Sir Keir Starmer fails to find his backside with both hands.

Disturbing stuff from Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit Secretary, over the weekend. In case you haven’t noticed he’s been protesting about the award of the contract to print the new blue British passports to a French company, whose bid just happened to be £120 million cheaper than their British rival. Leaving aside the irony that said British company currently prints passports for 40 other countries, what we now know is that the Shadow Secretary clearly does not have enough grasp of basic economics to be in the job. Not that the actual Brexit Secretary, David Davis, does either of course: this isn’t a partly political point. If our political leaders can’t grasp the idea that leaving the European Union cannot be used to justify dumb-arse economic nationalism then Britain is doomed to head down the fiscal toilet sooner rather than later after exit.

One of the interesting points made – and there are a lot of them – in Tim Harford’s The Undercover Economist Strikes Back is that there is a strange habit of governments following exactly the wrong type of policies for a given set of economic circumstances. What happens, mentioning no Gordon Browns in particular, is that we overspend and over-borrow during times of economic growth, when surpluses should be accumulated to deal with the inevitable recession that is just around the corner. When we get round that corner we get governments that cut back on spending, especially capital spending, at exactly the time when the economy could do with a stimulus. The reason they pick on capital spending is because it’s less politically sensitive than other parts of the budget. However, it is precisely well-chosen infrastructure projects that can help to kick-start the economy when it is in recession. This, by the way, is blindingly obvious, but apparently not obvious enough for our leaders to grasp it.

 

Watson, Labour and a skip of rancid lard.

Sometimes – perhaps because he’s often all but invisible – it is possible to forget what an odious toad Tom Watson is. My position on the current Labour party is well known and oft stated: I will never vote for the party while it is lead by somebody who took money from Iranian state TV, at least up until the time when he recants and donates the fee to an appropriate charity. This is what is called a principle, although they seem very rare these days. Irrespective of the leadership, I will only vote for parties that are explicitly committed to remaining in the single market and customs union after Brexit. That’s at the very least: ideally I want a promise to remain in the EU. You will appreciate that this outlook narrows my choice of election candidates considerably.

However, Tom Watson is another whole skip-full of rancid lard. £500,000 from Max Moseley (who Watson describes as a friend)? Supporting restrictions on the freedom of the press? Aiding and abetting ludicrous police investigations against Leon Brittan and others? I don’t think so. And I don’t think much of any party that elects and then allows such a person to remain as deputy leader.

I’m still trying to get my head around the pensions-related industrial action currently taking place. For historical reasons, plus atavistic instinct, I remain a member of the University and College Union (UCU), although my own arrangements are with the Teachers’ Pension Scheme rather than USS. On the one hand it’s easy to understand disquiet at the possible loss of benefits. On the other, as Danny Finkelstein points out https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lecturers-can-t-expect-us-to-pay-their-pensions-nsq30t2fw (£), the Universities are already paying an astonishingly generous 18% of salaries into the scheme and they can’t be expected to stump up any more – and even if they were the extra costs would have to be met somehow, whether via tuition fees or government support.