How Can ‘Experts’ Who Advise Policy Makers Be Held To Account?

Someone, or some group of someones, must have advised Cameron and Osborne that Brexit would be disastrous. Why else would they have prophesied such doom and gloom? Cameron and Osborne have gone, which shows how much they mattered – ie, not at all. They were just pawns.

Disaster has not happened. Oh, I know that we have not yet brexited, but even bigwigs in the Labour Party have said that they will not deny Brexit. It will happen. The UK will leave the EU. Nor will The People tolerate a quasi-Brexit. Already the UK has passed on its turn to hold the Presidency.

I heard/saw, vaguely, a BBC news item which said that prices were going to soar because of the weak pound (implying that Brexit, and only Brexit was responsible). Well, those of us who have been around for a few years know that the comparatively high value of the pound in terms of the Euro and the dollar is fairly recent. I remember only a couple of years ago being pleased to get €1.20 for my pound. Some eighteen months ago, the value of the pound rose dramatically to around €1.40 (outside the main holiday season). I was pleased about that since cigarette prices in Spain were steady at around €41 for 200. I was a bit annoyed when the value fell back to around €1.15 per pound just before my last trip, but I was still aware that €4.10 per packet of 20 cigs was still around half the UK price.

Naturally, the BBC, being in thrall to the EU, emphasised the increased cost of imports without mentioning at all the lower cost of exports. Are Spanish importers of tobacco products bragging about how cheap British tobacco products are? Erm…. What British tobacco products? I jest.

What few of us understand (including me) is that currencies are circular. They are not lines with a beginning and an end. They are circles. A transacts business with B, B does so with C, C does so with D, D does so with E, E does so with F, F does so with A. And so the circle goes round and round. They all use currency to facilitate the transactions. And that is all. That is all that currency exists for. It has no intrinsic value. It is weird, is it not, that the metal in a penny is probably more intrinsically valuable than the paper in a £5 note. The fluctuations in currency values reflect only the demand for the currencies. They are balancing acts.

I sometimes laugh when I see reports that people are ‘selling’ Stirling. No they are not. They are ‘exchanging’ Stirling for some other currency. Why should they do that? It may be because they are holding Stirling deposits in banks and fear that the ‘value’ of that money may shortly fall as compared with, say, the Japanese Yen. So they swap the Stirling now for Yen before the exchange rate changes. If they are right, then they can swap back at a later date and make money. But have they actually gained anyTHING. Well, no – unless they convert that currency into THINGS. But to convert that currency into THINGS, they have to surrender that currency.

We can thus see how the Bank of England Governor could never be  ‘called to account’ in any sort of fraudulent way, for giving bad advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even if his advice was indeed fraudulent. Any such ideas would bring the whole system crashing down. The worst that would happen would be that the Governor would step down, even if he was a criminal.

That ‘prerogative’ seems to apply to all ‘experts’. They may lie and cheat, but they are invulnerable.

Is that why so many of them lie and cheat? If you are invulnerable, and can lie and cheat,then you can advance your agenda with impunity. Further, because of your impunity, you can gang up and threaten Ministers and even the Prime Minister. And you can threaten the President of the USA. It’s easy. All you have to do is claim that it is ‘for the children’. There is no way to prove that ‘for the children’ is a lie and intended to blackmail whoever into obeying.

Is it not obvious that such blackmail has been going on for the last couple of decades?

Is not the whole business of Climate Change a form of blackmail? The ‘Experts’ who pronounce have not stood for elected office, by which process they could implement their ideas. No, they would stand no chance whatsoever of being elected. But, somehow, they garner more power than those who have been elected.

What is the answer?

When Cameron permitted ‘plain packaging’ (aka ‘medical porn’) and ‘no smoking in cars with kids’ and when Osborne increased tobacco taxes once again, they declared their impotence. When Cameron and Osborne nailed their colours to the mast of ‘Remain’, they illustrated their subservience to unelected ‘Experts’. How did those cyborgs ever get elected and promoted?

Compare that with Trump.

But we do not know how strong and brave Theresa May is. She has made some horrible errors via the dictats of ‘Experts’, especially the idea of ‘hate speech’.

How can the era of ‘Experts’ be brought to an end?

It really is easy. They must be defunded and put at arms length. When I say ‘defunded’, I mean that what is to be funded must have real expectations of benefits. LACK OF illness is not a benefit. It is a negative which, at best, results in a peaceful and timely death. Such negatives are not the business of Government. Timely and peaceful deaths might possibly be.

4 Responses to “How Can ‘Experts’ Who Advise Policy Makers Be Held To Account?”

  1. Smoking Lamp Says:

    I say start by defunding tobacco control and public health.

    • junican Says:

      The trouble is that direct TC costs are small beer – a few million pounds of taxes. What does that cost matter in a budget of billions of pounds? It is really secondary costs which matter – pub closures, tobacco industry re-locations to foreign climes, taxation collection costs, etc.
      The problem with ‘Public Health’ is that it is ill defined. When it was concerned with communicable diseases, it had real value and purpose, even considered economically. Now, it has no discernible purpose. that I am aware of.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    The Times newspaper is one of the worst examples of REMAIN bias. Just read any issue and read the writings of rich liberal elite writers such as Matthew Parris who along with many of the writers on the newspaper clearly thinks that people who voted BREXIT shouldn’t have the vote.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: