UKC

I never did understand how Nigel Lawson merited being given a lordship. Mainly due to his time at the height of the worst bank of England base-rates and his mismanagement of the British economy. Lordships obviously come as a bonus when you have the right friendships, and have nothing to do with judging how good you have been in your job.
So how stupid are the media in bothering to give the portly Lawson air time, when he has the gall to pronounce on how we will have a better economy in leaving the EU. Those of us who lived through the terrible times of high inflation and high interest rates will see this as a sign that we should vote to stay in the EU, if this failed economist/chancellor advocates getting out.

In reply to veteye:

Actually, he's not so portly these days but he certainly does talk some crap.

Whatever I thought of his politics back when he was chancellor, I don't recall immediately noticing that he was clinically stupid every time he opened his mouth.

Not sure whether that says more about him now or me then.

In reply to veteye:

Well Lawson did study PPE (politics, philosophy and economics) at university, and served as both financial secretary to the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer. Am I to assume that your qualifications to pronounce on economics are greater than those?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


He was pretty stupid then, actually. I found him terrifying for that reason at the time. Sadly, all my worst fears (which at first seemed a bit paranoid) were borne out.

In reply to John2:

Yes, but PPE isn't an economics degree. I don't know whether he did, but he might only have done one year of economics. To be fair he did get a first but he has certainly been at the stupid pills at some point given his views on, well, pretty much anything really.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

' I don't know whether he did, but he might only have done one year of economics'

I am floored by he depth of your knowledge.

In reply to veteye:

I agree. A believer in fixed exchange rates (the earth is flat, anyone?) that cost the country billions. And now a desparate clinger to any form of influence or authority.

Genetically fragrant though.

In reply to John2:

I'm almost certain it didn't include any modules on climatology but that doesn't seem to inhibit him from spouting poorly informed drivel about climate change. Given his form on that front, im disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on any other topic.

In reply to JJL:

>A believer in fixed exchange rates (the earth is flat, anyone?) that cost the country billions

I thought the tories only cared about money; their own money and other peoples money (and how to make other peoples money their own). Well, he's certainly put that stereo type to rest.

Obviously if he had any decency, he would have got a nice non exec job at an arms or tobacco company and kept his head down. But, I suppose he's a cheap rent a quote and he likes basking in the glow of his own self importance.

There is something deeply disturbing about old tories of the thatcher era. And modern tories as well, come to think of it.

In reply to dread-i:

Well, I have always voted Liberal, or whatever is closest to that of the time.

But I wouldn't tar all tories with the same brush, nor all whigs, nor the (newfangled) labour

In reply to John2:


What I mean is it's possible to get by only doing one year of economics which, rather obviously, doesn't make it an economics degree. I suspect he gave rather more attention to the politics


I get that a lot.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

The trouble with you Bremainers or whatever you're called is that you do not seem to feel the need to advance any actual arguments - you just seem to derive satisfaction from making insulting remarks about people whom you don't like.

It might be said that Lawson has had the humility to learn how mistaken his former adherence to the Exchange Rate Mechanism (the putative forerunner to the adoption of the euro) was, and that this change of heart has led him to question the validity of the European project as a whole. Once he was a European enthusiast, but experience has led him to change his mind.

In reply to veteye:


Well he does have the very desirable Nigella as a daughter. That's got to be worth at least a Lordship!

In reply to John2:


If Nigel Lawson's PPE at Oxford plus totally screwing up the economy qualifies him as an economist then I guess Jeremy Hunt's PPE at Oxfrod plus totally screwing up the NHS qualifies him as a brain surgeon.

In reply to John2:


I hadn't even mentioned his views on Europe. He's now best known for his ramblings on climate change.

In reply to veteye:

On the bright side, if he is talking economics, he is not 'educating' us on climate change.

In reply to Gone for good:

I must be genetically fragrant as well according to JJL, (My daughter fits a similar set of parameters as Nigella, but is considerably younger; but then I may be a little biased, although others seem to agree.) therefore when do I get my lordship?

In reply to The New NickB:

Sadly he is also joined by another failed ex-Tory Chancellor of the grey and double-chinned variety. I think that the latter has not pronounced on the climate, but I may be wrong.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Lawson was Chancellor for six years. I don't know what you consider would consider being 'qualified as an economist' - but I think that will do for me.

(Don't misunderstand me: I am not claiming he's 'correct' on economic issues - which economist is? - but how you view that is a political question as much as it is an 'economic' one.)

In reply to veteye:


I'm not defending Lawson's political or economical views.

However, in view of your post, I wonder how you can describe yourself as 'Pretty academic in nature.'

Can we expect some forensic analysis? Or are you just ranting?

That's a serious question (and the EU referendum is a serious issue.)

Thanks.

In reply to veteye:

I assume you mean 'Lord Lamont', who was also spouting his economic wisdom today. For those who don't know him, were too young to remember etc etc, here he is, another 'monster from the deep' ... (I'm tempted to use that wonderful tagline for Jaws II: 'Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water ...'):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35702830

I feel very entitled to be as rude as I like about this creepy gentleman, as I once went to a big Anglo-Italian do in London where he was the guest speaker, and he had apparently decided it would be a great idea to take the piss out of the Italians. I have never ever heard a speech received in such a stony silence. Afterwards, he was completely shunned by everyone present. What was so stunning was that a senior government minister was so blinkered by his anti-European views that he had no idea how to behave, or that he had misbehaved.

In reply to veteye:

Well he has some pedigree;

His father was the owner of a commodity-trading firm in the City of London.
His mother was also from a prosperous family of stockbrokers.
National Service as a Royal Navy officer
Began his career as a journalist at the Financial Times
Progressed to the positions of City editor of The Sunday Telegraph
Appointed to the post of Financial Secretary to the Treasury
Appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer
Changed the budget deficit from £10.5 billion (3.7% of GDP) in 1983 to a budget surplus of £3.9 billion in 1988 and £4.1 billion in 1989.
Reduced the basic rate of tax from 30% in 1983 to 25% by 1988. The top rate of tax also came down from 60% to 40% in 1988
Chairman of Central Europe Trust Company Ltd (CET)
Chairman of Oxford Investment Partner

Any of his critics above care to pitch their CV against his?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I'm an engineer, if I went into politics and my pals in the Tory party made me Secretary of State for Health for 6 years I wouldn't be qualified to practice medicine.

What's more if someone invented a drug that cured cancer during the 6 years while I was Secretary of State for Health and as a result hospital death rates fell 30% I still wouldn't be qualified to practice medicine.

In reply to JJL:

What the f*ck?

In reply to Big Ger:

I'll concede that the general view of Lawson was that he was a pretty competent chancellor, given the turbulent times we're talking about. There was talk of the 'Lawson miracle' and he was also prepared to stand up to Thatcher when he disagreed with her.

None of which makes him an economist and the main qulification for being a successful chancellor is luck . Don't forget how Gordon Brown 'abolished boom and bust'.

But my main issue with Lawson is his current campaign of climate change denial, a subject on which he is demonstrably not any kind of expert.

I do disagree with him on Europe, and I believe my opinion is based on at least as much recent direct relevant experience as his.

In reply to John2:


The firs time ever that 'Lawson' and 'humility' have appeared in the same sentence.

In reply to Big Ger:



You forgot the bit where interest rates doubled to 15% in the space of 18 months. That was bloody good fun for mortgage holders.

In reply to tony:


School boy economics, you can't have your cake and eat it. Wait until rates go up to 4 or 5% in the next decade, that's a ten fold increase, then there will be pain.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



Who cares? The current discussion is about neither engineering nor medicine: it's about economics and politics.

In reply to veteye:

Why don't you just be honest and say "He's a Tory and I disagree with him so he should shut up"? If one of the longest serving, albeit imperfect (like all of them), chancellors of the post war period shouldn't talk about the economy then nobody should?

In reply to tony:


Have a look at this graph Tony, what do you notice?

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2011/Jan/us-housing-28-1.png

In reply to Postmanpat:

I have voted for the Conservatives in the past, so if you imply that I am a Labour voter or just anti-conservative, then you are wrong. All I know is that Lawson screwed up with the interest rates and lead us to believe that the exchange rate mechanism was what we should work at; consequently a lot of people suffered in both business and in their personal lives. So I believe he should preface any comments with some acknowledgement of his failings.

In reply to Big Ger:

The graph does not show the suffering that the rapid changes of interest caused.

