Curious your slouching take on the interview with Herman Daly in today's NYT:
"Growth is the be-all and end-all of mainstream economic and political thinking. Without a continually rising G.D.P., we’re told, we risk social instability, declining standards of living and pretty much any hope of progress. But what about the counterintuitive possibility that our current pursuit of growth, rabid as it is and causing such great ecological harm, might be incurring more costs than gains? That possibility — that prioritizing growth is ultimately a losing game — is one that the lauded economist Herman Daly..."
My view: growth, properly defined, makes solving a **lot** of other problems easier. The live issues are always about what other objectives should be sacrificed for faster growth, and Daly is not very good at posing that question sensibly...
"And they engage in complicated symbolic interactions that have the emergent effect of distributing status and power and coordinating the seven-billion person division of labor of today’s economy."
My favourite definition of government ever. I may have to get this on a mug or something.
(As a UK civil servant this past week the complicated symbolic interactions have been *interesting*, in ways that remind you why we should all strive to be as boring as possible.)
The short version is that you can only be PM if you command a majority in the Commons. With the current Conservative majority, whoever commands the Conservative party will become PM - and Johnson is no longer in a position to control that process, and by the current rules of his party is not allowed to stand in this leadership contest. The party (or strictly speaking the 1922 committee within the party) could change those rules, but it's hardly friendly to him at the moment and the Tories are notoriously ruthless about leaving behind anyone they see as a liability.
Someone may have to go in with a crowbar to prise his fingers off the desk one by one when the time comes, but he'll be illegally squatting in No.10 once there's a new PM and at that point the police would extract him if necessary.
The only other question is whether he'll be ousted from his 'caretaker' role before the leadership contest finishes. If he won't relinquish power willingly, the Tories can't take it back from him directly - but they could back a Labour-introduced vote of no confidence in the government. That would lead to a general election, though, and they'd be fighting it in an atrocious mess, so it seems more likely that they'll hold their collective noses and put up with him sniping from the sidelines and just try to get the contest over as quickly as possible.
The other thing that could theoretically happen would be a further mass resignation from the new Cabinet, or a continued inability to appoint new Ministers, leading to a situation where the government effectively ceased to function (not just did nothing new or controversial which in the current context is pretty bad in itself).
If the situation got difficult enough and there was a viable alternative caretaker who could form a government (perhaps someone non-threatening like Dominic Raab), then the Queen could theoretically step in and ask that person to form a government instead. I can't stress enough how little she'd want to get involved, however, after a lifetime of dodging political controversy whenever possible.
We're not far now from the moment Parliament rises for summer recess (21 July) when government business gets lighter and MPs go back to their constituencies - everyone involved will be counting down the days.
I have no doubt that Johnson would try for PM again in future if he had a chance, but given how spectacularly this implosion has gone down - and given that the Covid Inquiry is slowly creaking off the ground and is unlikely to be painting him in a great light - it does seem improbable that the Tories will stick their hands back in the crocodile's mouth.
What more could he do to help Labour than he's already done? I just don't think that's a credible threat he can make.
It's hard to see how the Tories avoid heading into an enormously messy and toxic leadership election with the various wings of the party breaking away and sniping at each other. Johnson stirring the pot from No.10 is a terrible outcome for them because it gives him a prominent platform to let out all those resentments and grudges he's been building up, but Johnson back in charge would be (a) hideously embarrassing because they'd have gone through all this for nothing and (b) as he has now repeatedly demonstrated, a liability not an asset.
Besides, there are now a dozen or more people with a real, tangible, shot at the hot seat, each of whom is gathering supporters and most of whom loathe and distrust him. Johnson can't even find a full roster of ministers at the moment. He doesn't have the numbers.
His routes to a comeback:
1) convince the 1922 committee to change the rules so that he can stand in this leadership election - would have to happen by Monday when the contest rules are announced. Deeply improbable - the chair of the committee was one of the people last week telling him he had to go.
2) leave without burning his credit much further, watch his successor call an election to get themselves an electoral mandate and be absolutely crushed, then go back round his former supporters when the Tories are out of government and convince them that he's the only one who can take them back to electoral victory, stand in the post-defeat leadership election once the party is out of power, then win back over the voters at the next opportunity. Possible, but it's a long road there from here and there are a lot of moments where it could go wrong for him, particularly as the Covid Inquiry is likely to unfold along the same 5-7 year timeframe.
I wonder why we do not start actively recruiting highly skilled and talented (mainly young) people to come here to study and work. Is Biden pushing against the legal limits of H1B visas?
"We’re Getting an Omicron-Optimized Booster Many Months too Late"
Let's put this in the worst possible way. Under Trump we got vaccines optimized for the most common disease variant in 10 months. Under Biden we got one booster optimized for and extinct variant in 16 months. And no explanation of why!
Curious your slouching take on the interview with Herman Daly in today's NYT:
"Growth is the be-all and end-all of mainstream economic and political thinking. Without a continually rising G.D.P., we’re told, we risk social instability, declining standards of living and pretty much any hope of progress. But what about the counterintuitive possibility that our current pursuit of growth, rabid as it is and causing such great ecological harm, might be incurring more costs than gains? That possibility — that prioritizing growth is ultimately a losing game — is one that the lauded economist Herman Daly..."
