It’s an interesting definition

And this brings us back to “My hero is Roosevelt” Johnson and his chancellor. Having known all his predecessors since Reginald Maudling in the early 1960s – with the exception of Sajid Javid, who was sacked by the ruthless Johnson even before he had familiarised himself with the corridors of power

Being familiar with the corridors of power is defined as being personally known to William Keegan. Not wholly sure that’s the definition I would use myself.

10 thoughts on “It’s an interesting definition”

  1. Sajid Javid was appointed Economic Secretary to the Treasury in 2012, then Financial secretary to the Treasury until he was promoted to Secretary of state for Culture Media and Sport, then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (not quite a Treasury job), the Home Secretary before Chancellor of the Exchequer, his natural destination.
    How long does it take someone to become familiarised with a corridor?
    Keegan claims he knew George Osborne personally but not his No. 2 in the Treasury – what an appalling snob! Or was it racism?

  2. I know it’s the Graudian, but the BTL comments are piss poor. Few, if any, any sense of perspective and still hark back to the “Evil Party” line.

    Sad twats.

  3. I know it’s the Graudian, but the BTL comments are piss poor. Few, if any, any sense of perspective and still hark back to the “Evil Party” line.

    Have they called Javid a coconut yet?

    Sad twats

    More racist than Bernard Manning on the whole too. Manning just told jokes, these cunts believe it.

  4. “Can’t afford a no-deal Brexit”.

    Tim, can you enlighten us why there’s this collective madness that claims that as soon as we leave the clutches of the EU we will voluntarily choose to start shooting ourselves in the face and make it more expensive to buy foreign goods.

  5. Time for a 95% treason tax on all remainiac scum. 95 % of everything –capital/ assets and income.

    The garbage have been talking doom long enough –time some came their way.

  6. +1, RlJ. I had to go read the article is some detail to see if he was actually talking about Boris.

  7. @jgh

    I’m more suspicious the “collective madness” is the fact that politicians are naturally minded to impose tariffs, rather than it being mad to imagine politicians would ever do such a thing.

    And to be fair, plenty of reasons to think politicians are indeed minded to do this:

    – empirically politicians all round the world do it, so why expect ours to differ?
    – olde-style mercantilism influencing politicians’ understanding of economic philosophy,
    – visible concentration of losses versus invisible, wide spread of gains from free trade (hence “helping British firms have a level playing field against unfair competition from abroad” and “protecting British jobs” as arguments against total free trade even if it prevents new jobs being created here that may have more than counterbalanced the closures)
    – as a negotiating point, if you want other countries to cut tariffs and quotas on UK produce (which as a politician you do, regardless of whether as an economist you think that’s primarily them shooting their own feet, but you have to pay attention to exporters in your marginal constituencies who are losing orders and jobs as a result of foreign tariffs) then you feel you need to be able to offer something as a quid pro quo. Unilateral free traders have less power to say “stop quota-ing our steel or your chickens get one back” if they’re committee to no quotas and no tariffs.
    – Non-economic trade objectives such as environmental and human rights agendas (I think even ASI wonks would admit this is justifiable to some extent, produce of slave labour or massively and irreparably environmentally damaging processes surely ought to be discouraged in the global trading system, though politicians and their “level playing field” will want the line drawn in a very different place) or protecting “strategic” industries (in principle that might be defence, aerospace, maybe food, but again politicians will have an ever-widening scope and “strategic” may well mean “electorally important” rather than “geopolitically significant”).

    I’m not saying those are all strong reasons to oppose unilateral free trade, though perhaps some of them are to an extent, but I am saying there are reasons to expect politicians to think like this. A UK government committed to unilateral free trade would flabber my gast I’m afraid, however strong you may find the logical arguments in its favour.

  8. “his frightful lieutenant Dominic Cummings”

    Love him or loathe him, Cummings has a bead on the Establishment and has shown he is fully prepared to use ..percussive maintenance… on the System, so he would rightfully frighten a lot of people in his position. 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *