Being a poncey arts graduate I know absolutely nothing. I tend to assume that people in charge of things do, mostly so that they can use that knowledge to shaft the rest of us. But no, public life is full of people pontificating about economics at a pub-bore/do-your-research level who are only really experts in pushing a certain agenda.

We had a Prime Minister for six years in David Cameron (allegedly a graduate in Politics, Philosophy and Ecomonics from “The Greatest Unbiversity In The World” ©) who did not know the difference between the national debt and the structural deficit. I very much doubt the two blonde PMs could either.

According to a new report, the reporting of economics is part of the problem. This stood out for me:

Confronted by a complex situation, with a limited understanding of the issues involved, one respondent to the review suggests that reporters rely on simplistic political narratives – party intrigue, or Westminster gossip; meanwhile, assumed authorities are deferred to for the actual economics.

This rings a bell. How much reporting of politics is about anything other than personalities and factions, essentially a soap opera with uglier characters?

And how » Continue Reading.