In 1897, a newspaper mistakenly reported that the novelist known as Mark Twain was dead. He replied that the report of his death was an exaggeration.
This weekend, at least two comment writers have argued that the Labour Party is either dead or at least in serious trouble. I'm not sure that I find either one of them convincing.
Dominic Sandbrook reflects on how different the Labour Party of today is from the one which was launched in 1900. He adds that:
No party has a divine right to exist.
Exactly 100 years ago, the Liberals were the biggest game in town. They
had been in power for ten years. ... But then, when the
Liberals fell from power, they never stopped falling. Within ten years,
they went from being the party of government to the third party.
I could make many comments here. First, we cannot know for certain what was in the minds of the founders of the Labour Party. (As an aside, what was founded in 1900 was not strictly the Labour Party, but rather the Labour Representation Committee. It was a loose association of interest groups, which did not call itself the Labour Party until 1906, and which did not have its own membership until 1918.)
Maybe the early members of the Labour Party would have admired Jeremy Corbyn, or maybe not. I will not pretend to know, although I will observe the fact that the first Labour government expressed support for the government of Stalin, even though Stalin was unelected.
Second, the fall from grace of the Liberal Party resulted from several factors, perhaps the most important of which was a split in the party at the 1918 general election. There has been speculation in the press recently that many Labour MPs who dislike Jeremy Corbyn might break away from the party, and I will comment on that when it happens.
Sandbrook notes that Mr Corbyn represents a political tradition that has never come close to winning power in this country, but my third point has to be that every Labour government has to some extent been guilty of great cruelty and injustice. The warmongering governments led by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are perhaps the worst examples of this. Cruelty may win elections, but it is hardly a good advertisement for what passes as mainstream politics.
By contrast, Peter Hitchens argues that:
Labour cannot win an Election whoever leads it. It is dead in Scotland and the South of England.
At the most recent local elections in Scotland, in 2012, the Labour Party won 394 seats - almost as many as the Scottish National Party, and more than double the number won by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats put together. I don't call that dead.
The success of the main opposition party depends in large part on the popularity of the party in government, and also to some extent on the popularity of the third party. If a general election were to be called any time soon, then I would expect the Conservatives to retain power, but that situation may change.
Even if - as currently looks likely - the Conservatives retain power at the next general election, then the Labour Party could still emerge with more than two hundred seats, making it easily the second largest party in the House of Commons. Jeremy Corbyn would by then be in his seventies, and would be unlikely to want to continue leading his party much longer. It is too early to say who might emerge to replace him as leader, and so I will continue to regard all obituaries of the Labour Party as premature.
Related previous posts include:
The murder of Jeremy Corbyn
Sunday 25 September 2016
Wednesday 14 September 2016
The economics of meat consumption
I am happy to eat meat, although I accept that many people choose not to. Some people consider a meat-free diet to be more healthy, while some people object to the methods used to slaughter animals which are intended for meat.
I will not address the point about the health benefits of either eating or not eating meat, as there is a lot of conflicting evidence out there. I admit that some slaughter houses do not follow the correct procedure when killing animals, and I hope those slaughter houses are identified and suitably punished.
We are often told that meat consumption is uneconomical, and this is the point I wish to address here. We are sometimes told that a certain quantity of grain is required to produce a pound of beef, and likewise a certain amount of water.
These figures are often suspect, and they also appear to overlook the other benefits of rearing livestock. Cows and goats provide milk as well as meat. Dairy farms require a number of female animals to provide the milk, as well as at least one male for the purpose of breeding. However male as well as female animals will be born to the breeding stock, and these male animals can reasonably be reared for their meat.
Other benefits of livestock rearing are that sheep produce wool as well as meat, and that the rearing of sheep and cattle - both of which eat grass - helps to safeguard our green pasture land. If Britain's farmers did not rear cattle and sheep, then I would expect a lot of our green fields to be ploughed up. Then again, sheep in this country often graze on hillsides which would not be easily ploughed.
Several years ago, I read an account of how a charity had helped a woman in Lesotho. She had just one acre of land with poor quality soil with which to feed herself and her children. She also suffered from tuberculosis.
The charity supplied her with three goats. If we follow vegetarian logic, then the charity had made her life harder. After all, she now had to feed not only herself and her children from her land, but also the goats.
The gift of the three goats did however make her life much better. The goats provided milk to drink, and also manure with which to improve the soil. The woman and her children enjoyed a diet with more protein, which resulted in her tuberculosis clearing up. She even had some surplus milk which she could sell.
It appears that there is a lot to be said for livestock farming, and I for one do not intend to give up eating meat any time soon.