How old were you then?(Since you do not show us your profile I cannot tell)

In reply to Rob Parsons:

If I had the time I would look into things in a deeper way, and your criticism may be valid. Unfortunately I feel somewhat guilty for being on this site at all at times as I have many other matters that I need to attend to. This weekend is a weekend off from work, but I am having to spend a good amount of the time doing work both at home and at work. I am pondering whether I dare to go up to the Lakes this evening and spend the day on Sunday winter climbing, but I think work and study will win out.
I am academic in nature. I do more continuing professional development than anyone else that I know. I'm in my 50's and yet I am studying in my spare time for a masters level further qualification in surgery. I am a member(fellow) of the Royal Society of Medicine and go to lectures there 5-6 times per year. I spend another 2-3 days per year following veterinary ophthalmology(which I already have a further qualification in ) and my house is full of academic journals and many many text books. I also study other areas of veterinary medicine and go to the main congress in Birmingham every year which I have done since 1985. I have also worked in Philadelphia and at Harvard School of Public Health.
As I say if I had the time I would actually look into the economics further, as I believe, like you, that the EU referendum is serious. Yet I do not stand up in front of the media, and I believe it is reasonable to question the credentials of those who do spout in those circumstances.

In reply to veteye:


His arrogance led to hubris which meant he mistakenly believed that he had beaten inflation when he hadn't. However as the chart shows, the resurgence of inflation and interest rates at the end of his chancellorship was basically a blip in a long term downward trend trend which he helped put in place. Exchange rates were one metric that he used. Maybe he over-emphasised that.

Why should the fact that he made mistakes, like all chancellors, mean that he has no right to be listened to-which was what you appeared to be saying?

In reply to veteye:



Nor does it show the suffering that inflation, and not dealing with inflation, caused.

In reply to Postmanpat:

For me at that time, I would say that the inflation was more bearable than the crazily accelerating rates of interest. At least inflation reduced the amount of money that I owed in loans(in a relative way). At least older people got a reasonable return on their savings accounts. (I know the counter arguments to these are likely to come swinging back at me)

I feel that he has less right to be at the forefront of media attention as he has always appeared to be in denial of his mistakes. I would give more credence to someone who is still working/researching in the area. I am not an economist myself, like most people on here, but practically that is how I view things.

In reply to veteye:

Lawson may have made mistakes in office (who hasn't?) but I would struggle to count on the fingers of one hand political figures better qualified to have an economic opinion on Europe.

Just because you didnt like his policies at the time and don't agree with his perspective on Europe today (and I'm with you there) doesn't in any way compromise the unique experience that running the Treasury must have offered him. In fact I want to hear his views far more than those of academics who've never had to make a proper decision, affecting the livelihoods of hundreds, thousands, let alone millions, in their lifetimes.

I don't agree with Lawson on Europe. But I dearly want to understand why he feels differently. He must have enjoyed the opportunity for insights we can only dream of. Your instinctive ad hominem response betrays much that is wrong with the fear-focused remain campaign (which I fervently support, if only we could engage better with the issues).

In reply to BnB:

' He must have enjoyed the opportunity for insights we can only dream of. '

From whom? Has there ever been a treasury Mandarin or economist since Keynes who accurately predicted the future? Has he ever actually run a business? Is there anyone advising him who has? (And has nothing to lose by giving best possible advice.)

These people don't have crystal balls, the judgement and imagination of the averagely informed punter is quite up to the task. Brexit won't be chaos on day one, but it will be a slowly increasingly burden of treaty negotiations, increasingly acrimonious legal disputes, vindictive challenges in international courts, increased marginalisation at international forums.... And for what?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Possibly a chance to regroup and look outside of Europe.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The UK has your list of future negatives at the hands of the eu now. Increased burden of legislation, new treaties, dragged through eu courts etc.. and we pay for the privilege. Your only possible argument is better the devil you know.

In reply to veteye:

Yes those increases in mortgage rates which climbed rapidly under labour, went up a slight bit more in the first year of Tory government, then, under Lawson's stewardship, went down again. Yes they caused a lot of pain.

Pain caused by Labour mismanagement of the economy, and the "Winter of Discontent.".


I was in my late teens / early 20's when that was happening, why does that matter?

In reply to veteye:


Well, BnB has pretty much summed it up and you have confirmed it. You are just saying you disagreed with his policies so don't think he's worth listening to. The crux is that any chancellor has access to experts and experience of real decision making that offers useful insights.
Academic economists also offer insights but not experience of how power and pulling the levers of power works.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'not experience of how power and pulling the levers of power works'

Er.. would that be that the experience of Black Wednesday, when a frightfully well and experienced Chancellor and PM frantically pulled levers and exercised their powers dementedly with precisely zip effect?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



No, because, Lamont was the Chancellor then, not Lawson.

But yes, that makes Lamont worth listening to ,just as the manager who lost the FA cup final might have something useful to impart.

In reply to Postmanpat:



And the end of the ERM is of particular interest because (if I recal correctly) our partners in the ERM did not act to support us.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


It's of interest for a number of reasons. I don't know why you think this reason is of particular interest.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Academic economists are far more likely to be objective than any politician, they have less to lose. They have the experience of how power and pulling the levers of power works by simple observation, which is all that the chancellor has.

In reply to Big Ger:

Your age matters as it shows in your reply. You obviously do not have the experience of being in business at that time. You seem to think that the interest changes under that particular Conservative government were all gradual. See Rob E W's comment.
The winter of discontent was another government malmanagement,but not the subject of this thread.

In reply to veteye:
Well John raise interest rates, and I was working (Left school in 1975.)

I was old enough to be made redundant, laid off from two apprenticeships, and to see the utter chaos of the Wilson Labour government on the country.

To say someone who was economically active in that time shouldn't have a view, memories or perspectives on the time is rather condescending and odd.

The interest rate hikes all happened under Labour, to ignore this, and to ignore that Lawson brought them back to within sane levels is to do a great disservice to the debate, and to others intelligence.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Countries in the ERM could change their exchange rate with the agreement of the others. Britain was told that they would be allowed to do this but chose not to leading to Britain having to leave instead. This made huge amounts of money for certain people at the expense of the British public.

In reply to Big Ger:

You all seem to think that I am standing up for the Labour side. I am not.(I am sorry that you suffered redundancy during the Labour time) It is however the case that I am not aware of anyone on the Labour side pronouncing on the current referendum conversation, so there is no case to answer for in the current discussion.
I am also not aware of the Conservatives bringing interest rates back "to within sane levels" with any alacrity, and as mentioned earlier, you seem to have forgotten what happened to the interest rates on Black Wednesday.

You may have been economically active at the time, but not to the same degree as someone with lots of loans, mortgage, building loans, equipment loans etc. It was an exceedingly worrying time, not just being concern about holding onto a self-employment, but also worrying about that heavy burden of debt and servicing a young family.


Meantime none of us ended up with a fat package, and later on a lordship, along with Lamont, simply because their chums wanted to repay that in-house patronage.(I also know that this happens unreasonably in other political parties as well)

In reply to veteye:

You ask us to accept that your long experience of veterinary medicine entitles you to be accepted as a person whose opinion on a range of topics is worthy of respect, and yet you do not seem to accept that Lawson's long and deep experience of economics both in the academic and the practical areas make his opinions on economics worthy of respect.

In reply to veteye:


Academics have biases and political preconceptions just like the rest of us. Chancellors have numerous advisors, academic and otherwise to advise them, not just "observation".
I'm not suggesting that academic economics have no right to prognosticate on economics; just that ex-chancellors do have that right.

In reply to John2:
I only brought up my past because my academic nature was called into question. I otherwise would not bring that up, and would prefer to be known for being a climber who likes to come on this site to discuss things of a general nature.
I would not pretend to have an economics background other than my own experience of life in the past.
Nor would I say that labour chancellors are much better; I thought that Gordon Brown was good to begin with, and then he went down the rocky road of ignoring his own ideas, rules and tenets.
I still feel that Lawson did not do the best for the country, and I know that economists also feel the same.
In terms of the referendum, I would really like somebody who has projected forward with two economic software models( one for each possible result of the vote) to let us know what the outcome may be in each case. Neither may look that brilliant, yet I would like some view of that sort to be given to us in as near an objective way as possible.
I have not made up my mind yet, even though I have been deemed to be a stay in voter by others.
I would be an out voter if you could guarantee sufficient workers would be allowed into the country to be worthwhile, whilst not being swamped, and at the same time assure me and others that the economy would behave similarly to the last couple of years (with China's forbearance) for another couple of years.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Certainly they have advisors, but do they not also behave in an overly dictatorial way, and sweep aside advice at times? That has happened and been known to happen with ministers in the past.

