Quite a lot of people have been asking me, directly and via social media, whether now Jeremy Corbyn has been re-elected I will bury the hatchet and work with him again.
The obvious answer to that question is yes, of course I will, if he or John McDonnell wish me to do so. I have not had a policy of not doing so. I have always made it clear that I will work with any non-racist politician who is wanting to undertake progressive tax reform and likewise am happy to discuss my economic thinking with all those who are interested. My track record proves that I have done so across much of the political spectrum. So, there is no issue, in a sense: if I was asked by Labour to help on, for example, policy for beating tax avoidance of course I would be happy to do so. I have never said otherwise.
But, I am aware that the question is looking for something more than that observation. The question is whether or not I will now endorse what John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn are now doing despite the fact that I chose to criticise him during the early stages of the Labour leadership campaign. It may be worth reminding readers of what my criticisms were. They were (based on an article in the Guardian that I wrote):
First, [Jeremy Corbyn] has not grown into the job in the way John McDonnell has into his: after nine months he still feels like the reluctant leader who cannot do up his tie when necessary, and I hate to say it, but such messages are important. People believe that this is a slap-dash approach that means he cannot lead as a result.
Second, he has not provided a vision of what his leadership will deliver. On economics, for example, we have so far heard almost nothing that really progresses the ideas outlined last summer.
And last, he has not shown the ability to accommodate those who think along other lines, which all leadership requires.
The result, coupled with the chaotic management of the leadership team by John and Jeremy, which I had witnessed, was that I felt that Jeremy may not have been the right choice for Labour leader. And do remember that Jeremy himself only take on challenge for the sake of putting a left winger on the ticket and not because he thought he could win or because he necessarily wanted to, and I really do think that showed at first.
It's worth noting what has changed since then. First, Jeremy has clearly shown he does now want to be leader, and has tidied his act as a result in very many way: he speech on Saturday now shows he has grown into the role.
Second, whilst I continue to like Owen Smith as a person, he did not prove to be a better candidate than Jeremy. I think that in itself is telling for Labour.
Third, Jeremy has been re-elected, and I see no benefit to anyone in thinking that it go through such an election again. The result is very clear and Labour is now a different party.
Fourth, in that case Jeremy will lead the Opposition and, presumably, Labour into the next election. Whether he can win or not is not worth speculating upon, not least because it is usually for governments to lose elections and this government has ample opportunity to do that over the next four years. The reality is, whatever happens, that this is the Opposition we have.
Is that a ringing endorsement? No it isn't. I do think Jeremy Corbyn and his team still do need to listen better: they have no excuse not to do so now. I wait to see if they do.
And they do have to organise so much better: not doing so now would be inexcusable.
But most of all I still want the vision. We did not get it from John McDonnell yesterday. There was a lot of good stuff in his speech, but it was all sound bites. There is still nothing that lays out a philosophy and an explanation of how things will actually happen. The result lets people like Chris Leslie claim that McDonnell's plans would result in the doubling of all taxes. This is a blatantly stupid comment by Leslie ( who is assuming there would be no borrowing and that £500 billion would be raised and spent in a year and all be paid for by tax, and even then he overstates things) but without actually explaining issues in more depth John lays himself open to this. It's good to say that he is in favour of the Entrepreneurial State but he really does need to explain in some real depth how this all works now, and so far he hasn't. At that level my criticism still stands.
But does that mean I will not engage with Labour? No, it doesn't. I assured one member of the shadow Treasury team that I would do so last night, if that was their desire. It seemed it might be. I have sent similar messages to others. And in doing so I have made clear I am not looking for positions, credits, or anything else. Nor will I change my position and join Labour. I just want to help create a better economic and tax policy for the UK. One of the ways I can do that is to offer advice that Labour can take or leave as it wishes, and by being an appropriate critic when necessary. I intend to do both. It's up to Labour to decide if it wants to talk or not. And I may well not publicise it if we do.
But as a first sign James Meadway and I have been in discussion about a debate on the direction of economic policy. I still hope that happens.
Thanks for reading this post. You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
With respect to the £500bn – some of this would be spent, one supposes, on energy projects. Energy projects, if properly structured usually offer a return/profit. If it is a Labour gov’ making the investments (due to reluctance to invest in the private sector) then far from being a liability – the investment would yield a return/benefit – to the country. What is not to like – unless you are a tory.
It is over twenty years since we built a nuclear power station the reason being is since we sold off the CEGB the free market as determined it’s far too risky to build any more.A future Labour government should take majority stakes in energy companies and direct them to invest in energy projects the country needs instead of relying on the free market to give us over priced energy from over priced nuclear power stations.This is something the 45 Labour government understood and why as part of its program to nationalize the commanding heights of the economy was so essential to transform society.Will today’s Labour party do this or allow itself to be frightened into not arguing for a policy to transform society or dither as it did yesterday over Trident.
I think that Labour needs to be more bold, even aggressive in their explanation of how the 500 billion finance will work.
This plan covers 10 year, so on average it’s 50 billion a year, so it won’t create 500 billion extra borrowing since the stimulus will increase GDP and Tax receipts over all 10 years which will both be able to service the borrowing and provide some of the required capital.
You need to break it down in to it’s three constituent parts.
