Tell @UKLabour on Saturday what you think bout @JeremyCorbyn’s latest #BREXIT betrayal #BudgetDay #FBPE

Standard
On Saturday, 25th November, tell Labour’s rank and file on Labour’s National Day of Action, firmly, but politely what you feel about Corbyn’s latest BREXIT betrayal, voting against the UK staying in the Customs Union and Single Market …
Tell them what you think of Corbyn’s and McDonnell’s insult to our intelligence, their risible Jobs First Brexit!
There is a Jeremy Corbyn endorsed National Labour Day of Action on Saturday 25th November on the subject of Budget 2017.

Remember that #BREXIT will be way worse for you, your family, your friends and your country than any Tory austerity.

To find out where there are activities in your area, just click on this link and put in your post code to find out where there is an event near you!

I hope you and your friends can make it!

Tell @UKLabour on Saturday what you think bout @JeremyCorbyn’s latest #BREXIT betrayal #Budget17 #FBPE

Standard
On Saturday, 25th November, tell Labour’s rank and file on Labour’s National Day of Action, firmly, but politely what you feel about Corbyn’s latest BREXIT betrayal, voting against the UK staying in the Customs Union and Single Market …
Tell them what you think of Corbyn’s and McDonnell’s insult to our intelligence, their risible Jobs First Brexit!
There is a Jeremy Corbyn endorsed National Labour Day of Action on Saturday 25th November on the subject of Budget 2017.

Remember that #BREXIT will be way worse for you, your family, your friends and your country than any Tory austerity.

To find out where there are activities in your area, just click on this link and put in your post code to find out where there is an event near you!

I hope you and your friends can make it!

Tell @UKLabour on Saturday what you think bout @JeremyCorbyn’s latest #BREXIT betrayal #Budget2017 #FBPE

Standard
On Saturday, 25th November, tell Labour’s rank and file on Labour’s National Day of Action, firmly, but politely what you feel about Corbyn’s latest BREXIT betrayal, voting against the UK staying in the Customs Union and Single Market …
Tell them what you think of Corbyn’s and McDonnell’s insult to our intelligence, their risible Jobs First Brexit!
There is a Jeremy Corbyn endorsed National Labour Day of Action on Saturday 25th November on the subject of Budget 2017.

Remember that #BREXIT will be way worse for you, your family, your friends and your country than any Tory austerity.

To find out where there are activities in your area, just click on this link and put in your post code to find out where there is an event near you!

I hope you and your friends can make it!

Jeremy #Corbyn is now a working class #BAME (fe)male in a middle class white skin #Labour??? I bet @JeremyCorbyn’s supporters will never say he’s Jewish @UKLabour …

Standard
Corbyn loyalist claims Labour leader suffers “abuse reserved for black people” from enemies out to “destroy him” …
If you are born white, male and into an affluent middle class family, living in Wiltshire, then you have won the lottery of life in the United Kingdom, if not the world …
Such was Jeremy Corbyn, born on the 26th May, 1949 in Chippenham and brought up in nearby Kington St Michael in Wiltshire.

“It’s quite surprising to discover that I am not old enough or posh enough to be the front-runner of this current leadership election,” joked Harriet Harman, a Harley Street surgeon’s daughter and St Paul’s Girls’ School Alumna, shortly before handing the mantle of Labour leader to Jeremy Corbyn.

And, indeed, at 68, Corbyn is a year older than Harman.  But posher?  He is no champagne socialist (he barely drinks), and while he is MP for Islington North, which includes the grand Georgian houses overlooking Highbury Fields, he is hardly a member of the Blairite Islington Mafia.  If Harman is solidly metropolitan upper middle, Corbyn’s poshness is harder to discern.  “Or perhaps it’s heavily disguised,” says one who knows him, “because he certainly wouldn’t see himself as posh.”

Corbyn’s parents changed “Manor” to “House” to downgrade its grandness

But hold on, he is called Jeremy.  His childhood nickname was ‘Jelly’ (his brother Andrew was “Dumbo”).  Another brother, an astrophysicist and meteorologist, is called Piers.  And the children grew up in bucolic bliss, first in the village of Kington St Michael, in Wiltshire, and then at Yew Tree Manor in Chetwynd Aston, a hamlet on the Herefordshire/Shropshire border, a pretty red Georgian property that was once part of the Duke of Sunderland’s estate.

Corbyn’s parents changed “Manor” to “House” to downgrade its grandness, a move reversed by the current owner, a retired solicitor.

Yew Tree Manor

Last week, there were rabbits bouncing across the lawn, a cockerel strutting under the copper beech, magnolia and wisteria in bloom.  The rambling outbuildings are older than the wood-panelled manor, but the Corbyn boys could romp everywhere and fish and play bicycle polo with hockey sticks.  “Jelly” built a sundial in one of the outbuildings and put it up in the garden.  Every morning in term-time, their mother, Naomi, drove them up the road to Castle House prep school, a private school.

According to Rosa Prince, Corbyn’s biographer, it was a “thoroughly upper-middle-class, scruffy country upbringing”.  His father, David, was an electrical engineer, and Naomi studied science at London University in the Thirties, when women made up only 27 per cent of students.  They saw themselves as left-wing intellectuals (the house was “full of books”, says one school friend), and their backgrounds were in law and surveying.

Orwell has not troubled Corbyn’s mind

Ma and Pa Corbyn gave Jeremy, on his 16th birthday, a set of the complete works of George Orwell.  I am convinced they remain in mint condition, unread.

Nothing about Corbyn’s intellectual outpourings suggests his mind has been troubled by the wit, the wisdom and the thought provoking observations and insight of George Orwell.

Orwell has not troubled Corbyn’s mind, but the Corbyns of the early 1930s, led by their principled, working class leader, George Lansbury, troubled Orwell greatly.

I refer you, dear reader, to the second half of George Orwell’s The Road to Wigan Pier and, in particular, this caricature of the membership of the Labour Party of the 1930s …

Orwell2

“lived in the big house and went to a posh school with a posh uniform”

In outlook, Corbyn’s parents were like the Webbs, Beatrice and Sidney, who helped found the London School of Economics, the New Statesman and the Fabian Society.  David Corbyn worked a lot in the Soviet Union and even tried to learn Russian, “but it was too hard”

Nonetheless, Jeremy’s less well-off childhood friends remember him as “the boy who lived in the big house and went to a posh school with a posh uniform”.

One has visions of Ma Corbyn visiting the poor in their hovels; dispensing homespun wisdom to the other ranks; distributing home made conserves and apple jam to the lower orders.  A sort of Socialist officer class take on noblesse oblige.

By 1967, the working class had risen, according to the Scouse git on the tv

Today, at the drop of a hat, Jeremy condescends and patronises the other ranks, without even breaking into a sweat.  He expects them to be happy with a few extra quid an hour on the National Living Wage; a diminishing chance of renting a Council house (thanks to the Brexit for which Corbyn campaigned for forty years) and, at best, a crack at an NVQ3.

By 1967, the working class had risen, according to the Scouse git on Till Death Do Us Part.  Somehow,  I do not imagine Ma Corbyn would have approved of all the swearing so it seems highly unlikely that Corbyn, during his grammar school years, was ever aware of that carefully drawn archetype of a working class Tory (yes, Jeremy, they do exist) that is Alf Garnett.

Jeremy was always different from the other boys, even at school

During a talk at the Edinburgh Festival in 2017 Corbyn spoke about his school days, remembering how his posh grammar school was divided between the better-off children who went out shooting birds at the weekends and those who did the beating of the birds, while he did neither.  One feels that Corbyn has always been a bit of a prig.

Adams’ Grammar School is a grammar school for boys, located in Newport, Shropshire, offering day and boarding education. It was founded in 1656 by William Adams, a wealthy member of the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers.

In an interview with ITV on 15th May 2017, Jeremy Corbyn reflected on a “wonderful” and “very liberal” upbringing in Shropshire, but revealed his discomfort at attending a private prep school and then a very posh grammar school.

He said he did not like his grammar school, “because of its selectivity” and “aspects of implicit privilege that all the boys that went there were taught”.  In no way, of course, did that sense of implicit privilege infect Corbyn.

Dictum meum pactum

Corbyn does, however, have a tendency to become irritated during interviews, especially when asked to clarify an answer that he has just given.  A trait he shares with Nigel Farage, who also went to an all boys’ secondary school, Dulwich College.

One might almost think that as members of the officer class they expect not to be contradicted or cross questioned.  Dictum meum pactum, as Nigel’s former colleagues in the City of London might say, and that should be more than enough for the other ranks.

“I’ve once debated with Corbyn and (separately) with Nigel Farage, and—though there is a 15-year age gap between them—was struck by their essential similarity.  Their bonhomie is skin-deep and swiftly dispensed with when they’re contradicted.  Despite their respective privileged backgrounds and expensive private schooling, the sense I get from their behaviour around Brexit is that they don’t know much, don’t speak foreign languages, don’t read books and don’t especially care for foreigners.  For us on the centre-left, Corbyn’s dominance of Labour is a dismal prospect.  For young people who, under Tory plans supported by Corbyn, will be denied the automatic right to live and study in the European Union, it’s a historic tragedy.”

Oliver Kamm

Corbyn’s first wife, Jane Chapman has said, “He never read anything, all the books were mine.”

Michael White

Left Adams’ with two Es at A Level, then went on to teach in Jamaica …

Instead of going to university, Corbyn signed up with Voluntary Service Overseas (later the gap-year choice of Sloanes) for a two year gap year and, despite being a grammar school failure who left Adams’ with two Es at A Level, went to teach in Jamaica, which was then just emerging from its colonial past.  He has said that it was a profoundly moving experience, and the exposure to the real hardships of poverty shaped his politics.

Corbyn did enrol on a college degree course on his return from Jamaica, but dropped out after two terms.  He then had a number of jobs as a trades union official, never as a shop steward, became an Islington Councillor at 25 and at 33 was nominated to be a Labour candidate in a safe Labour seat.

Corbyn first contested his Islington seat at the 1983 General Election and unsurprisingly won it for Labour.  He did, however, get a lower proportion of the vote than his predecessor had received in 1979.

Jeremy Corbyn has been an MP for 34 years now, half of his life, in fact.

Not wealthy because of “where I put the money”

Corbyn also said, during that ITV interview, that despite earning a salary of more than £138,000, he was, he insisted not wealthy because of “where I put the money”, although he refused to elaborate on that.

“I consider myself adequately paid, very adequately paid for what I do.  What I do with it is a different matter,” he said.

“I consider myself well paid for what I do and I am wanting to say to everyone who’s well off, make your contribution to our society.”

When pressed on whether he considers himself wealthy, he said: “No, I’m not wealthy because of where I put the money, but I’m not going into that.”

Jeremy does a lot for charity, but he does not like to talk about it?

Nepotism, a discriminatory practice by any other name would smell as rank

Corbyn’s son, Seb, also went to grammar school and then on to Cambridge.  On graduation, Seb went to work for Uncle John, his dad’s best mate, John McDonnell.

Seb has never had a job that his dad has not arranged for him.

Corbyn loyalist claims Labour leader suffers “abuse reserved for black people” from enemies out to “destroy him” …

A middle class white man, who, by his own words, was born into affluence and privilege, is experiencing the same sort of abuse that someone from an ethnic minority background may well have had to endure since they first comprehended racism?

Shadow Minister Kate Osamor has said, Corbyn’s Left-wing allies had to “get dirty and ugly” to hit back at “brutal” Labour enemies out to destroy him.

It was shocking that a “‘white man” had been treated so badly, she said and harder to counter than attacks routinely dealt out to “a man of colour” by “the system”.

Would that be the same class system from which Jeremy Corbyn has benefited greatly all his life?

Urgent action needed to secure the Labour leader’s control of the party

Osamor called for urgent action to secure the Labour leader’s control of the party over moderate rebels when she addressed a rally in London on Friday 17th November.

Acknowledging her remark would stir controversy, Osamor said, “I couldn’t believe that, and I’m going to say this, as a white man, he’s been treated the way he has been treated.”

“If he was a man of colour, the way the system has attacked people of colour, I would have accepted that and said, “This is what happens.” I know how to defend that person.”

“But for someone like Jeremy to be attacked in the way he was, it was brutal.”

Corbyn insisted he does not condone or authorise the abuse of any politicians

The Labour leader has, in the past, insisted he does not condone or authorise the abuse of any politicians.

But in an interview in July 2016, he said, “I know that I have received more abuse than I ever used to.  But then maybe I’m better known these days.  But I receive more abuse than anybody else.  The best way of dealing with abuse is: ignore it.”

There you go Osamor, Jeremy Corbyn empathises so much with people on the receiving end of abuse that he suggests they should just grow a pair.

Corbyn a real life David Brent?

In 1970s blokey parlance, Corbyn thinks the best way for dealing with abuse is to grow a pair.

Meanwhile, in 2017, responsible employers do not tell their staff, male or female, that the best way to deal with abuse, physical or verbal, is to ignore it.  Instead they urge their staff to report instances of such abuse to their manager so the appropriate action may be taken.

If Corbyn wants to play the victim card then that is a matter for him, but it is not a practice that any well run organisation, considerate of their staff, would encourage.  In fact, they would discourage it so as to deter further instances of abuse that might affect other members of staff.

Corbyn could give David Brent lessons in poor people management.

“No one has threatened to rape Jeremy Corbyn, have they?”

Corbyn angered a number of MPs when, on another occasion, he said that he too had suffered personal abuse.

“No one has threatened to rape Jeremy Corbyn, have they?” one MP asked HuffPost UK.

Corbyn tacitly endorsed the bullying and intimidation of Labour staff

On Wednesday 13th July 2016, Corbyn tacitly endorsed the bullying and intimidation of Labour staff, both women and BAME, by voting against the proposal for a secret ballot at the NEC meeting that day.

