Corbyn indulged anti-semitism in Labour's ranks, and had been accused of harboring such sentiments himself - in commenting on the sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, for instance, he went out of his way reportedly to call attention to Epstein's Jewishness -"Ep-steen", he reportedly called him in one speech, drawing out the pronunciation. In foreign policy, he was on the wrong side of the Cold War, to put it charitably. How would he have reacted to Putin's attack on Ukraine? Probably a bit worse than Herr Schultz's initial demurring, I'd guess. Very doubtful that he would have been moderated by the Labour moderates and the Lib-Dems in power, as they showed little ability to do so while he was bidding for it
Great, insightful, eviscerating takedown of the paper-thin Truss!
And yet, and yet ... Philip, along with other members of the FT commentariat (especially 'Tory Boy' Sebastian Payne and George Osborne acolyte Janan Ganesh) insist that Jeremy Corbyn would have been the UK's worst prime minister.
Really? I mean, *really*? Worse than Truss? Worse than Johnson? Philip himself acknowledges how these two have been at the beck-and-call of hardline nationalist Brexiteers like Jacob Rees-Mogg, Mark Francois and yes, Nigel Farage and Ann Widdecombe.
Corbyn, by contrast (assuming he won only a narrow majority) would have been constrained by the more moderate wing of Labour — and by needing to co-operate with the Lib Dems.
What's more, by most sober analyses, Corbyn's policies would have been closer to European social democracy than the hysterical cries of 'Venezuela on Thames!' that, regrettably, place the FT commentariat closer to that of the Torygraph and the Daily Mail
Johnson may be devoid of moral qualities but his tax and spend policies were Disraelian. Truss' call for tax cuts and increased borrowing are especially incoherent because interest rates have just gone up (BoE just raised them half a basis point), wrongfooting her borrowing intention. On the other hand her FT column on N Ireland, defending impending legislation, did not seem so outrageous, seemed in sync with what the EU was prepared to allow.
Johnson may be thoroughly devoid of moral qualities but his "leveling up" and tax raising policies were fundamentally "one-nation" Disraelian Toryism. Not only will loose fiscal policy lead to rising interest rates (thus wrongfooting government borrowing), but interest rates are already going up. The BoE just raised them half a basis point, which make Truss's policy stance especially incoherent. Plus tax cuts will in the short term easing the financial squeeze on households, they will contribute to higher demand, and so to the inflation higher interest rates are intended to counter. Truss did defend the government's N Ireland protocol legislation in an FT column, which I didn't find outrageous. She suggested that the plan to custom check only goods from Britain intended for the European market and to leave goods intended to remain in N Ireland unmolested was a policy the EU was coming around to anyway, although painfully slowly. Johnson's fall really should have triggered a general election.
Corbyn indulged anti-semitism in Labour's ranks, and had been accused of harboring such sentiments himself - in commenting on the sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, for instance, he went out of his way reportedly to call attention to Epstein's Jewishness -"Ep-steen", he reportedly called him in one speech, drawing out the pronunciation. In foreign policy, he was on the wrong side of the Cold War, to put it charitably. How would he have reacted to Putin's attack on Ukraine? Probably a bit worse than Herr Schultz's initial demurring, I'd guess. Very doubtful that he would have been moderated by the Labour moderates and the Lib-Dems in power, as they showed little ability to do so while he was bidding for it
Great, insightful, eviscerating takedown of the paper-thin Truss!
And yet, and yet ... Philip, along with other members of the FT commentariat (especially 'Tory Boy' Sebastian Payne and George Osborne acolyte Janan Ganesh) insist that Jeremy Corbyn would have been the UK's worst prime minister.
Really? I mean, *really*? Worse than Truss? Worse than Johnson? Philip himself acknowledges how these two have been at the beck-and-call of hardline nationalist Brexiteers like Jacob Rees-Mogg, Mark Francois and yes, Nigel Farage and Ann Widdecombe.
Corbyn, by contrast (assuming he won only a narrow majority) would have been constrained by the more moderate wing of Labour — and by needing to co-operate with the Lib Dems.
What's more, by most sober analyses, Corbyn's policies would have been closer to European social democracy than the hysterical cries of 'Venezuela on Thames!' that, regrettably, place the FT commentariat closer to that of the Torygraph and the Daily Mail
Sorry. Didn't mean to post twice; didn't think the first went through.
Johnson may be devoid of moral qualities but his tax and spend policies were Disraelian. Truss' call for tax cuts and increased borrowing are especially incoherent because interest rates have just gone up (BoE just raised them half a basis point), wrongfooting her borrowing intention. On the other hand her FT column on N Ireland, defending impending legislation, did not seem so outrageous, seemed in sync with what the EU was prepared to allow.
Johnson may be thoroughly devoid of moral qualities but his "leveling up" and tax raising policies were fundamentally "one-nation" Disraelian Toryism. Not only will loose fiscal policy lead to rising interest rates (thus wrongfooting government borrowing), but interest rates are already going up. The BoE just raised them half a basis point, which make Truss's policy stance especially incoherent. Plus tax cuts will in the short term easing the financial squeeze on households, they will contribute to higher demand, and so to the inflation higher interest rates are intended to counter. Truss did defend the government's N Ireland protocol legislation in an FT column, which I didn't find outrageous. She suggested that the plan to custom check only goods from Britain intended for the European market and to leave goods intended to remain in N Ireland unmolested was a policy the EU was coming around to anyway, although painfully slowly. Johnson's fall really should have triggered a general election.