1 – Investing in Infrastructure
2 – Council House building
3 – Investing through the NIB in industry in the regions
There is no doubt that there is a backlog of infrastructure projects which have built up due to reduced infrastructure investment over a long period of time. Several reports indicate that any well managed infrastructure investment will produce a return over time. International reports put the return for each 1 billion invested in Infrastructure at between 1.05 to 1.25 billion (5% – 25% POI). When the money is first spent there in an immediate tax boost as economic activity increases.
Council housing speaks for itself. If I was lent £1 million pound to buy 4 house to rent out at 1.5% interest (20 year bold yields), I would be a poor business man if I couldn’t make a tidy profit. Since the gov will be building the houses we’ll get more houses for the same money, and there is a multiplier effect on increased tax receipts as the new invested money is spent into the economy by the building companies and their employees. It would be criminal negligence not to invest in council housing
Investing through the NIB in industry in the regions is just that, providing loans. Gov can borrow at 1.5% and lend at market rates. As well as interest income, there is also extra tax income from increased economic activity as well as saving in welfare costs.
All three areas produce income to service the borrowing as well as appreciating assets as in the case of Council housing.
What will also be required is extra training especially in the building industry since we built 150,000 houses last year and to build another 100.000 on top will require a lot more manpower
The question for me is: why is this not easier to get across-possible reasons:
1) The Labour party itself is significantly neo-liberal in its thinking
2) Economic illiteracy abounds amongst M.P’s as in the examples of Cooper etc.
3) After 40 years of being told Governments can’t do things people are hard-wired to think ‘it can’t be done.’
This is a formidable obstacle and Labour MUST address it without delay.
Are groups actually working to persuade MPs to take this fight in the commons. Surely pressure groups should be able to convert most Labour MPs, they are not all like Leslie.
Richard, pleased that you highlighted Chris Leslie’s economic illiteracy yesterday. I feel that this deserves a blog of its own to most clearly name and shame him. Though such a public shaming is perhaps not your style. He did not question the viability of gaining public support for a very large investment programme. He didn’t say great idea in practice but this is going to be a very hard sell when we as a party are already on the defensive with regards to economics. He, either through total economic ignorance or deliberate sabotage, did the work of the Tories for them by stating that Labour would have to double all taxes to fund such investment.
I cannot decide whether his comments yesterday were due to his own total illiteracy over economics and how any large investment programme could be funded. Or he was seeking to directly torpedo the main economic speech of his own party by wilfully playing dumb to fit in with the idiotic economic models that rule the media.
If it is pure stupidity then he should never be allowed near a senior economics role within the party again. If it is deliberately torpedoing then he should be thrown out of the party. I say that as a centrist moderate who is totally against any large scale deselection but going on live TV straight after your party’s lead economic spokesman speech and wilfully advancing the Tory, right-wing media attack on your own party policy is deliberately sabotaging your own side.
Perhaps the “surprise” at the Tory conference will be Leslie’s defection to the Tories. After all – and as other commentors note here – he’s effectively torpedoed this policy by producing something that can be used as the 2016 version of the infamous “There is no money” note.
Goodness me Richard I hope they listen to you I really do.
Chris Leslie…………..oh dear…………….
As I may have mentioned, a friend of mine was so angry about BREXIT he wanted to introduce some form of IQ test for potential voters setting a minimum IQ in order to be allowed to vote.
I did suggest to him that we would be better ininsisting on such a test for those people we voted instead.
You’d have to say that Leslie pretty much embodies many of the things that are bad about ‘New Labour’. Not just the apparent ignorance about macroeconomics (and he’s a former Shadow Chancellor!), but the fact that after losing his seat in 2005, he then spent 5 years tooling around working for a think tank before being parachuted into a safe seat in Nottingham in 2010. I see his wife is a former SPAD to Brown and has recently being involved in setting up the anti-Corbyn organisation funded by various Blairites and with links to Mandelson.
It’s not difficult to see why so many can see conspiracies in action not particularly far behind the scenes when you’ve got an MP so clearly doing all he can to cripple his party’s chances. It must be self-serving, surely? Not just incompetence?
I agree Mariner – much is made of the Left’s infiltration of Labour but what of the Right and its willingness to tell outright lies about economics and the role of the State. The Left may indeed scare people but the Right just neuters progressive thinking which is even more insidious and damaging in the long run.
As an activist and delegate, yesterday was truly a great and encouraging day.
It is very clear that the leadership has been listening to constructive criticism, and will continue to do so.
To have the brains behind Corbynomics against you is pretty wounding, or would have been had your criticisms not been so obviously well-intentioned, well thought through and so brave.
A great conference – as can be seen from the shaken neo-liberal press – and the return (I hope!) of our foremost public thinker on economics.
Glad you are burying the hatchet Richard. I would say you were burying the hatchet INTO a number of us on this blog during the Labour Party 172 ‘coup’ episode. I found you during this period of time rude, aggressive and surly to a number of us regular bloggers, so much so, I decided to give this site a wide berth until the whole leadership situation had been decided, which it emphatically has (Corbyn’s percentage of membership could have been about 70% at least without the arbitrary purge of over 130,000).
Your judgements about Owen Smith’s potential were decidedly wrong given the appalling ‘laddish’humour he indulged in (the’Sturgeon gobstopper’) his reference to ‘not being a lunatic’ (carrying the obvious inference) and his infamous Sky interview with his ‘I am normal’ mantra (worth seeing this regarding that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnnsbXfvLj0 )
I also feel that you were lacking in intellectual integrity regarding the mitigating factors that made Corbyn’s first year a mite tricky! Those being:
1) Corbyn was a backbencher for 30 years and mocked as a museum piece of the Left by his own Party and the media for most of that time-you don’t ‘flick a switch’ on this and suddenly ‘beam up’ into a perfectly shaped leader. You seemed to think he sould have been.
2) Corbyn was clearly being undermined by his own party at times. The Tories are adept at hiding this, Labour rarely!
3) There is evidence of at least a partially organised coup connected with the mysteriously funded ‘Saving Labour.’
4) There was a whole year of Press vilification of grotesque intensity which has been shown to be grossly misrepresentative (75% of it). This MUST have impacted Corbyn at some level psychologically.
5) A backstabbing speech by the ghastly Benn designed to show the world that Corbyn was a useless unstatesman-like person.
6) McDonald, again not a well known M.P. who has admitted to making mistakes.
7) The Corbyn phenomenon is clearly a cultural shift, or the start of one and these things are always going to be messy and not fall ‘pat’ into place; Owen Smith even expressing that ‘Corbyn needed more time’ (www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/sep/19/corbyn-labour-leadership-says-huge-turnout-at-his-rallies-shows-he-can-win-an-election-politics-live). I think you underestimated what might be the start of a cultural shift and that it was never going to be linear in nature -that shift is sesmic in essence.
8) I can remember pointing out to you that McDonald had made some clear policy statements by April of this year which you dismissed as too ‘late.’ Why?
I don’t expect you to apologies for the unwanted surliness and dismissive comments to anyone who was supporting Jeremy at the time ( ‘wake up’/’you are being boring’ ‘Trot’etc) but hope that this verbal tendency on your part might calm a little as it doesn’t do you any justice shows no respect to members of this site who often give time out of busy lives whilst not being economic specialists , in order to engage. Less pressure on the ego foot pump perhaps?
Regarding James Meadway, when someone posted about his article critical of your stance you responded ..’I’ll comment on it when I’ve stopped laughing..’. Why adopt such a cackling, scoffing tone of voice? It does you no good at all and certainly had me doubting whether I wanted to be on this site anymore. There is too much of this sort of cackling, scoffing, mocking tone of voice between economists and it just is not necessary- it blurs true debate and is harmful at a civic level in the end.
Well, that’s my ‘hatchet’ buried and I hope I can now take part in debates/discussion on this interesting and valuable site in a less fraught and hyped up atmosphere -if you’ll accept me back, Richard, of course!
There is much there I do not agree with because it is simply wrong (starting with the fact that there was not a coup by 172 and so much more), but welcome back
But please don’t ask for apologies. I offered what I think valid criticism of a great deal that was said that was just nonsense in tones that were deeply respectful compared to many pro-Corbyn comments I saw aimed at anyone who disagreed
Simon,
The keyword from now must be Unity. Unity in the face of the rampant Tories, and the dark cloud of BREXIT.
For Labour to succeed, we must be on top of our game, and must act as one. Constructive Criticism is required to hone our performance.
Richard – through his work on Tax Justice and PQE – has given us a new narrative, and new tools with which to fight the oppressors. Let’s not forget that.
When he speaks only a fool refuses to listen. And his patience and modesty is not limitless. As the lead thinker behind Corbynomics, he’s totally entitled to make the points he makes, and entitled to feel frustrated when the message is not being delivered properly.
Let’s not spoil the new mood of optimism and hope by harking back to old disputes.
Mary C -I agree we should now ‘get on with things’-I just wanted to address a few issues I had a few months back which I feel are justified, Richard has responded and we have a few differences but that’s the end of that matter.
A lot needs to be done to change the economic myths that dominate our culture and we all need to chip in with whatever we can do and I’m sure this site will make its significant contribution.
Mary, do you know that if this big new expenditure on infrastructure were implemented, it would be party time for the infrastructure companies? A feeding bonanza for Amey, Balfour Beatty, Mouchel, Serco, Capita, BT and the energy companies, plus the big accounting, law and consulting firms that support them.
And there isn’t the capacity in the market for skilled contract managers now. What will it be like if Corbyn gets in? Money will slosh around with nobody really watching.
Becky Long-Bailey promised many good things regarding tax, including a Gantip. Meanwhile John Mc slipped into his speech a UBS, which I expect to quickly bite the dust once it has been properly evaluated by his economic advisors.
Richard,
I googled “GANTIP”, and was of course directed straight back to you.
With Carney edging towards PQE, and this week’s developments, might we see the next election dominated by Murphynomics? (With maybe each party coming up with a different name).
Your becoming the default economics operating system.
Very pleased to hear you are having discussions with James Meadway – I hope discussions with McDonnel and Corby will follow.
Heard Yvette Cooper banging on about a “broad” party. That should include you in an advisory capacity i.m.o – you’re not one of those Trotskyists are you! 🙂
Yvette is right that you would turn the country into Zimbabwe. The government has spent record amounts per head if taken as an aggregate over the last 6 years, and you cannot identify a single pound of that which should be cut from the budget. This is ideological madness.