Johanna Baxter, a trade union official and a representative of constituency parties on Labour’s National Executive Committee, said she had never criticised Corbyn since his election victory and generally avoided speaking to the press but called the NEC meeting “an utter disgrace to our movement”.

Focusing on the debate over whether to hold a secret ballot on allowing Corbyn on to the leadership ballot, Baxter said the Labour leader’s supporters opposed allowing a secret ballot, though they were eventually outnumbered by the rest of the committee.

“The leader of the Labour party voted against the proposal that we conduct our vote in private in order to protect NEC members who were receiving threats, bullying and intimidation.  He voted against it.  He endorsed bullying, threats and intimidation, by the fact of that vote.”

“The only reason to vote against that is so the intimidation can continue.  It’s the most shameful act I have ever seen.  He showed his true colours in that vote.  I have had people tweet and post my personal mobile online, directing people to me, directing their mob at me.”

Jeremy can’t be held to account for everyone in the world

“They just say: ‘Oh it’s nothing to do with us, Jeremy can’t be held to account for everyone in the world.’ I’m sorry, but he endorsed it,” she said.”

Jeremy Corbyn was sent the following letter just over a week later:

On 29th July Corbyn responded to the above letter, not in writing, but after being prompted to do so by the media.

Corbyn reiterated his “condemnation of all abuse”, called for a kinder politics

Corbyn said he had responded in a public statement, and reiterated his “condemnation of all abuse” and called for a kinder politics.  Take note, Osamor?

Corbyn’s letter also defended the fact that he had not wanted a secret ballot during a Labour NEC meeting, which was to decide whether he could automatically stand in the leadership election.  He said he opposed it on grounds of “lack of precedent and perceptions of accountability” and said transparency was important.

John McDonnell was once opposed to trades unions holding secret ballots

Back in the day, John McDonnell was opposed to trades unions holding secret ballots on the grounds every member taking part in a vote should know how each other member had voted.  The ‘good old days’ of car park ballots with a show of hands, intimidation, chap next to you holding your hand up for you and similar.

Unsurprisingly, Osamor, such practices tend to be biased against women and BAME folk.

It is very hard to see how Osamor and Corbyn can claim Corbyn is a victim of abuse or harassment in the way or to the level that it is experienced by anyone, who is not an elderly, affluent white male from a very middle class background.

Jeremy Corbyn did not die in Wiltshire for the sins of the working class

Jeremy Corbyn and his disciples may think he suffered for the sins of the working class, the dispossessed (of Glastonbury!) and all those at a disadvantage in our society, whilst he endured the hard life of a middle class white boy in Chetwynd Aston …

They may think Corbyn rose as the saviour of the downtrodden in Islington and that he is now on the road to Calvary that ends at Number 10 and public crucifixion in Downing Street.

Jeremy Corbyn is not a woman, BAME, working class, disabled, gay …

They may think that, they may believe that, but their belief does not make Jeremy Corbyn a woman, BAME, working class, disabled, gay …

To quote Aneurin Bevan, “Damn it all, you can’t have the crown of thorns and the thirty pieces of silver.”

Jeremy Corbyn cannot be Labour leader, possibly a Prime Minister, and also be a martyr for the cause.

If Jeremy Corbyn is unable to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, the insolence of Office, and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes, whilst he is Labour leader then he is unfit to lead the party and, by extension, become the next Labour Prime Minister.

Has Corbyn really lived the life of a Lammy or a Lewis?

Is Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour Party, because he is a talented, hard working, insightful leader and skilled orator, who has done much for society in his long, well paid political career?

Or because he is a rather unremarkable, awfully mediocre male, who was born into an affluent, white middle class family in 1949?

.@KezDugdale pulls no punches on #BREXIT/#LEXIT For #Remain? Vote to keep Kez on #ImACelebrity! #FBPE

Standard

Kezia Dugdale, I’m a Celebrity 2017 contestant, gives Cameron and Corbyn the old one, two over BREXIT …

I blame David Cameron for calling a referendum no one wanted in the first place but I also blame my party, the Labour Party, for a totally lazy and lacklustre Remain campaign that got us here.

And yes, I blame Jeremy Corbyn too for failing to use the power of his popular appeal to convince traditional Labour voters to see that Europe creates more good than harm.

Not only that, now the country has spoken, I’m embarrassed by the complete paucity of my party to say and do the right thing no matter how hard or unpopular that might be at first.

Seriously, Labour have just denied their own members a meaningful vote on the issue of Brexit at party conference – whatever happened to straight-talking, honest politics?

Make no mistake, Britain will be economically weaker and more isolated post-Brexit and the price of that will be felt by the working people of this country.

They’ll feel it as the dole queue gets bigger, as their employment rights disappear and as the price of food, fuel and services rise.

It might be fun and games to watch the Tories rip each other apart over Europe but Labour are equally culpable if we fail to fill the leadership vacuum.

I have long believed that Labour should be making a full-hearted, passionate case to retain full tariff-free access to the single market – the equivalent of membership. And we should accept all the conditions that come with that, including the free movement of labour.

The likelihood of that happening is disappearing by the day – but we should still try. It’s better to try and fail, than to fail to try.

And should we fail, the biggest test for Labour has yet to come because leaving the EU without access to the single market is not what I believe the country voted for.

If that happens then Labour must insist that the final Brexit deal goes to another public vote to be ratified or rejected. Ireland wouldn’t think twice about doing this.

If the UK Parliament and the other 27 nations of Europe get a final say on the deal, why shouldn’t we?

No one voted to be poorer but that’s what we’re all going to be.

Brexit is spiralling out of control and out of the interests of working people. That’s why we the people should take back control with a final vote on the deal.

From Corbyn to Cameron, we all share blame for Brexit shambles – but no single market access would mean we MUST vote again

.@KezDugdale pulls no punches on #BREXIT/#LEXIT For #Remain? Vote to keep Kez on #ImACeleb2017! #FBPE

Standard

Kezia Dugdale, I’m a Celebrity 2017 contestant, gives Cameron and Corbyn the old one, two over BREXIT …

I blame David Cameron for calling a referendum no one wanted in the first place but I also blame my party, the Labour Party, for a totally lazy and lacklustre Remain campaign that got us here.

And yes, I blame Jeremy Corbyn too for failing to use the power of his popular appeal to convince traditional Labour voters to see that Europe creates more good than harm.

Not only that, now the country has spoken, I’m embarrassed by the complete paucity of my party to say and do the right thing no matter how hard or unpopular that might be at first.

Seriously, Labour have just denied their own members a meaningful vote on the issue of Brexit at party conference – whatever happened to straight-talking, honest politics?

Make no mistake, Britain will be economically weaker and more isolated post-Brexit and the price of that will be felt by the working people of this country.

They’ll feel it as the dole queue gets bigger, as their employment rights disappear and as the price of food, fuel and services rise.

It might be fun and games to watch the Tories rip each other apart over Europe but Labour are equally culpable if we fail to fill the leadership vacuum.

I have long believed that Labour should be making a full-hearted, passionate case to retain full tariff-free access to the single market – the equivalent of membership. And we should accept all the conditions that come with that, including the free movement of labour.

The likelihood of that happening is disappearing by the day – but we should still try. It’s better to try and fail, than to fail to try.

And should we fail, the biggest test for Labour has yet to come because leaving the EU without access to the single market is not what I believe the country voted for.

If that happens then Labour must insist that the final Brexit deal goes to another public vote to be ratified or rejected. Ireland wouldn’t think twice about doing this.

If the UK Parliament and the other 27 nations of Europe get a final say on the deal, why shouldn’t we?

No one voted to be poorer but that’s what we’re all going to be.

Brexit is spiralling out of control and out of the interests of working people. That’s why we the people should take back control with a final vote on the deal.

From Corbyn to Cameron, we all share blame for Brexit shambles – but no single market access would mean we MUST vote again

.@KezDugdale pulls no punches on #BREXIT/#LEXIT For #Remain? Vote for Kez on #ImACelebrity2017! #FBPE

Standard

Kezia Dugdale, I’m a Celebrity 2017 contestant, gives Cameron and Corbyn the old one, two over BREXIT …

I blame David Cameron for calling a referendum no one wanted in the first place but I also blame my party, the Labour Party, for a totally lazy and lacklustre Remain campaign that got us here.

And yes, I blame Jeremy Corbyn too for failing to use the power of his popular appeal to convince traditional Labour voters to see that Europe creates more good than harm.

Not only that, now the country has spoken, I’m embarrassed by the complete paucity of my party to say and do the right thing no matter how hard or unpopular that might be at first.

Seriously, Labour have just denied their own members a meaningful vote on the issue of Brexit at party conference – whatever happened to straight-talking, honest politics?

Make no mistake, Britain will be economically weaker and more isolated post-Brexit and the price of that will be felt by the working people of this country.

They’ll feel it as the dole queue gets bigger, as their employment rights disappear and as the price of food, fuel and services rise.

It might be fun and games to watch the Tories rip each other apart over Europe but Labour are equally culpable if we fail to fill the leadership vacuum.

I have long believed that Labour should be making a full-hearted, passionate case to retain full tariff-free access to the single market – the equivalent of membership. And we should accept all the conditions that come with that, including the free movement of labour.

The likelihood of that happening is disappearing by the day – but we should still try. It’s better to try and fail, than to fail to try.

And should we fail, the biggest test for Labour has yet to come because leaving the EU without access to the single market is not what I believe the country voted for.

If that happens then Labour must insist that the final Brexit deal goes to another public vote to be ratified or rejected. Ireland wouldn’t think twice about doing this.

If the UK Parliament and the other 27 nations of Europe get a final say on the deal, why shouldn’t we?

No one voted to be poorer but that’s what we’re all going to be.

Brexit is spiralling out of control and out of the interests of working people. That’s why we the people should take back control with a final vote on the deal.

From Corbyn to Cameron, we all share blame for Brexit shambles – but no single market access would mean we MUST vote again

.@KezDugdale pulls no punches on #BREXIT/#LEXIT For #Remain? Vote to keep Kez on #ImACeleb! #FBPE

Standard

Kezia Dugdale, I’m a Celebrity 2017 contestant, gives Cameron and Corbyn the old one, two over BREXIT …

I blame David Cameron for calling a referendum no one wanted in the first place but I also blame my party, the Labour Party, for a totally lazy and lacklustre Remain campaign that got us here.

And yes, I blame Jeremy Corbyn too for failing to use the power of his popular appeal to convince traditional Labour voters to see that Europe creates more good than harm.

Not only that, now the country has spoken, I’m embarrassed by the complete paucity of my party to say and do the right thing no matter how hard or unpopular that might be at first.

Seriously, Labour have just denied their own members a meaningful vote on the issue of Brexit at party conference – whatever happened to straight-talking, honest politics?

Make no mistake, Britain will be economically weaker and more isolated post-Brexit and the price of that will be felt by the working people of this country.

They’ll feel it as the dole queue gets bigger, as their employment rights disappear and as the price of food, fuel and services rise.

It might be fun and games to watch the Tories rip each other apart over Europe but Labour are equally culpable if we fail to fill the leadership vacuum.

I have long believed that Labour should be making a full-hearted, passionate case to retain full tariff-free access to the single market – the equivalent of membership. And we should accept all the conditions that come with that, including the free movement of labour.

The likelihood of that happening is disappearing by the day – but we should still try. It’s better to try and fail, than to fail to try.

And should we fail, the biggest test for Labour has yet to come because leaving the EU without access to the single market is not what I believe the country voted for.

If that happens then Labour must insist that the final Brexit deal goes to another public vote to be ratified or rejected. Ireland wouldn’t think twice about doing this.

If the UK Parliament and the other 27 nations of Europe get a final say on the deal, why shouldn’t we?

No one voted to be poorer but that’s what we’re all going to be.

Brexit is spiralling out of control and out of the interests of working people. That’s why we the people should take back control with a final vote on the deal.

From Corbyn to Cameron, we all share blame for Brexit shambles – but no single market access would mean we MUST vote again

.@UKLabour’s 1970s throwback @JeremyCorbyn’s #LEXIT is Thatcherite Patrick Minford’s #BREXIT …

Standard
There is a degree of consensus among economists that a Brexit will make us worse off. The exception is recent work by Economists for Brexit. Their forecast of income gains from Brexit contrasts with all other economic analysis …
Oh, and Jeremy Corbyn says there are some positive aspects to leaving EU …

The possibility of the UK leaving the European Union (EU) has generated an unusual degree of consensus among economists. Acrimony and rancour surrounded debates around austerity and joining the euro, but analysis from the Bank of England to the OECD to academia has all concluded that Brexit would make us economically worse off. The disagreement is mainly over the degree of impoverishment (for example, Dhingra et al, 2016a; OECD, 2016; HM Treasury, 2016; PWC, 2016; NIESR, 2016).

Perhaps the one exception is the recent and much publicised work of ‘Economists for Brexit’ (2016). Since any coherent economic case for leaving the EU was been largely ‘missing in action’, it is refreshing to get some clarity over the Leave campaign’s vision of the UK’s post-Brexit economic arrangements.

The only modelling details provided by Economists for Brexit come from Professor Patrick Minford of Cardiff University (Minford, 2015; 2016; Minford et al, 2016). He argues that Brexit will raise the UK’s welfare by 4 per cent as a result of increased trade. So where exactly does he get his numbers from and why are they so different?

The ‘Britain Alone’ Policy: A hard political sell?

Minford’s policy recommendation is that following a vote for Brexit, the UK should not bother striking new trade deals but instead unilaterally abolish all its import tariffs (let’s call this policy ‘Britain Alone’). The UK would simply pay the tariffs imposed by other countries on UK exports. This is usually the worst-case scenario that other economists have examined.