My view: growth, properly defined, makes solving a **lot** of other problems easier. The live issues are always about what other objectives should be sacrificed for faster growth, and Daly is not very good at posing that question sensibly...
"And they engage in complicated symbolic interactions that have the emergent effect of distributing status and power and coordinating the seven-billion person division of labor of today’s economy."
My favourite definition of government ever. I may have to get this on a mug or something.
(As a UK civil servant this past week the complicated symbolic interactions have been *interesting*, in ways that remind you why we should all strive to be as boring as possible.)
Thanks...
Now is he really gone? Or just making a tactical retreat out of the Conservative Party HQ and into No. 10 as his final Fortress of Solitude?
David Allen Green, who I'm sure has forgotten more about the UK constitution than I've ever managed to learn, makes a convincing case that matters are now out of Johnson's hands: https://davidallengreen.com/2022/07/has-johnson-actually-resigned-and-if-so-can-he-renege-on-that-resignation/
The short version is that you can only be PM if you command a majority in the Commons. With the current Conservative majority, whoever commands the Conservative party will become PM - and Johnson is no longer in a position to control that process, and by the current rules of his party is not allowed to stand in this leadership contest. The party (or strictly speaking the 1922 committee within the party) could change those rules, but it's hardly friendly to him at the moment and the Tories are notoriously ruthless about leaving behind anyone they see as a liability.
Someone may have to go in with a crowbar to prise his fingers off the desk one by one when the time comes, but he'll be illegally squatting in No.10 once there's a new PM and at that point the police would extract him if necessary.
The only other question is whether he'll be ousted from his 'caretaker' role before the leadership contest finishes. If he won't relinquish power willingly, the Tories can't take it back from him directly - but they could back a Labour-introduced vote of no confidence in the government. That would lead to a general election, though, and they'd be fighting it in an atrocious mess, so it seems more likely that they'll hold their collective noses and put up with him sniping from the sidelines and just try to get the contest over as quickly as possible.
The other thing that could theoretically happen would be a further mass resignation from the new Cabinet, or a continued inability to appoint new Ministers, leading to a situation where the government effectively ceased to function (not just did nothing new or controversial which in the current context is pretty bad in itself).
If the situation got difficult enough and there was a viable alternative caretaker who could form a government (perhaps someone non-threatening like Dominic Raab), then the Queen could theoretically step in and ask that person to form a government instead. I can't stress enough how little she'd want to get involved, however, after a lifetime of dodging political controversy whenever possible.
We're not far now from the moment Parliament rises for summer recess (21 July) when government business gets lighter and MPs go back to their constituencies - everyone involved will be counting down the days.
I have no doubt that Johnson would try for PM again in future if he had a chance, but given how spectacularly this implosion has gone down - and given that the Covid Inquiry is slowly creaking off the ground and is unlikely to be painting him in a great light - it does seem improbable that the Tories will stick their hands back in the crocodile's mouth.
But if Johnson says: leave me in #10, or I'll make sure Labour gets a big majority in the next election, do the Conservatives blink?
What more could he do to help Labour than he's already done? I just don't think that's a credible threat he can make.
It's hard to see how the Tories avoid heading into an enormously messy and toxic leadership election with the various wings of the party breaking away and sniping at each other. Johnson stirring the pot from No.10 is a terrible outcome for them because it gives him a prominent platform to let out all those resentments and grudges he's been building up, but Johnson back in charge would be (a) hideously embarrassing because they'd have gone through all this for nothing and (b) as he has now repeatedly demonstrated, a liability not an asset.
Besides, there are now a dozen or more people with a real, tangible, shot at the hot seat, each of whom is gathering supporters and most of whom loathe and distrust him. Johnson can't even find a full roster of ministers at the moment. He doesn't have the numbers.
His routes to a comeback:
1) convince the 1922 committee to change the rules so that he can stand in this leadership election - would have to happen by Monday when the contest rules are announced. Deeply improbable - the chair of the committee was one of the people last week telling him he had to go.
2) leave without burning his credit much further, watch his successor call an election to get themselves an electoral mandate and be absolutely crushed, then go back round his former supporters when the Tories are out of government and convince them that he's the only one who can take them back to electoral victory, stand in the post-defeat leadership election once the party is out of power, then win back over the voters at the next opportunity. Possible, but it's a long road there from here and there are a lot of moments where it could go wrong for him, particularly as the Covid Inquiry is likely to unfold along the same 5-7 year timeframe.
One Image
I wonder why we do not start actively recruiting highly skilled and talented (mainly young) people to come here to study and work. Is Biden pushing against the legal limits of H1B visas?
"the Federal Reserve realised that it was out of firepower "
No, it just did not want to use the firepower (QE) it had. And to this day we still do not know why.
"We’re Getting an Omicron-Optimized Booster Many Months too Late"
Let's put this in the worst possible way. Under Trump we got vaccines optimized for the most common disease variant in 10 months. Under Biden we got one booster optimized for and extinct variant in 16 months. And no explanation of why!