I asked Jeremy Corbyn for policy and never got it.
I have been severely criticised for doing so. I can live with that. One of my sons reckons I was born in a flak jacket and my mother certainly agreed. So bearing that in mind I will say that Owen Smith has delivered a lot of policy this morning. This is what he has announced:
Fair Employment, Fair Taxes and Fair Funding
- A pledge to focus on equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
- Scrapping the DWP and replacing it with a Ministry for Labour and a Department for Social Security.
- Introducing modern wages councils for hotel, shop and care workers to strengthen terms and conditions.
- Banning zero hour contracts.
- Ending the public sector pay freeze.
- Extending the right to information and consultation to cover all workplaces with more than 50 employees.
- Ensuring workers' representation on remuneration committees.
- Repealing the Trade Union Act.
- Increase spending on health and social care by at least 4% in real-terms in every year of the next parliament.
- Commit to bringing NHS funding up to the European average within the first term of a Labour Government.
- Greater spending on schools and libraries.
- Re-instate the 50p top rate of income tax.
- Reverse the reductions in Corporation Tax due to take place over the next four years.
- Reverse cuts to Inheritance Tax announced in the Summer Budget.
- Reverse cuts to Capital Gains Tax announced in March 2016 Budget.
- Introduce a new wealth Tax on the top 1% of earners to fund our NHS.
- A British New Deal unveiling £200bn of investment over five years.
- A commitment to invest tens of billions in the North of England, and to bring forward High Speed 3.
- A pledge to build 300,000 homes in every year of the next parliament — 1.5 million over five years.
- Ending the scandal of fuel poverty by investing in efficient energy.
There are things I would have liked to see that need fleshing out. So there is nothing on the NHS market or PFI, although the new spending commitment is clearly via bonds (which does mean PQE can follow).
I would also have been tougher on some tax issues, e.g. on capital gains. And I may have raised corporation tax and not just reversed cuts to come. A commitment on HMRC funding would have been welcome.
But the lines of travel are good here: it is a good start.
I have supported Wage Councils in the last, including in my book The Courageous State.
The NHS commitment is strong.
And so is the move on Trade Union rights.
I welcome the split of labour and social security.
And the North needs all that investment and more.
Just as the British New Deal (read Green Deal with a success criteria linked to fuel poverty) is needed.
And for those who are saying, as the Guardian implies, that some of these are Corbyn ideas, maybe they should remember they borrowed them in the first place.
The truth is that these are a genuinely left of centre programme. If anyone can say otherwise they're not telling the truth.
At least that means there is now something to debate. That has to be good for democracy.
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:
You believe in hope Richard so I will agree that this looks like a good start. It is certainly dealing with issues the public seem interested in rather than the internal politics that many are very upset about.
I just wonder why it has taken so long for Owen Smith to make such a policy statement?
He was selected to run for leader very recently
People who aren’t running for leader don’t make such statements
Absolutely nothing on Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. 1 in 3 children already in poverty in Wales. Even, more in South Wales and he’s got nothing. Pretty much like the Labour party in Wales that allowed this level of poverty.
20 in a morning is a start
I would sincerely hope it’s not the end
Be realistic
I could never ever vote for someone who is prepared to push the nuclear button. Shows no moral courage.
Every leader in your life time would have done
Michael Foot?
You have no idea whether or not they are prepared to push the button.
You know what they say. Which is that they are.
Because that’s the way the deterrent works.
Deterrent against whom?
Sorry, but this is ridiculous.
You will not get an elected PM that says otherwise.
In reality, they might never press the button when it comes down to it, but if you announce that in advance, then you’ve totally ruined the deterrent. Irrespective of your perspective on whether the deterrent is effective, if you tell people you are not prepared to use it, then there’s absolutely no deterrent.
The whole ‘push the button’ debate is the wrong approach folks. It’s preloaded with lots transatlantic mendacity.
Alternatively what I want to know from a propsective Prime Minister is this:
1) Will they ensure that they will keep Britain safe by not being allies to regimes who get involved in illegal wars?
2) Will they work as peace makers with States whom America has issues with (or should I say with states who have assets that America wants by any means possible) and create good relations (even trade) with these States for Britain?
In other words I want a Prime Minister who acts and thinks for Britain – not the US Government or Halliburton & Co.
Richard’s article is about a vision of the future not the nuclear deterrent.When Jeremy Corbyn said he wouldn’t push the button last year I told people he was only saying in public what happens in private,I base this view on the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962.When the world stood on the verge of nuclear war and when everyone believed war could happen any day but the U.S. president knew such an idea was mad.But instead of nuclear war he did a deal with the Soviet Union where their would remove its nukes from Cuba and six months later the U.S. would do likewise from Turkey.This is how deterrent works,in public world leaders say they would push the button,knowing full well they have no intention of doing such a thing.The problem is if you say you won’t push the button it destroys the deterrent and makes war more likely,this is why warmongers like say Hitler will seize your inaction as weakness.This is how ww2 occurred because no one wanted to stand up to Hitler as a consequence millions upon millions died.But out of that conflict came nuclear weapons which some saw could be a way of deterring a future world war.The deterrent as worked like it or not,what world leaders must now do is continue with cutting the stockpile of nukes and not renewing things like Trident which cost billions when it would be far cheaper to arm our nuclear hunter killer subs with nukes and retain our deterrent.This is unfortunately how the world works,and until humans wise up and learn there’s better ways of solving problems we’ll always need such weapons.
Derek
Thats a good – and specific – start. I’m not sure I’ve heard anything like this from the Corbyn team, and I have been listening and looking
I’d like to see more on business development and job creation, to generate the well paid jobs and tax flows that the economy and society need. It cant all be negative. That might include R&D, skills development and apprenticeships, banking and finance (a potentially long list…)
And then maybe some specific interventions to tackle legitimate underlying concerns in those areas of the country that voted UKIP/Brexit as a (misguided) protest. That might include funding and support to tackle the impact of localised surges in immigration, and then serious strategy to create sustainable jobs in those areas.
Good points
I understand there will be a lot of fleshing out
I hope so
Agreed.
I wonder how the PLP are taking it?
Now that will be interesting too.
Given that policy is not the gift of the party leader alone, is it fair to say that, as leader, Jeremy Corbyn has to be a lot more circumspect about policy statements than a leadership challenger? i.e. talk about “direction of travel” rather than table specific policies until such time as they are thoroughly assessed, costed, endorsed.
He is a challenger now
It’s telling if this challenge is what it takes for him to finally come up with some policies. I have been told that his policies were invisible because of MSM bias, but I suspect that if they were there the fault lies with ineffective messaging and communications which is down to his choice of team. Surely knowing how he would be hammered by the MSM, it was imperative that forceful, consistent messaging was put into practice from the get go. Perhaps this contest will make that clear to him and his team, as although he may be intensely relaxed about getting into Govt, he surely wants to win this battle.
He is the leader now.
When did Owen first approach you for help with his leadership Bid, Richard?
Owen and I have talked to each other pretty regularly since 2011
Number 1 is peculiar. It doesn’t seem to be in the spirit of genuine equality.
Outcome is the left wing expectation
Opportunity the right wing cover
But we’re ultimately for equality of opportunity. Just because the right steal it and use it as a get out of jail free card ‘Well we didn’t say they would have the same OUTCOME’ doesn’t mean that the principle isn’t correct. You ensure that everyone has a minimum standard of living, be that through strong social security, a universal basic income, nationalised services and a free NHS, and then you let them achieve what they will. Just cause the Right declare that anyone can do anything otherwise they’re just lazy, doesn’t mean that we can’t use the principle in the correct fashion.
But when the basics of protecting people have been ignored for so long that obligation has to be said again
And it was
I think Number 1 is seriously flawed. If it succeeds it would be an utter disaster. Equality of opportunity gives everyone an equal opportunity to do, or attempt to do, anything they want to do. They will succeed or fail according to their own effort and ability. This breeds the best people, driven by their own desire to take advantage of the opportunity.
Conversely, equality of outcome generates only weak averages. If you work towards common outcomes you have to bully the less able and frustrate the more able. And generate average.