This would be a pretty hard sell to UK citizens. Minford admits his model predicts that the policy would cause the ‘elimination’ of UK manufacturing and a large increase in wage inequality. But although he is relaxed about these outcomes, we suspect that voters in Port Talbot and elsewhere in Britain wouldn’t be so impressed.

Indeed, we know of no cases where an industrialised country has ever implemented full unilateral liberalisation – and for good reason. Persuading other countries to reduce their trade barriers is easier if you can also say you’re going to reduce your own as part of the deal. If we’re committed to go naked into the world economy, other countries are unlikely to follow suit voluntarily.

But putting political reality aside, standard economics does suggest some benefits from ‘unilateral trade disarmament’. For example, in our work back in March (Dhingra et al, 2016a, Table 2) we also look at what would happen if the UK eliminated all tariffs after Brexit. Looking solely at the short-run static effects, we find that if the UK trades under World Trade Organisation rules following Brexit, but maintains import tariffs, income per person falls by 2.6 per cent. Under the ‘Britain Alone’ scenario of unilateral liberalisation after Brexit, UK real incomes still fall by 2.3 per cent. In other words, there is a gain of only 0.3 percentage points from eliminating tariffs compared to just trading under WTO rules and the British people are still considerably worse off as a result of Brexit. The mystery is why Minford can generate effects thirteen times are large.

Method à la Minford

There are basically two steps in Minford’s analysis. First, he assumes that feed from EU trade protectionism, prices paid by UK consumers for manufacturing and agricultural goods would fall by 10 per cent under ‘Britain Alone’. Second, he feeds this fall in trade costs into his ‘Liverpool model’ to come up with a GDP increase of 4 per cent.

The 10 per cent number does not come from looking at the actual level of tariffs, which are only around 3 per cent. Rather, it comes from looking at the differences in guesstimated producer price levels between the UK and some other countries using data that is 14 years out of date, and arguing that these higher prices are entirely due to EU trade barriers.

This is really far-fetched. Cross-country price differences are due to a number of factors, particularly different tastes and quality. For example, say Europeans put a higher premium on high-quality clothing compared with Americans. It will look like Europeans are paying more for their clothes, but in reality, the higher average prices simply reflect a different mix of purchases (Deaton, 2014). He ends up comparing apples with a bunch of Boris Johnson shaped bananas across countries.

Minford misunderstands the nature of regulations and product standards. The idea of the Single Market is to have common rules so that a product sold in one EU country can also be sold in any other. If there are 28 different sets of rules governing the sale of a good, it will be harder to sell these products across all EU countries. Minford sees the harmonisation of regulations as a pernicious plot by vested interests to raise prices. But playing by a common set of rules is what has helped increase trade and competition in the Single Market.

It is true that tougher European standards for product safety and quality keep out some trade. For example, if after Brexit the UK reduced the levels of safety in children’s toys to those sold in the Chinese mainland, the average price of children’s toys would surely fall. But this is because the safety standards would deteriorate – quality adjusted prices would not change much. It is hard to believe that parents would welcome this kind of saving.

How Minford defies the laws of gravity

Trade flows between nations increase as the economic size and average wealth of each country’s grows, and decrease with rising costs of trade between them caused by import tariffs, transport costs and other trade barriers. This is an empirical regularity called the ‘gravity’ relationship and it is the statistical bedrock of modern trade models.

Minford uses a 1970s style trade model in which all firms in an industry everywhere in the world produce the same goods and competition is perfect. There is no product differentiation – a German-made car is identical to a Chinese-made car. Importantly, trade does not follow the gravity equation – everyone simply buys from the lowest cost producer.

As a consequence, after Brexit, the UK does not care about the tariff barriers exporters face in accessing the EU Single Market as they can sell as much as they like anywhere in the world. The fact that France is closer than Fiji essentially makes no difference in the Minford world: there is just one fictional world market into which all goods can be effortlessly sold.

If this sounds crazy, that’s because it is crazy. In reality, the UK will still continue to trade extensively with the EU as our closest geographical neighbours. It’s just that the higher trade barriers mean that we will do less of it.

Comparing Minford’s approach with modern trade models

Modern trade models like the one we use in Dhingra et al (2016) are ‘computable general equilibrium models’ like Minford’s. But they build in the gravity relationship, so do not have the extreme magnifying force of welfare gains from unilateral trade liberalisation. This is why we find that his ‘Britain Alone’ policy only generates modest offsets to the losses of trade with our main partners.

All models simplify. But when the simplifications imply that the EU has created no new trade, despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary (e.g. Magee, 2008; HM Treasury, 2016), it is the theory that must go back to the drawing board, not the data.

Our work and that of the other economic studies relies on data that show what has actually happened to trade after joining the EU, rather than just asserting what should happen in a theoretically dubious model. Minford’s style of work was popular in some quarters in the 1970s. In those days, economics did not need to be well-grounded in facts and data, and could rely on highly simplified theories. The revolution in recent years has been the explosion of data and empirical techniques for its analysis.

Minford’s attitude seems to be that if empirical work is imperfect, it should be ignored. Of course there are issues with all empirical work. Some of these problems might mean we over-estimate the EU’s effect on trade and foreign investment; some might mean we under-estimate it. But to take the position that since no econometric work can be perfect, all inconvenient facts should be ignored is poor scholarship which leads to bad policy advice.

Summing up

Alternative economic models have different advantages and drawbacks and are suited for different purposes. Unfortunately, Minford’s model is inconsistent with two basic facts about international trade: first, that trade satisfies the gravity equation; and second, that the EU has been trade-creating, not simply a tool for trade diversion.

This implies that the model will give very unreliable predictions of the consequences of Brexit for trade and living standards. When we analyse the same scenario considered by Minford using a more realistic assessment of how UK ‘unilateral trade liberalisation’ could actually work, we find (alongside just about everyone else) that Brexit still leads to a decline in UK living standards.

Minford’s ‘Liverpool model’ with its 1970s vintage of perfect markets everywhere has a bad track record when it comes to policy analysis. For example, in 1997 the model predicted that the proposed national minimum wage would mean millions more unemployed. Subsequent evaluations of the minimum wage have shown that the actual effect was rather less – zero, in fact (Metcalf, 2008).

Like the other 1970s hit, we Won’t Get Fooled Again.

This article is based on the authors’ paper Economists for Brexit: A Critique, and was originally published on the LSE Business Review and the BPP.

Thomas Sampson is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at LSE. He holds a PhD in Economics from Harvard University and an MSc in Econometrics and Mathematical Economics (with distinction) from LSE. He has worked as a consultant to the World Bank, a fellow of the Bank of Papua New Guinea and other organisations. He has published papers in a number of leading academic journals. His research interests are in international trade, growth and development.

Swati Dhingra is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Economics at LSE. Her work has been published in top economic journals including The American Economic Review. She is Associate Editor of the Journal of International Economics, and was awarded the FIW Young Economist Award and the Chair Jacquemin Award by the European Trade Study Group for her work on firms and globalisation. Swati is a member of the Globalisation group at the LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance, and has made regular contributions to work on economic policy.

Gianmarco Ottaviano is Professor of Economics at LSE and an associate at LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance Trade Research Programme. His research interests include international trade, multinationals, economic integration, immigration and economic geography. He holds a PhD in Economics from the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium.

John Van Reenen is a Professor in the Department of Economics and Director of LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance. He received the European Economic Association’s Yrjö Jahnsson Award In 2009 (jointly with Fabrizio Zilibotti), as the best economist in Europe under the age of 45. In 2011 he was awarded the Arrow Prize for the best paper in the field of health economics. His research focuses on the causes and consequences of innovation, the measurement of management practices and their impact on productivity across firms and countries.

Does @JeremyCorbyn still feel @UKLabour there are positives to #BREXIT/#LEXIT? Part Nineteen

Standard
Sadiq Khan calls for urgent action to stop drain of European builders …
“The Mayor of London, together with the property industry, on Monday made a last-ditch plea asking Chancellor Philip Hammond to take emergency action on housebuilding, as fears about the impact of Brexit on recruitment heighten.

Sadiq Khan said “housebuilders are increasingly worried” that leaving the bloc could make the capital’s housing crisis worse, with a number of companies concerned about access to some 100,000 construction workers from the European Union.

He added that losing skilled workers could be “catastrophic” for building plans.

As Hammond prepares for his November 22 Budget, Khan called for:

Devolution of new powers to London, such as greater control over public land, and allowing councils to borrow to invest in homes;

A massive increase in government funding for homebuilding and infrastructure;

Guarantees of the rights of EU nationals living in London.

The British Property Federation, which counts listed builders British Land and Capital & Counties as members, urged the government urgently to make a deal on EU workers’ rights to be here, while the Home Builders Federation warned reducing the supply of workers “could threaten” future building.

Jon Di-Stefano, chief executive of Telford Homes, said: “I am pleased that the Mayor recognises the urgency required.”

London builder Mount Anvil also supported the plea.

The building industry is also facing falling consumer confidence and flagging prices since the Brexit vote.

Property website Rightmove on Monday said more than a third of homeowners trying to sell their house have been forced to reduce their asking price, with the number of price cuts at their highest level since 2012.”

Sadiq Khan calls for urgent action to stop drain of European builders