Yesterday’s
Sunday Times carried what appeared to be an almost blow-by-blow account
(paywall) of who said what in a crisis meeting of the Cabinet last week called
to discuss Brexit. The extent of the
leaking of what are nominally ‘confidential’ discussions (the paper claimed at
least six different cabinet sources just for its reporting of what the Chancellor
said) shows how power and influence are ebbing away from the Prime Minister,
with her underlings keen to parade their credentials in the inevitable battle
to succeed her.
But if the
leaking in itself showed an increasing detachment from any idea of collective
responsibility, some of the proposals apparently made look like desperation is
setting in. One example was the claim
that the transport secretary put forward a proposal to give everyone in Britain
a Brexit bonus of £200. Given the fact
that any suggestion of there being a Brexit bonus has been well and truly debunked
many times, it is unclear where he thought this money was coming from, but
bribing people with their own money doesn’t look like honest government.
One minister, Andrea
Leadsom, reportedly did come up with a proposal to raise some money: the
government should sell ‘Brexit Bonds’ to get people ‘investing’ in the
government. (And of course, if each of us ‘invests’, say, £200, the government
will have enough money to give us all a ‘Brexit bonus’ of £200 – the sad thing
is that some might even be taken in by that one.) ‘Selling bonds’ is something the government
does all the time. Whether labelling
them as ‘Brexit’ bonds would make them any more saleable or attractive is doubtful,
but we do know that the government can, at the moment, sell as many bonds as it wants to;
people and institutions are queuing up to buy them. It is one of the main routes by which
government raises money, although it’s more usually called ‘borrowing’ -
because as any accountant or book-keeper will be aware, anything that looks
like an investment to one party will look like a loan to the other.
Calling on people
to ‘invest in the government’ may have a nicer ring to it than ‘the government
should borrow more’, but it amounts to exactly the same thing. I welcome any recognition in government that
they can and should borrow more to invest in services and infrastructure; I
just wish they weren’t in a position where they have to do it to pay for the
folly of Brexit, let alone in order to try and trick us into thinking we’re
getting some sort of bonus.
No comments:
Post a Comment