The trouble is, statistically, you will have 33% averagely capable of anything and 66% utterly frustrated (50% of whom are angry, and uneducated). That bodes unwell on polling day.
Oh come on
Number 1 is about the social safety net
And it’s vital
No doubt Corbyn’s supporters will be piling in to point out where and when these policies were previously proposed by “team Corbyn” (I’ve already seen the Guardian reporting comments along these lines). Sadly, I have a feeling that not many of Corbyn’s supporters will listen to any of this anyway. Treachery has been committed and they are going to make those who committed it or can be viewed as in any way associated with it pay. And if that means sticking by a man and a team who haven’t the slightest chance of forming a functioning opposition, much less a government, then so be it.
Beyond that, and as I mentioned in a previous comment, I’d like to see a solid commitment and timetable for a formal review and resulting overall of the civil service to deliver one that first and foremost serves the public interest and is fit for the 21st century. This could then be extended to take in all public service/servants, even those that are now contracted out so that a public service/interest ethos is reestablished. Without this mechanism in place very few if any of the policies above will ever get past the formulation stage as they will be stonewalled and undermined by the hordes of neoliberal supporting personnel who now dominate the senior echelons of the civil service (e.g. think Treasury for a classic example).
Let’s hope the message gets through
I think you’re right that many Corbyn supporters wont give Smith a fair hearing. I too suspect they will stick with their man irrespective of how he performs over the election, or however bad the polls get. Many simply refuse to acknowledge the very obvious flaws that make him unsuitable to lead.
Smith might get more traction with the established membership, who weren’t massively pro Corbyn last time, and amongst the Union voters.
Its uphill all the way, though.
Quite an impressive list but yes, he will need to provide a little more detail and fill in some of the blanks, but that really is a very presentable and markedly left wing policy platform.
Owen needs to cut out some of his gaffes (the reference to smashing back May wasn’t helpful) but he’s making a decent fist of things so far.
I’m encouraged.
We’re waiting for a leader, and I’m getting older. It has been such a long time.
I’m 83 today and have seen many failed Labour leaders since Harold Wilson-
Callaghan – elected by PLP – Failed to win in 1979
Foot elected by PLP – Failed to win in 1983
Kinnoch – elected by Electoral College – failed to win in 1987
Kinnoch – elected by Electoral College – failed to win in 1992
Brown elected by acclaim – failed to win in 2010
Miliband elected by Electoral College – Failed to win in 2015
Only Blair won three times and look how that ended!
You were ahead of me on Smith, he has to continue to show he is not neoliberal-lite. I hope he is hiding a desire to be truly radical from the Establishment. I read with joy these commitments in the Press today from Owen Smith, a great advance on the ‘silence of the lambs’ during Miliband’s reign and I’m starting to believe you about recent times. The PLP does seem to be spending inordinate time bashing Corbyn (publically and at CLP level [some Labour MPs are behaving more like Fox News than adults]) rather than showing leadership and vocalising what the 95% need and want to achieve — Well Done Smith. I agree with Ivan ‘Treachery has been committed’ in the eyes of Corbyn supporters. I left Labour before the Corbyn era because of Blair and was never tempted back as I thought the PLP would have removed him in due course, unfortunately its has been much worse than I imagined 🙁
Richard, you are a master List-Smith as well as a WordSmith; I also run my life with lists. We do that so that those we lead know what to achieve. It’s what you have to do when you run an enterprise (private or public).
I would add to Owen Smith’s list:
a. Support and increase STEM funding. Guarantee current and future projects, using peer review, and employment made up to 2020 in the event of Brexit.
b. Commit to improving funding of SME start-ups, greatly improve IP rights for individuals and SMEs.
c. Invest ‘x’ billions in improving employment for the 16-30 age group, especially in high quality skills training. Eliminate unpaid work.
d. Restore employment for disadvantaged groups — disabled, mental health sufferers……
e. Commit to rapidly reduce student education fees and commit to eliminating student-fee debt.
f. Immediately reduce student loan interest rates.
g. Place workers representative(s) on the boards of all companies.
h. Reform pensions and stop companies using them recklessly. Retrospectively make businesses restore pensions funds deemed to be sequestered.
i. Reform PFI contracts.
j. To fund this – start by scrapping Trident renewal, stop war mongering establish a defensible defense policy, make future energy contracts to be at Green QE levels (i.e. European Bank type lending levels as the norm), stop HS2 /HS3 and commit to a public railway business partnership – not for profit, allow ‘BR’ to bid for its own business, reform land tax and rates.
I would modify:
20. Invest in Green energy and Green energy R&D, for energy generation and housing.
For the next generation:
a. Change the voting age to 16.
b. Enter all citizens on the voting register, eliminate financial discrimination for those who do not voluntarily register to vote.
c. Reform the House of Lords for a democratic second chamber with emphasis on ‘parliament’ for the 16-30 age group, represented by that age group. This is to redress the current situation with the disadvantaged nature of this age group. Some form a PR will be necessary across the board.
I hope I’ve not repeated a Smith pledge. Austerity is dead, the Establishment has a choice — continue to be a world leader in exporting the demise of real wages, trade unions, citizens’ rights and living standards or pinch their opponents tasty policies. There is so much to do. T-May is ascendant, and I see Labour self destruct. I am a Green hoping for an anti-neoliberal alliance to crystalise out of the mess.
I like those….
Would be good if his team were reading this
In the real world, no leader of any political party would ever be elected priminister who’s policy was to not renew our nuclear deterrent.
I think I could second most of those though Im probably more in the LibDem camp. Makes the point about just how much overlap there is on the centre-left. Far more in common than different
The Green energy (or even Green economy) element has a huge amount to offer in terms of business development and job creation, which the current government seems determined to undermine.
Makes me think that with Richard and the brain power on this blog, we could make a fair fist of developing a comprehensive set of policies… Without in any way wishing to underestimate the detailed work needed to think them through
Robin
You may well be right…
Richard
Tony B – you’re on fire mate…………..agree with everything you’ve said.
I tell you what though…………the sceptic in me would hold Owen Smith to these ideas and if he broke them I’d need to a good reason not to take him to task.
Why would you need a good reason?
As you are aware PSR its not about Smith, he’s likely to be transitory, its about building an anti-neoliberal alliance. ‘Silence of the lambs’ does not work as a tactic. I’d assume Labour’s silence from Brown/Milliband times onwards was to stymie the press on attacking/disassembling policy. Come on fainthearts lets be offensive with our policies, discuss and build,if not the press will FoxNews ‘he-said-she-said’ our progressive leaders on keyhole trivia. Anyway I see a court decision looming, giving the Labour heavies a chance to eliminate Corbyn and restore ‘normality’.
Hmm. This list seems to have a lot more money going out than coming in.
All the impressive numbers about Trident are quoting the cost over 30 years or so (front loaded, yes). There won’t be more than a few billion available in any one year to spend, and that’s not going to cut it.
Also if you cut student debt/loans do you replace the lost university funding from general taxation ? That’s not on your list.
I’d agree PFI is a nightmare that racks up costs for the future against the promise of short term gratification, but not sure how you unilaterally change a signed contract. Best we can do is hope to renegotiate or agree to do better in future.
If you honestly think balanced budgets are on his agenda then you are mistaken
Corbyn could not be over-expressive about policy because his own party would sabotage it until he dealt with party hindrance and anti-democratic action.
The very stuff Smith has had a conversion to would have been ridculed.
Surely it’s clear that the man with a full history of advocating radical change in thought and deed and who would bring change needed understanding of the temporary but inevitable trap he was (is) in, and that the man who now proclaims progressiveness is the answer has a clear association with entrenching regressive strategies only until he/they see embracement of left issues as the way to stop the man who embraces left and progressive issues.
Each to their own, but I can’t help feel wrong turns are being made as a result of .. well I’m not sure I can define it, but I do feel sure advocating Smith and impatience with Corbyn is a massive error.
It’s clear minds are made up on both sides of the argument.Interesting times, we shall see what happens.