I will not address the point about the health benefits of either eating or not eating meat, as there is a lot of conflicting evidence out there. I admit that some slaughter houses do not follow the correct procedure when killing animals, and I hope those slaughter houses are identified and suitably punished.
We are often told that meat consumption is uneconomical, and this is the point I wish to address here. We are sometimes told that a certain quantity of grain is required to produce a pound of beef, and likewise a certain amount of water.
These figures are often suspect, and they also appear to overlook the other benefits of rearing livestock. Cows and goats provide milk as well as meat. Dairy farms require a number of female animals to provide the milk, as well as at least one male for the purpose of breeding. However male as well as female animals will be born to the breeding stock, and these male animals can reasonably be reared for their meat.
Other benefits of livestock rearing are that sheep produce wool as well as meat, and that the rearing of sheep and cattle - both of which eat grass - helps to safeguard our green pasture land. If Britain's farmers did not rear cattle and sheep, then I would expect a lot of our green fields to be ploughed up. Then again, sheep in this country often graze on hillsides which would not be easily ploughed.
Several years ago, I read an account of how a charity had helped a woman in Lesotho. She had just one acre of land with poor quality soil with which to feed herself and her children. She also suffered from tuberculosis.
The charity supplied her with three goats. If we follow vegetarian logic, then the charity had made her life harder. After all, she now had to feed not only herself and her children from her land, but also the goats.
The gift of the three goats did however make her life much better. The goats provided milk to drink, and also manure with which to improve the soil. The woman and her children enjoyed a diet with more protein, which resulted in her tuberculosis clearing up. She even had some surplus milk which she could sell.
It appears that there is a lot to be said for livestock farming, and I for one do not intend to give up eating meat any time soon.
Saturday 10 September 2016
Interest rates at a historic low
As I write, interest rates in the United Kingdom have been cut to the very low level of just one quarter of one percent. At least one news outlet is arguing that this is intended to help the economy through the post-referendum turmoil.
I am not aware of any statistical evidence to back up the widely held belief that low interest rates benefit the economy, but if anyone knows of such evidence then comments are welcome.
Many years ago I saw a famous businessman being interviewed on television. Asked what retailers wanted, he replied that they wanted an interest rate cut. On the one hand it is true that an interest rate cut allows people with mortgages to spend more money in the High Street, but it also reduces the spending power of people with savings.
I wonder why the famous businessman did not ask for a tax cut instead. Cutting taxes would presumably leave at least some taxpayers with more money to spend in the High Street. Why did he not ask for a cut in the price of bus fares? Lower prices for bus fares would leave bus travellers with more money to spend in the High Street.
Then again, why did the famous businessman not ask for a cut in the prices charged by High Street stores? If one High Street store cuts its prices, then presumably its customers have more money to spend in the shop next door - or am I missing something?
Maybe interest rate cuts are just an easy target. Bus companies can cut the price of bus fares, but they still need revenue to pay for the cost of vehicle maintenance, staff wages, and so on. By contrast, it is not clear to most people what interest rates actually pay for. Some of the money is paid out to savers, but as a saver myself I know that interest received is rarely more than a pittance.
Then again, it does not make sense to get sidetracked. I have yet to see any serious evidence that low interest rates necessarily benefit an economy, or that high interest rates necessarily harm an economy.
Related previous posts include:
Understanding interest rates
Interest rates, inflation, and jobs
I am not aware of any statistical evidence to back up the widely held belief that low interest rates benefit the economy, but if anyone knows of such evidence then comments are welcome.
Many years ago I saw a famous businessman being interviewed on television. Asked what retailers wanted, he replied that they wanted an interest rate cut. On the one hand it is true that an interest rate cut allows people with mortgages to spend more money in the High Street, but it also reduces the spending power of people with savings.
I wonder why the famous businessman did not ask for a tax cut instead. Cutting taxes would presumably leave at least some taxpayers with more money to spend in the High Street. Why did he not ask for a cut in the price of bus fares? Lower prices for bus fares would leave bus travellers with more money to spend in the High Street.
Then again, why did the famous businessman not ask for a cut in the prices charged by High Street stores? If one High Street store cuts its prices, then presumably its customers have more money to spend in the shop next door - or am I missing something?
Maybe interest rate cuts are just an easy target. Bus companies can cut the price of bus fares, but they still need revenue to pay for the cost of vehicle maintenance, staff wages, and so on. By contrast, it is not clear to most people what interest rates actually pay for. Some of the money is paid out to savers, but as a saver myself I know that interest received is rarely more than a pittance.
Then again, it does not make sense to get sidetracked. I have yet to see any serious evidence that low interest rates necessarily benefit an economy, or that high interest rates necessarily harm an economy.
Related previous posts include:
Understanding interest rates
Interest rates, inflation, and jobs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)