According to the Independent this morning I have said:
John McDonnell, the new shadow Chancellor, is under pressure to clarify Labour's tax policies, with even the man credited with inventing “Corbynomics” describing the party's tax plans as “weak”.
In an interview with The Independent on Sunday, tax expert Richard Murphy, whose ideas were the foundation of Mr Corbyn's economic manifesto in the leadership campaign, said: “The tax area is actually relatively weak at the moment … He hasn't talked about the reform of capital-gains taxation. He hasn't talked about inheritance tax.”
The question was "what still needs to be done?"
And the answer was a fair one. Those issues have not been addressed by Jeremy Corbyn in any detail to date.
But was it a criticism, or pressure? Come on: it's more than four years to a general election. Of course there are still things for Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to develop - and to no doubt change - over that period.
My answer is correctly reported. But to construe it as any form of criticism is absurd: it was a suggestion of an agenda of things Labour needs to do, and nothing else.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
That sort of thing is, unfortunately, is one of the main reasons why politicians so often speak in bland, vague or non-committal terms – to avoid being misconstrued or misrepresented.
You’ve got to be cautious without being so guarded that you don’t actually say anything. Its a difficult balance. One old trick is involves the moderation of adjectives. For every adjective or adjectival phrase that you’d normally use, you can choose one that is milder. Instead of something being quite poor or unsatisfactory it can be ‘a bit ordinary’.
In this case “is relatively weak” becomes “has potential”. The tax area still has potential…
I know that’s all a bit absurd and quite funny but its a game and it needn’t be too serious. Those who do this well never over-do it. It becomes 2nd nature.
I saw some of Andrew Marr today. Questions about McDonnell’s comments on a person convicted for throwing a fire extinguisher. More important than voting for an illegal war?
Then the questioning used the “association with terrorists” line. People who half watch get the impression ‘he’s on the side of the IRA”. Suppose Corbyn had back with Mrs Thatcher with welcomed Pinochet who overthrew an elected govt. and then proceeded to arrest without trail, torture and murder thousands? The Chicago school economists claim that they created an economic miracle but the evidence is not convincing to say the least.
It would be good to have a discussion on things like the reduction in tax credits or why tax rises for ordinary people are not inevitable if the economy expands.
the press will not miss even the slightest opportunity to undermine Labour policy from now until the next election. Mandelson said as much the other day: the press have their knives out, Blairites needn’t risk getting their hands dirty.