With respect, is there any argument that a Corbynista makes that is not laden with paranoia rather than logic?
Well there were elements of the PLP against Corbyn from day one. They dismissed him as too far to the left to win as well as being personally unelectable.
Nobody in the PLP would have come out with any thing like Smith’s left wing platform before now. He has now because of the large left wing membership that Corbyn attracted. Smith may have thought along these lines privately before but he didn’t say them in public. Members are wary after the Blair/Miliband years.
So as well as having this good set of policies Owen is somehow going to have to gain their trust.
I think that’s understandable. The members don’t experience the shambolic nature of Corbyn’s team but they’ve heard many Labour MPs briefing against him (and not just about his leadership but his views) for the past year.
It’s a tough one for Owen but there it is.
Smith wasn’t given the chance
Why do you think he was shunted off to Wales for so long?
With respect, yes, but representation of what a Corbyn supporter says is out of their hands.
Richard, If you were a member of the Labour Party and subject to the daily barrage of lies, slanders and smears that those of us who support Corbyn are being subjected to, you’d realise that the paranoia is justified.
The party machine is putting all its effort into making it hard to run a pro-Corbyn campaign without transgressing some obscure rule or other, many of which are being made up as they go along. We’ve seen the steps taken to deprive people of voting rights they had been promised and the legal challenges to Corbyn standing are not over. MPs are able to promote Smith to members through constituency lists but if a branch secretary advertises a Corbyn event using a party list they can be disciplined. Members are being disenfranchised and branches have been suspended for daring to elect the wrong officers. The accusations of “intimidation” have become absurd, including head-shaking, frowning or clapping.
You’re not living with this, we are.
I assure you I live with the reality of what you’re trying to do
I’m not sure what that reply means.
It means we’ve been talking
Oooh! Can we assume you’ve had input into his choice of policies then? Might some or any of them fairly be described as yours? Vote Labour at all, it seems, and you get Richard 🙂
Owen and I have been speaking
I can confirm that
Ed Miliband would be trusted I think because despite the compromises under his leadership there were signs of him being a bit of a lefty at heart. However the general public don’t rate him as a leader.
Nothing about the land issue then. You cannot tackle the housing crisis, boom/bust, gross inequality of wealth, regional imbalance, without LVT. At least John McDonnell (and Corbyn) know that.
Oh come on
There’s nothing about lots of things
And I cannot think of a single party leader anywhere who would put land on their list of issues
Owen sees nothing wrong in the fact that the owner of a £200m mansion in Westminster pays less Council Tax than the tenant of a £599 per month flat in Weymouth, then.
Does that follow?
Or did it just mean that there were higher priorities on his list?
Wait and see, I suggest
I’m surprised. I know hope springs eternal and all that but why would anyone believe a word from Smith’s mouth?
Why not?
I don’t even know who you are and presume you comment with integrity
I can’t see why you are so cynical
This for starters https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/07/entirely-fake-owen-smith/
I’ve read it
It’s paranoia and hype
I would tend to agree with Bill Kruse – to me there seems something fake about Owen Smith.
Watching his interview on Newsnight the other day only reinforced this feeling.
The frequent initiation of sentences with “Look…” reminded me of Blair and Miliband, and his liberal use of “the truth is…” smacked of coached PR guff. All that was missing was the holding of the invisible beachball.
Clearly you have a lot of faith in Smith – and the trouble with faith is that no-one can argue against it – but people put a huge amount of faith in Blair, Obama, and Clegg….and look how they disappointed.
Anyone who has followed politics in their living memory has every right to be cynical.
Fool me once, etc…
If Smith wins the leadership challenge and he sticks to all of those pledges, and gets to be PM in 2020 and implements them all, then I shall be as delighted as the next person here – but frankly I will only believe it when I see it.