In reply to veteye:

Of course, but nevertheless the have the benefit of the accumulated knowledge and learning of the advisors. Anyway, what on earth has that to do with the assertion in your OP?

Incidentally, a lot of academics tend to be overly obsessed with theoretical econometrics models which bear only a tangential relationship to the real world.

In reply to veteye:

'I still feel that Lawson did not do the best for the country'

Unemployment fell and a budget deficit was turned into a surplus.

'I would be an out voter if you could guarantee sufficient workers would be allowed into the country to be worthwhile, whilst not being swamped, and at the same time assure me and others that the economy would behave similarly to the last couple of years'

I agree that we need immigration, both from within and from without the EU, but I would like to think that the economy is not doomed to perpetuate the feeble performance of the last couple of years.

In reply to veteye:



Look at the graph I presented then. No one mentioned "alacrity", these things take time.


So what? My experience is as valid as yours, and I don't isolate my perspectives to one man taken out of his context.


As did most other chancellors.

In reply to veteye:


In fact, Gordon Brown has pronounced on it in advance - see e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/09/europe-gordon-brown-sc... - and we can no doubt expect to hear more from him in due course.

But is he qualified, in your opinion? That 'No return to boom and bust!' didn't turn out very well, did it?

In reply to veteye:

>... I would give more credence to someone who is still working/researching in the area. I am not an economist myself, like most people on here, but practically that is how I view things.

A couple of others here have mentioned that they would prefer to trust the opinions of academic economists rather than those of other people, and in particular politicians.

Now it goes without saying that any Chancellor of the Exchequer will be taking advice and professional opinions from such folk: our politicians can and do get the 'best' advice available. But the problem you have is - since economics is anything but a science - that there will always be credible academic economists who hold diametrically opposite views on issues like the one under debate here. So which one are you going to choose?

As an example, a Professor from the Cardiff Business School wrote an article in The Times last Friday in which he criticised Mandelson's recent contribution on the subject, and argued that Britain would be economically better off outside the EU.

I anticipate further columns from further Professors with differing (or polar opposite) views.

Who's 'right'? Fact is: nobody knows for sure. And of course, in any case, the entire question is much more complex than a simple (!) economic one.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

And that is why he lost my respect as well as a lot of others.

In reply to Big Ger:

Your experience is as valid, but is (in my mind I realise) less relevant.(And that is not saying that it was not relevant to you and your immediates) More people's situations were balanced on my business.(Nor is that me being lofty. From what I gather, more was riding on me keeping things running.)

I think that we are at an impasse, as you can say the same things in another way, and so can I and neither will be convinced by the other.

In reply to veteye:

Shake, and call it a day then?

In reply to veteye:

At least you're consistent: -

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=635079&v=1#x8240753

In reply to veteye:


Who? Are you referring to Brown?

If so, since all political careers end in failure, then, back to your original post: what's your list of ex-Chancellors whom you do judge qualified to comment on the current referendum? Are there *any*?

In reply to Big Ger:


I notice a dodgy y axis, presumably to make it look less bad.

Also notice the url.

In reply to DaveN:



Can you elaborate? What do regard is being made to look "less bad"?

In reply to Postmanpat:

There's a logarithmic scale on the y axis, which makes the 16% interest rate look less exceptional. I assume that this was done In the interests of fitting the data into a reasonably shaped chart rather than influencing perceptions.

In reply to John2:


Doesn't work very well then.Looks pretty exceptional to me!!

In reply to Big Ger:

Why not?
Besides it's getting late again.

In reply to DaveN:



Ok, please give us a chart you are happy with then.

In reply to summo:


It might be a tenfold increase in the base rate but it won't result in anything like a tenfold increase in interest payments, most mortgages are around 3 to 4% above base (basically 0%) so pick the 3% figure from that and the 5%point increase in base rate you suggested and you get a jump from 3% to 8% or 2.7x, not 10x. Yeah, that'll still smart but not like the 30-40% rate implied by your somewhat alarmist 'tenfold increase' would!
jk