The observation that lenders are more willing to lend to government that show at least a little spending restraint is empirical, not ideological. At the moment the nasty Tories have cut new handouts to people having three or more children. A Labour Party that is electable would have to promote cuts to handouts which explicitly go to rich people – in fact there are £7bn annual of handouts I could name for which the criteria is explicitly to be rich already. That only works if you believe in trickle-down economics.
You can have your green spending, and your infrastructure – but to have no restraint anywhere else in the budget is dogma.
Since Yvette “imaginary wheelchair woman” Cooper introduced the WCA as SoS for the DWP, when she says the party should be broad she presumably means wide enough to tolerate those who’ve contributed to many hundreds of untimely deaths among the electorate. I doubt she was thinking of Richard, especially after her very public outburst regarding McDonnell and McVey the other day.
Quite agree.
Accidentally saw the MP for Salford, Rebecca Long Bailey on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aegMjp37KXo banging on about patriotism and although I didn’t agree with quite a lot, she is quite right to say that patriotism is about us all and how the country makes progress and the implication was that the City isn’t the b (or is that be?) all and end all. And decidedly unpatriotic. Think we could all build on that.
David Graeber, the American anthropolgist now at the LSE, thinks Jeremy Corbyn should stand down in her favour before the next GE – as a by the by…
The best things to have come out of the conference are the motion on the NHS and the emergence of a real force of youngsters for the good, i.e. Momentum, who showed they know how to organise and get things done. Their “The World Transformed” was a great project. We need to contribute to their development as an informed force for change.
Richard,
Now that Sharmi Chakraborty has agreed to a working peerage to help make Jeremy’s radicalism credible to the nation, would you be prepared to engage with Jeremy’s team in a similar way? ie as a working peer if such an arrangement were offered.
I was against Richard’s getting involved with the Corbyn leadership debate as I was concerned that he would be less likely to be listened to especially by the lagest party that seemed closer to delivering a better society along the lines of his writing.
As a campaigner, political neutrality is probably quite important as you need to try to win over diverse groups of people with the worth of your argument. So I was not happy to see Richard saying what he said at the time and I aired my concerns with him on (t)his blog.
It was also galling for me to see members of the leadership back tracking on Richard’s ideas later – ideas that are well worth trying. This seemed like ‘tit for tat’ to me and was more like the politics of the school playground. This was a real low point for me and the Labour Party.
However, that time has been and gone and I now wait to see how Corbyn and Co embrace those who really quite rightly raised issues with their conduct of being a proper opposition. We criticise Blair and his ‘sofa cabinet’ and should have learnt from that – yet here was policy being seemingly made on the hoof at the time with the poor shadow minister not being included. Not acceptable – not acceptable at all.
So Corbyn has won. Fair enough – but what happens next is what interests me. The Party needs to not just have the best organisers looking after Corbyn; they will also need better process management within so that everyone on the Shadow Cabinet is singing from the same hymn sheet too. If we have another farce in the commons like we did over the Syria vote then you can kiss 2020 goodbye.
it doesn’t look good so far with messrs khan, Watson and Benn, Cooper singing from their own hymn sheet with barely coded attacks on Corbyn.
Watson’s conference speech was a grotesquerie of bigging up Blair years and offering homage unqualified to capitalism and enough references to electability to convey to the half-asleep that he hasn’t really accepted the result.
I think he needs it, Richard-you could explain to him the history of neo-liberalism and how Labour fuelled the housing bubble. and that his panegyric of the Blai years needs some balance. His speech wasn’t helpful in the interests of unity and implementing a radical program.
To me Watson seemed concerned that Labour was being seen as anti-business. He was a little too desperate to make amends. But why?
He may have been concerned because of the speeches he had heard (I did not watch). This means that the quality of engagement by Corbyn & Co with these ideas needs to be got across well. They need to up their game. Business has to be recognised as an engne of growth etc., but also has to be encouraged to work differently. You don’t start that process by pointing your finger.
You start that process by changing public opinion. Is Corbyn going to do that by slagging business off or by getting voters on his side first by showing us a better way to do busienss and then perhaps wining the argument?
We shall see.
Neither side in Labour can afford to be strident up to 2020. Or they will both die like two forbidden lovers chained together and left to the sea.
PSR:
The NIB are surely that “business first” message Labour needs to propagate, as opposed to the “Corporate first”. Helping existing business expand is a must. If banks think there might be a contraction and even a slowdown they are less likely to loan to business of any size. A government investing in small to medium business along with the Infrastructure investment gives the message that there will not be a turndown because the Gov is willing to invest, that should in turn allow banks to be more confident about lending themsleves – win – win.
Those that pour scorn on borrowing 100bn 0r 500bn or whatever to refloat the ship make me laugh when the Tories borrowed 750bn (is it?) more while conditions worsen.
Another (separate) thought is about the £375 the gov ‘owes to it itself’ and Osborne presumably was lining it up to be written off if he stayed in the job. While I think the futility of a paper exercise will be exposed, I just recall it as something not been mentioned lately that the Tories (presumably) will ‘tweak’ a’t some stage. Especially as it was likely there also to give a bigger paper debt to justify austerity need’ but now the immovable austerity goalposts have been moved by Corbyn it will knock on even the Tories.