I hope he does much more than that
But at least he might
We know Corbyn never will
Smith has much to prove, maybe he is just saying what he thinks will serve him best, I thought so before he outlined policies is detail. I have been suspicious, as a Welshman I’d need to be convinced he’s genuine. Richard has a sense about team Corbyn, lets see. I’m old enough to remember Viscount Stansgate (Tony Benn) moving left and have seen, close up, many careerists in Labour politics playing the left card at local and constituency level, and then once in moving right. I could name many and was not surprised at their career trajectories. My wife and I campaigned for Tony Benn in Bristol for him in 1974 and went to listen to him when we could.
My first instinct was that Smith is neoliberal-lite but lets see what the next weeks and months reveal. What I do think is we are seeing green shoots of new politics – Assemblies galore. As for “Trident”, that’s deeply political, I’m sure Smith feels he’s dead in the water if he comes out against Trident. But who thinks a nuclear war with modern weapons is winnable (N Korea or Brigadier Jack Ripper) – we have no idea or control of an outcome, pity there is no Bertrand Russell to explain matters in plain English. Luckily the Greens want to preserve the world from the madmen.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/27/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-leader-crisis Interesting article from Clive Lewis
I may comment on it in the morning
Am out tonight
Pledged to build 300 000 houses per year blah blah…
Does that mean personally, does it mean (whisper it) council houses, or does it mean something else, rather like “affordable”?
I expect them all
The press are not reproting Corbyn well at the moment, but here are gathered together his central policies –
1.Gender Equality: Working towards free childcare. Making every company publish equal pay audits. Women to
make 50% of his Cabinet and aim to have 50% of Labour MP’s being women
2.Workers’ Rights: Ban Zero Hours Jobs. Giving all workers unfair dismissal rights from Day one. Abolishing employment tribunal fees. Extend the 3 months limitation period for some discrimination cases.
3.Secondary Education: Introduce a National Education Service, scrapping Academies & Free Schools
4.Trade: Block TTIP
5.Health: Re-Nationalise the NHS and repeal the Tory 2012 NHS Act
6.Investment: Use £93bn of Corporation Tax reliefs to introduce National Investment Bank to Mobilise £500
billion of investment
7.Introduce a fund to pay & train working class people to become MPs
8.Welfare: Scrap the Benefit Cap
9.Foreign Policy: Opposes a like-for-like renewal of Trident & bombing Iraq and Syria
10.Councils: Councils given new powers to cap Private Rents & scrap the Bedroom Tax
as. Housing: Build 100,000 more *council homes a year & introducing a right to own
12.Rail: Renationalise the Railways
13.Privatisation: Renationalise the Post Office
14.Environment: 10 point Environment Manifesto include new co-ops & allowing communities to own energy
15.Wages: A full living wage of £10.00 per hour & force firms to publish a pay audit
16.Tax Evasion: Would consider imposing direct rule on Crown Dependencies if they don’t clampdown on tax
evasion
17.Tax: Raise the top rate of tax to 50%
18.Higher Education: Scrap University Tuition Fees by raising Corporation Tax 2.5%
19.PFI: Eradicate PFI and use the money to fund Mental Health
20.Big Pharma: Close loopholes that allow Big Pharma to avoid tax by over-stating their R&D spend
Interesting
Shame he could not do that
No PQE I note
Six is based on a falsehood – there never was £93 billion there. The figure was always nonsense
2.5% CT would not cover tuition fees as I recall
20 is mis-stated and does not only imoact pharma but I approve of it
No mention how 19 will be done
I do not think that Owen Smith understands the macro economy very well either judging by what he says here –
He said: “I don’t think it’s realistic to say that they [public spending cuts] are wholly unnecessary.
“There is a very serious point that we don’t know what would happen to a government that failed to tackle its debts in the long run.
“But of course governments do borrow from money markets and governments can default on their debt, and the price of borrowing for government can go up.
“Let’s be clear: because of the Tories’ failure to manage our economy properly and get the borrowing down, we are now massively reliant on borrowing as a country.
“If there were a sense in the money markets that Labour wasn’t going to deal with the deficit, that would have an impact on the price at which we would be able to borrow.”
What is missing is the fact that Government is a sovereign currency issuer.
Source – http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/news-opinion/really-alternative-more-austerity-8441433
There is an implicit inner core to Owen that is both technocratically and ideologically bent towards cuts to pay down debt.
Then he’s learning fast because that’s clearly not what he said yesterday
Why deny the possibility?
Only neoliberal thinking denies the possibility of change
There is a dark side to newcomer politics – telling people what they want to hear can certainly help your career – especially when you’ve said the opposite previously.
If I met Smith I’d ask him why he changed his mind.
But I remain ambilvalent really – if he turned into a real alternative I’d be overjoyed; if as Leader he brought Labour into a hard to differentiate centre ground then it would not surprise me at all as I do not expect a lot from Labour these days to be honest.
I agree, Sandra. One of the things that worries me about Smith is that he seems to want to keep himself firmly within the sympathetic towards austerity camp. His remarks echo that reasoning that the government works like a household (a position criticized at some length by Steve Keen) and that it must cut spending and reduce debts.
Now to me, Richard, this sort of thinking seems completely alien to any pro-infrastructural spending agenda.
Although, to be fair, team Corbyn haven’t been quick to discuss PQE, Sovereign money creation and reforms to the banking system either.
Have you for one monument bothered to notice what he said?
Yes I noticed. But the point is, anyone can talk on about how they want to invest in this and that, but if their thinking on the government model of spending and taxing is still fundamentally bound to the same base principals as the Torys and the last Labour manifesto, then surely a Smith Labour government will see its spending as curtailed by the need to pay down the deficit?
Won’t leave much room for spending on anything if the government is concerned with paying off its credit card bill. All you’ll get in a few years time will be a Smith led government ‘apologising’ that ‘in the current economic climate’ such spending is not feasible – and cuts will continue. Assuming Smith is wedded to the old model state spending and money creation.
The first priority of any social democrat and leader of a democratic socialist party should be to deal with the toxic effect of debt on the private economy, as per Steve Keen’s recommendation for a people’s debt jubilee, rationally managed by the government spending and investment. On that, I don’t care what the leader’s name is.
Where did Smith say he did think he was bound in that way?
You’re right, nothing he says above explicitly mentions that he is bound in this way. But it’s certainly the strong impression that I get from him, and that’s my big worry.
Certainly, during his BBC interview with Angela E and Andrew Marr on July 17th he explicitly stated that ‘austerity is right but we need a plan for prosperity’. Now we all know that it’s not right, in no shape or form, and that the economic thinking behind it is not only deeply flawed but responsible for the current economic malaise and deep inequality. Perhaps he doesn’t fully understand what austerity actually means/does.
He seems like a decent chap, he’s certainly safely on the left, and people can make mistakes, but until he rectifies this one (followed quickly by a disavowal of academies, etc), I cannot support him.
Read his speech yesterday
Why not deal with what’s really happening and said?
I shall read it carefully.
Richard, what are the advantages and disadvantages of funding the NHS via direct government spending, partly or fully? Relying on the 1% paying their taxes sounds a bit dodgy.
As anyone who has read The Joy of Tax knows I think all government spending is direct and Rac recovers it
But these is a very strong social role in that recovery process
And the amount recovered is related, but certainly nit directly, to the spend
Your naivety about Owen Smith is astonishing. The strategy here is obvious. Having disposed of Angela Eagle, he no longer needs to worry about keeping the party right happy, so he can offer whatever he thinks will eat into Corbyn’s support. Then if he wins, he will move against Corbyn’s supporters in the party to drive us out through purges and demoralisation. If he achieves that, he will no longer be constrained by any of the pledges he has made.
It’s hard to find anything in this list that has not already been said by Corbyn or McDonnell, other than some numbers. But there are notable gaps, e.g. nothing on benefits as Smith does not want to remind members that he supports caps.
Ultimately, this is about trust. Corbyn has demonstrated commitment to what he believes for 40 years. There is nothing in Smith’s record to convince anyone that he will keep his promises.
For 40 years Corbyn has shown that he does not believe in what Labour has done
That’s it
I am worried a little by those MPs who have nominated Owen Smith. They do not want Corbyn, but they are happy with Corbyn’s ideas stated by Owen.
The list includes Chris Leslie and Yvette Cooper – people who oppose government spending (sovereign issue) except in a dire banking crisis.
They had no other option, did they?
It’s well known I do not agree with them
I have a very good idea where Owen stands
Right. Gotta get your book. But still relying on the 1% to fund the NHS sounds shaky. It doesn’t challenge their supremacy but merely increases the social infrastructure’s dependence on them. They should definitely be taxed because of their inappropriate use of their wealth but one should be careful how to use that money, if at all.
Please read what I said
Tax doesn’t directly fund anything, it has a completely different function – several, actually, including:
1) Behaviour modification (tax breaks to encourage entrepreneurship, research and investment, pigouvian taxes such as tobacco & alcohol duty)
2) Redistribution
3) Spending power modification (taxes reduce the spending power of the well-off, tax credits increase the spending power of the poor)
There’s more, just read Richard’s book. Remember, taxes don’t pay for spending! (that’s as much a myth, designed to encourage adoration for the wealthiest in society by suggesting they fund our public services) as the “Government as a household” fable!
I consider myself a pretty much dyed-in-the-wool lefty, although I’m definitely far from being an unreasoning and inflexible member of the hard left. You know, I’ve actually read Marx, as well as his detractors and contemporary supporters. I think I’m relatively well informed on contemporary left/heterodox economics and social theory (although I must admit that I have not yet had time to read your latest book, Richard). I consider myself a humanist, and (if labels are needed), a progressive libertarian socialist who favours modest yet courageous goverments that are afraid of their people rather than the other way around. I’m also a primary school teacher.
Now I’m only going to vote for a Labour candidate that reflects and fights for progressive ideals. One that has the right set of policies and produces a manifesto that honours such values. At the last election I simply lined up the manifesto of the parties (discounting UKIP), I read them, and then I chose the best one. I choose the Green Party because they were the only progressive set of policies.
The same will have to be done by Smith if he wants me to support him as leader and vote for him in a General Election. At the moment, Corbyn is winning, despite the annoyingly slow pace at which his team has put forward policies and their reticence to discuss things like PQE, UBI, Sovereign Money Campaign, etc. They should have set out their stall with these ideas from day one in my view, and then been shouting them from the rooftops. But as you remark, they haven’t (yet).
I like Smith as a potential leader, but he has some serious hurdles to get over:
1. He’s still in default austerity mode when he talks about the government and the economy. He likes to make pledges (largely ones about reversing Tory cuts and increased spending), but lacks a systematic anti-austerity agenda designed to renew and evolve the economy.
2. The BIG ONE for me: I’m not going anywhere near Smithy until he pledges to reform education by first repealing the Academies and Free Schools project. If there is one thing that paints him as a centrist, its his quiet support for academies. He also needs to support an overhaul of OFSTED, scrap SATS and standardised formal testing schemes, and the league tables. His increased education spending is welcomed. But I don’t believe he would adopt progressive educational policies at the moment, so he doesn’t get my vote.
I must emphasise No.2 because neither camp seems to have paid much attention to education at all – although Team JC did make the pledge to create the National Education Service at the beginning of their leadership.
Yes Richard, this is a genuinely left of centre programme & must be applauded. A ledership election that started off divisive & damaging could now turn out to be something unequivocally positive.
If Corbyn hadn’t been elected in 2015, the anti-austerity, anti-neolib argument would not have surfaced – including all the excellent ideas you put forward. And if Momentum hadn’t have happened, Corbyn would be gone now & we’d be back to the sameold sameold.
Now Owen Smith has realized what he has to do to win & has come out with a list of genuinely progressive social democratic policies. Now Corbyn has to show us what he’s got in the form of policies. And so on. A genuine democratic process. An ongoing auction for the votes of us old ‘lefties’ that joined the party in their thousands last year – actually baby-boomers who benefitted from social democracy & a mixed economy & would like that for our grandchildren.
And remember – that without us, this auction wouldn’t be taking place. You ask in another post what Clive Lewis is talking about in his Guardian article yesterday. I suggest it’s this.
Didn’t the Fabians say all this back in the 1920s? Why the need for debate?
Because each generation needs to learn again