Populist ventriloquism

According to Larry Eliot, a confessed Brexiteer, mind, the IMF has now decided that there will be no UK crash after Brexit. Instead, moderate economic growth this year will be followed by small growth next. Eliot's point is not to jeer at them changing their mind but to say that this shows the range of accuracy of economic forecasting.But then he asks a more interesting question -- why did not the IMF reveal this range of possibilities in the run-up to Brexit? Was it deliberate conspiracy to keep the facts from the public, Larry? Or was it that ideological commitment was such that more positive possibilities literally did not spring to mind?

Meanwhile, Evan Davis on Newsnight is still prone to outbursts of rage (second stage of bereavement?) when discussing Brexit with Tory politicians at their Conference. Two nights ago he badgered a Treasury minister in typical fashion: Treasury forecasts still saw an overall loss of 4% in economic growth after Brexit. The Chancellor had not denied the forecast and indeed had used figures from the same report in his speech on another matter. So, for Davis, this meant the Chancellor was supporting the view that Brexit would mean a loss, proving him, and all his luvvie mates right all along.

The minister's response was pretty obvious -- the UK was still negotiating over the details and so there was no point in commenting on forecasts. No great intellectual sparkle there but no suprises either. Politicians have always refused to comment on hypothetical questions but they don't use that phrase any more because no-one seems to understand it, including the BBC. Davis persisted and explained his question again. And again. Same answer each time. Tantrums from Davis. Finally the minister said there was no point continuing the discussion anyway -- the UK had voted Brexit and that was that, implying that even if there are to be economic losses it is too late to do anything about it. Not for Davis though --on and on he went until told, presumably by the voice in his ear, to give up.

The same broadcast featured a comedy turn in the formof some young knob called Alistair(?) Goodall. Armed with a fake dictionary of EU terms he wandered around asking delegates if they knew the difference between a single market and a customs union. Understandably he was avoided by most delegates who did not want to indulge such an obvious arsehole --but Davis liked it.

Last night, same deal. Davis this time was asking about -- the difference between a customs union and a single market, knowing few people knew or cared to get involved in bureaucratic legalese. Davis had obviously mugged it up and was hoping to catch someone out. Same response from a different minister. Same tantrums. Same comedy turn from Goodall, this time with props like a set of bioculars, this time looking for Cameron supporters. Hilarious. Took up about 5 minutes of airtime.

Another interview by Davis, this time of the new Prime Minister. He had a trick question prepared again -- would she now rule out giving honours to party donors. It was a nice precise issue to test her ethics. She sidetepped, understandably refusing to answer whether she had now stopped beating her husband. He persisted. He assured her that lots of people watching would be asking the same question.  I think he really believes that.