Indeed-QE proves there ‘is a magic money tree’ despite Rachel Reeves insisting there isn’t:-
“t the last general election we lost for a whole lot of reasons, but perhaps one of the biggest was that we weren’t trusted on the economy. We have to be mindful of that. If that means raising taxes, and making that argument, we should do that. We can’t pretend there’s a magic money tree.”
She’s wrong and playing the Tory-Lite card, this stuff is damaging for Labour and needs clarifying quickly.
Our Website uses cookies to improve your experience. Please visit our Private: Data Protection & Cookie Policy page for more information about cookies and how we use them.
With respect to the £500bn – some of this would be spent, one supposes, on energy projects. Energy projects, if properly structured usually offer a return/profit. If it is a Labour gov’ making the investments (due to reluctance to invest in the private sector) then far from being a liability – the investment would yield a return/benefit – to the country. What is not to like – unless you are a tory.
Good heavens – you don’t want to believe that. Don’t you know the state is incapable of making a return? Dogma says so
It is over twenty years since we built a nuclear power station the reason being is since we sold off the CEGB the free market as determined it’s far too risky to build any more.A future Labour government should take majority stakes in energy companies and direct them to invest in energy projects the country needs instead of relying on the free market to give us over priced energy from over priced nuclear power stations.This is something the 45 Labour government understood and why as part of its program to nationalize the commanding heights of the economy was so essential to transform society.Will today’s Labour party do this or allow itself to be frightened into not arguing for a policy to transform society or dither as it did yesterday over Trident.
I have a lot of sympathy with that
I think that Labour needs to be more bold, even aggressive in their explanation of how the 500 billion finance will work.
This plan covers 10 year, so on average it’s 50 billion a year, so it won’t create 500 billion extra borrowing since the stimulus will increase GDP and Tax receipts over all 10 years which will both be able to service the borrowing and provide some of the required capital.
You need to break it down in to it’s three constituent parts.
1 – Investing in Infrastructure
2 – Council House building
3 – Investing through the NIB in industry in the regions
There is no doubt that there is a backlog of infrastructure projects which have built up due to reduced infrastructure investment over a long period of time. Several reports indicate that any well managed infrastructure investment will produce a return over time. International reports put the return for each 1 billion invested in Infrastructure at between 1.05 to 1.25 billion (5% – 25% POI). When the money is first spent there in an immediate tax boost as economic activity increases.
Council housing speaks for itself. If I was lent £1 million pound to buy 4 house to rent out at 1.5% interest (20 year bold yields), I would be a poor business man if I couldn’t make a tidy profit. Since the gov will be building the houses we’ll get more houses for the same money, and there is a multiplier effect on increased tax receipts as the new invested money is spent into the economy by the building companies and their employees. It would be criminal negligence not to invest in council housing
Investing through the NIB in industry in the regions is just that, providing loans. Gov can borrow at 1.5% and lend at market rates. As well as interest income, there is also extra tax income from increased economic activity as well as saving in welfare costs.
All three areas produce income to service the borrowing as well as appreciating assets as in the case of Council housing.
What will also be required is extra training especially in the building industry since we built 150,000 houses last year and to build another 100.000 on top will require a lot more manpower
Your logic is sound
The question for me is: why is this not easier to get across-possible reasons:
1) The Labour party itself is significantly neo-liberal in its thinking
2) Economic illiteracy abounds amongst M.P’s as in the examples of Cooper etc.
3) After 40 years of being told Governments can’t do things people are hard-wired to think ‘it can’t be done.’
This is a formidable obstacle and Labour MUST address it without delay.
Are groups actually working to persuade MPs to take this fight in the commons. Surely pressure groups should be able to convert most Labour MPs, they are not all like Leslie.
I think that is the plan
You may not have to give the matter any thought. With blatant disregard for democracy, the NEC appear to be changing the rules to ensure Corbyn will be neutered as leader https://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/urgent-heres-why-labour-delegates-must-defeat-the-necs-pre-packed-rule-changes-tomorrow/ There’s a lot more going on to stop him too bu that’s happening now today. Worth keeping an eye on Twitter, I’d say, where all the freshest news is these days.
If that’s enough to neuter him the idea is not big enough
Richard, pleased that you highlighted Chris Leslie’s economic illiteracy yesterday. I feel that this deserves a blog of its own to most clearly name and shame him. Though such a public shaming is perhaps not your style. He did not question the viability of gaining public support for a very large investment programme. He didn’t say great idea in practice but this is going to be a very hard sell when we as a party are already on the defensive with regards to economics. He, either through total economic ignorance or deliberate sabotage, did the work of the Tories for them by stating that Labour would have to double all taxes to fund such investment.
I cannot decide whether his comments yesterday were due to his own total illiteracy over economics and how any large investment programme could be funded. Or he was seeking to directly torpedo the main economic speech of his own party by wilfully playing dumb to fit in with the idiotic economic models that rule the media.
