.
Point is, we are currently in the third generation phase. Forget about businesses right now, our politics are full of trust fund babies, unqualified hustlers like Rachel from Accounts, demagogues like Boris Johnson who in any other system would not get a job beyond journalist, carnival barkers like Trump, etc. They are the inheritors of those that came before and most of them came to power by showing fealty to power while using a subservient media to push them forward. But they have never really had to struggle to get to where they are. Hustled yes, but that is not the same. And the way that things are going, the west is about to lose its shirt. And yes, the same happened with those ancient Greek tyrants where their sons or grandsons lost power as they had everything given to them from birth. Trouble is, everybody else is about to sit down to a banquet of consequences so I hope that we enjoyed the ride.
Thank you Rev, you’ve made my morning! I have first hand experience of this endemic third gen’ looping ‘coil’, and can attest to the general absence of efficacy for treatment, other than ‘tear down and start again’ – in our case No Bad Thing. Btw, from where I hail the salient reference is ‘clogs to clogs’, so is likely pervasive all over, as you have pointed out. The route to success, in my limited experience, is to effect a controlled explosion where the ‘shirtsleeves’ are ousted (bruised, but with some of their ‘stuff’ in hand), leaving the remaining valuable assets unharmed so they can be put to good use once more, but under new engaged management, and indirect (hire and fire) control. Tricky this, but do-able!
The third generation adage is called ‘Clogs to Clogs’ in the north of England.
Confirmation that Gladio was amazingly successful in pacifying the EU
Aristotle is no authority on “tyrants”. They are better called (today) “populists” and of a decidedly (again, in today’s terms) “left” orientation. They may have typically been of the traditional oligarchic class, but their policies were anti-oligarchic. They abolished debt, redistributed land, etc. Traditionalists like Aristotle and aristocrats like Plato led the rewriting of “túrannos” in just the same way as happened to 19C US populism.
jeeze, louise.
this is yer best missive, yet, Kevin.
i actually guffawed, many times, throughout.
(it was not enough, apparently, to keep the black male duck from perching on th other side of the bar, however)
+100, loved the tone of the article.
breaded deer cutlets w french shallots and peppers(all from here, save for the flour and olive oil),,,w shrooms(baby bellas(tm)) and shiner bock and beef broth tossed in such to make a thick gravy around it all.
garnished w fresh sage, parsley and green onion.
didnt hafta walk 10 feet for any of it.
lazy prevented the orzo starch to accompany.
sommolier(sp-20) sez this music accompanies yall all dreaming of this meal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLFW4qonnbo
Zelensky signed minerals over to Trump he had promised to the EU. While this sounds sketchy at first blush, mathematical analysis reminds us that zero divided by two is still zero.
>particularly in the South Caucuses
Caucasus?
Couscous.
The last time I checked airwars.org was about a year ago.
Now the site is not suspended but at least being blocked.
Splendid.