If it is pure stupidity then he should never be allowed near a senior economics role within the party again. If it is deliberately torpedoing then he should be thrown out of the party. I say that as a centrist moderate who is totally against any large scale deselection but going on live TV straight after your party’s lead economic spokesman speech and wilfully advancing the Tory, right-wing media attack on your own party policy is deliberately sabotaging your own side.
I am not sure he’s worth it
Perhaps the “surprise” at the Tory conference will be Leslie’s defection to the Tories. After all – and as other commentors note here – he’s effectively torpedoed this policy by producing something that can be used as the 2016 version of the infamous “There is no money” note.
I have to say that if there is one MP Labour could do without he would be high on my list
Richard, this is a key moment. This argument has to be shot down for the illiterate nonsense that it is. Go get em!
Goodness me Richard I hope they listen to you I really do.
Chris Leslie…………..oh dear…………….
As I may have mentioned, a friend of mine was so angry about BREXIT he wanted to introduce some form of IQ test for potential voters setting a minimum IQ in order to be allowed to vote.
I did suggest to him that we would be better ininsisting on such a test for those people we voted instead.
You’d have to say that Leslie pretty much embodies many of the things that are bad about ‘New Labour’. Not just the apparent ignorance about macroeconomics (and he’s a former Shadow Chancellor!), but the fact that after losing his seat in 2005, he then spent 5 years tooling around working for a think tank before being parachuted into a safe seat in Nottingham in 2010. I see his wife is a former SPAD to Brown and has recently being involved in setting up the anti-Corbyn organisation funded by various Blairites and with links to Mandelson.
It’s not difficult to see why so many can see conspiracies in action not particularly far behind the scenes when you’ve got an MP so clearly doing all he can to cripple his party’s chances. It must be self-serving, surely? Not just incompetence?
I agree Mariner – much is made of the Left’s infiltration of Labour but what of the Right and its willingness to tell outright lies about economics and the role of the State. The Left may indeed scare people but the Right just neuters progressive thinking which is even more insidious and damaging in the long run.
As an activist and delegate, yesterday was truly a great and encouraging day.
It is very clear that the leadership has been listening to constructive criticism, and will continue to do so.
To have the brains behind Corbynomics against you is pretty wounding, or would have been had your criticisms not been so obviously well-intentioned, well thought through and so brave.
A great conference – as can be seen from the shaken neo-liberal press – and the return (I hope!) of our foremost public thinker on economics.
Not a bad week.
Glad you are burying the hatchet Richard. I would say you were burying the hatchet INTO a number of us on this blog during the Labour Party 172 ‘coup’ episode. I found you during this period of time rude, aggressive and surly to a number of us regular bloggers, so much so, I decided to give this site a wide berth until the whole leadership situation had been decided, which it emphatically has (Corbyn’s percentage of membership could have been about 70% at least without the arbitrary purge of over 130,000).
Your judgements about Owen Smith’s potential were decidedly wrong given the appalling ‘laddish’humour he indulged in (the’Sturgeon gobstopper’) his reference to ‘not being a lunatic’ (carrying the obvious inference) and his infamous Sky interview with his ‘I am normal’ mantra (worth seeing this regarding that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnnsbXfvLj0 )
I also feel that you were lacking in intellectual integrity regarding the mitigating factors that made Corbyn’s first year a mite tricky! Those being:
1) Corbyn was a backbencher for 30 years and mocked as a museum piece of the Left by his own Party and the media for most of that time-you don’t ‘flick a switch’ on this and suddenly ‘beam up’ into a perfectly shaped leader. You seemed to think he sould have been.
2) Corbyn was clearly being undermined by his own party at times. The Tories are adept at hiding this, Labour rarely!
3) There is evidence of at least a partially organised coup connected with the mysteriously funded ‘Saving Labour.’
4) There was a whole year of Press vilification of grotesque intensity which has been shown to be grossly misrepresentative (75% of it). This MUST have impacted Corbyn at some level psychologically.
5) A backstabbing speech by the ghastly Benn designed to show the world that Corbyn was a useless unstatesman-like person.
6) McDonald, again not a well known M.P. who has admitted to making mistakes.
7) The Corbyn phenomenon is clearly a cultural shift, or the start of one and these things are always going to be messy and not fall ‘pat’ into place; Owen Smith even expressing that ‘Corbyn needed more time’ (www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/sep/19/corbyn-labour-leadership-says-huge-turnout-at-his-rallies-shows-he-can-win-an-election-politics-live). I think you underestimated what might be the start of a cultural shift and that it was never going to be linear in nature -that shift is sesmic in essence.
8) I can remember pointing out to you that McDonald had made some clear policy statements by April of this year which you dismissed as too ‘late.’ Why?
I don’t expect you to apologies for the unwanted surliness and dismissive comments to anyone who was supporting Jeremy at the time ( ‘wake up’/’you are being boring’ ‘Trot’etc) but hope that this verbal tendency on your part might calm a little as it doesn’t do you any justice shows no respect to members of this site who often give time out of busy lives whilst not being economic specialists , in order to engage. Less pressure on the ego foot pump perhaps?
Regarding James Meadway, when someone posted about his article critical of your stance you responded ..’I’ll comment on it when I’ve stopped laughing..’. Why adopt such a cackling, scoffing tone of voice? It does you no good at all and certainly had me doubting whether I wanted to be on this site anymore. There is too much of this sort of cackling, scoffing, mocking tone of voice between economists and it just is not necessary- it blurs true debate and is harmful at a civic level in the end.
Well, that’s my ‘hatchet’ buried and I hope I can now take part in debates/discussion on this interesting and valuable site in a less fraught and hyped up atmosphere -if you’ll accept me back, Richard, of course!
Simon
There is much there I do not agree with because it is simply wrong (starting with the fact that there was not a coup by 172 and so much more), but welcome back
But please don’t ask for apologies. I offered what I think valid criticism of a great deal that was said that was just nonsense in tones that were deeply respectful compared to many pro-Corbyn comments I saw aimed at anyone who disagreed
I am willing to work with Jeremy et al
But I am not joining the fan club
Best
Richard
Simon,
The keyword from now must be Unity. Unity in the face of the rampant Tories, and the dark cloud of BREXIT.
For Labour to succeed, we must be on top of our game, and must act as one. Constructive Criticism is required to hone our performance.
Richard – through his work on Tax Justice and PQE – has given us a new narrative, and new tools with which to fight the oppressors. Let’s not forget that.
When he speaks only a fool refuses to listen. And his patience and modesty is not limitless. As the lead thinker behind Corbynomics, he’s totally entitled to make the points he makes, and entitled to feel frustrated when the message is not being delivered properly.
Let’s not spoil the new mood of optimism and hope by harking back to old disputes.
The next generation will not forgive us.
Mary C -I agree we should now ‘get on with things’-I just wanted to address a few issues I had a few months back which I feel are justified, Richard has responded and we have a few differences but that’s the end of that matter.
A lot needs to be done to change the economic myths that dominate our culture and we all need to chip in with whatever we can do and I’m sure this site will make its significant contribution.
As you say Simon, let’s move on
Mary, do you know that if this big new expenditure on infrastructure were implemented, it would be party time for the infrastructure companies? A feeding bonanza for Amey, Balfour Beatty, Mouchel, Serco, Capita, BT and the energy companies, plus the big accounting, law and consulting firms that support them.
And there isn’t the capacity in the market for skilled contract managers now. What will it be like if Corbyn gets in? Money will slosh around with nobody really watching.
Adrian
You might think yourself incompetent and of limited horizons – as you say here, often – but not all the world is
Thankfully
Richard
Do you really think you will have a major infrastructure programme without involving these companies (and others like it)?
Please explain how you think it will work otherwise.
Of course we will have to involve them
So?
Don’t you know that’s how the multiplier works?
It really is time you got out more Adrian
Becky Long-Bailey promised many good things regarding tax, including a Gantip. Meanwhile John Mc slipped into his speech a UBS, which I expect to quickly bite the dust once it has been properly evaluated by his economic advisors.
A gantip is essential
I wrote one in 2013
Richard,
I googled “GANTIP”, and was of course directed straight back to you.
With Carney edging towards PQE, and this week’s developments, might we see the next election dominated by Murphynomics? (With maybe each party coming up with a different name).
Your becoming the default economics operating system.
Sorry….
Whatever, water under the bridge.
Very pleased to hear you are having discussions with James Meadway – I hope discussions with McDonnel and Corby will follow.
Heard Yvette Cooper banging on about a “broad” party. That should include you in an advisory capacity i.m.o – you’re not one of those Trotskyists are you! 🙂
No!
But I do plan to turn the country into Zimbabwe according to Yvette, although she’s wrong in that one
Yvette is right that you would turn the country into Zimbabwe. The government has spent record amounts per head if taken as an aggregate over the last 6 years, and you cannot identify a single pound of that which should be cut from the budget. This is ideological madness.
No
It’s pure economic sense
Except we did not spend enough since we still have seriously unused capacity
And massive market demand for government debt – which rather oddly you choose to ignore
But why let market realities get in the way of your dogma?
The observation that lenders are more willing to lend to government that show at least a little spending restraint is empirical, not ideological. At the moment the nasty Tories have cut new handouts to people having three or more children. A Labour Party that is electable would have to promote cuts to handouts which explicitly go to rich people – in fact there are £7bn annual of handouts I could name for which the criteria is explicitly to be rich already. That only works if you believe in trickle-down economics.
You can have your green spending, and your infrastructure – but to have no restraint anywhere else in the budget is dogma.
Except that I quite explicitly do propose changes to impact the well off
You are wasting my time
Since Yvette “imaginary wheelchair woman” Cooper introduced the WCA as SoS for the DWP, when she says the party should be broad she presumably means wide enough to tolerate those who’ve contributed to many hundreds of untimely deaths among the electorate. I doubt she was thinking of Richard, especially after her very public outburst regarding McDonnell and McVey the other day.
Quite agree.
Accidentally saw the MP for Salford, Rebecca Long Bailey on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aegMjp37KXo banging on about patriotism and although I didn’t agree with quite a lot, she is quite right to say that patriotism is about us all and how the country makes progress and the implication was that the City isn’t the b (or is that be?) all and end all. And decidedly unpatriotic. Think we could all build on that.
David Graeber, the American anthropolgist now at the LSE, thinks Jeremy Corbyn should stand down in her favour before the next GE – as a by the by…
The best things to have come out of the conference are the motion on the NHS and the emergence of a real force of youngsters for the good, i.e. Momentum, who showed they know how to organise and get things done. Their “The World Transformed” was a great project. We need to contribute to their development as an informed force for change.
Richard,
Now that Sharmi Chakraborty has agreed to a working peerage to help make Jeremy’s radicalism credible to the nation, would you be prepared to engage with Jeremy’s team in a similar way? ie as a working peer if such an arrangement were offered.
I can’t imagine such an arrangement being offered
Me neither. I think for better or worse you’ve well and truly burnt your bridges with the Labour leadership.
That’s entirely up to them
I never sought the relationship in the first place
But if they ask I will help
As I will others
Which is why I would never qualify to join Labour
But there is one thing I do know, and that’s you don’t know
I was against Richard’s getting involved with the Corbyn leadership debate as I was concerned that he would be less likely to be listened to especially by the lagest party that seemed closer to delivering a better society along the lines of his writing.
As a campaigner, political neutrality is probably quite important as you need to try to win over diverse groups of people with the worth of your argument. So I was not happy to see Richard saying what he said at the time and I aired my concerns with him on (t)his blog.
It was also galling for me to see members of the leadership back tracking on Richard’s ideas later – ideas that are well worth trying. This seemed like ‘tit for tat’ to me and was more like the politics of the school playground. This was a real low point for me and the Labour Party.
However, that time has been and gone and I now wait to see how Corbyn and Co embrace those who really quite rightly raised issues with their conduct of being a proper opposition. We criticise Blair and his ‘sofa cabinet’ and should have learnt from that – yet here was policy being seemingly made on the hoof at the time with the poor shadow minister not being included. Not acceptable – not acceptable at all.
So Corbyn has won. Fair enough – but what happens next is what interests me. The Party needs to not just have the best organisers looking after Corbyn; they will also need better process management within so that everyone on the Shadow Cabinet is singing from the same hymn sheet too. If we have another farce in the commons like we did over the Syria vote then you can kiss 2020 goodbye.
And they do need good ideas
Yes – they need good ideas because they are modern politicans who have been seduced by dogma for which the rest of us pick up the bill.
it doesn’t look good so far with messrs khan, Watson and Benn, Cooper singing from their own hymn sheet with barely coded attacks on Corbyn.
Watson’s conference speech was a grotesquerie of bigging up Blair years and offering homage unqualified to capitalism and enough references to electability to convey to the half-asleep that he hasn’t really accepted the result.
Appalling!
I should make clear, if Tom called (and he has in the past) I would also happily advise him
I think he needs it, Richard-you could explain to him the history of neo-liberalism and how Labour fuelled the housing bubble. and that his panegyric of the Blai years needs some balance. His speech wasn’t helpful in the interests of unity and implementing a radical program.
To me Watson seemed concerned that Labour was being seen as anti-business. He was a little too desperate to make amends. But why?
He may have been concerned because of the speeches he had heard (I did not watch). This means that the quality of engagement by Corbyn & Co with these ideas needs to be got across well. They need to up their game. Business has to be recognised as an engne of growth etc., but also has to be encouraged to work differently. You don’t start that process by pointing your finger.
You start that process by changing public opinion. Is Corbyn going to do that by slagging business off or by getting voters on his side first by showing us a better way to do busienss and then perhaps wining the argument?
We shall see.
Neither side in Labour can afford to be strident up to 2020. Or they will both die like two forbidden lovers chained together and left to the sea.
PSR:
The NIB are surely that “business first” message Labour needs to propagate, as opposed to the “Corporate first”. Helping existing business expand is a must. If banks think there might be a contraction and even a slowdown they are less likely to loan to business of any size. A government investing in small to medium business along with the Infrastructure investment gives the message that there will not be a turndown because the Gov is willing to invest, that should in turn allow banks to be more confident about lending themsleves – win – win.
Those that pour scorn on borrowing 100bn 0r 500bn or whatever to refloat the ship make me laugh when the Tories borrowed 750bn (is it?) more while conditions worsen.
Another (separate) thought is about the £375 the gov ‘owes to it itself’ and Osborne presumably was lining it up to be written off if he stayed in the job. While I think the futility of a paper exercise will be exposed, I just recall it as something not been mentioned lately that the Tories (presumably) will ‘tweak’ a’t some stage. Especially as it was likely there also to give a bigger paper debt to justify austerity need’ but now the immovable austerity goalposts have been moved by Corbyn it will knock on even the Tories.
Indeed-QE proves there ‘is a magic money tree’ despite Rachel Reeves insisting there isn’t:-
“t the last general election we lost for a whole lot of reasons, but perhaps one of the biggest was that we weren’t trusted on the economy. We have to be mindful of that. If that means raising taxes, and making that argument, we should do that. We can’t pretend there’s a magic money tree.”
She’s wrong and playing the Tory-Lite card, this stuff is damaging for Labour and needs clarifying quickly.
Already the cowardly Osborne is mouthing criticisms of QE now the writing is appearing on the wall. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/george-osborne-says-the-bank-of-englands-quantitative-easing-makes-the-rich-richer-a7333256.html
Expediency allows these people to occasionally tell the truth in the wake of the suffering they cause.