From this morning's FT email:
So, the Tories are taking us to hell in a hand cart and Labour are quite unable to do anything about it.
Good, isn't it?
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:
Labour are able to do something about but need people to vote for them in order to do it.
@annahubbard
Who can I turn to amongst Labour MPs to articulate the perspective which underpins the economic viewpoint promoted here, whether or not said MPs agree with it?
I couldn’t answer your question precisely Roger. Have you tried speaking/writing to any Labour MPs re the economic viewpoint promoted here?
My point is that Labour have policies aimed at reversing the years of damage caused by ideologically imposed austerity – aimed at stopping the hand cart and putting it in reverse through improving the country’s economic potential, raising productivity and making sure the rich pay their taxes. Why ordinary people may or may not vote for a Party that sets out it’s stall on this basis is another question.
If Labour is about stopping austerity it gas to say how
John McDonnell’s valanced budges will achieve the opposite
Anna,
Thank you for your response. I was rather hoping you could identify a subset of Labour MPs with a substantial understanding of the economic models being discussed here, whether or not they agreed with the models.
In the absence of there being such a set of Labour MPs I cannot see how the assertion “Labour have policies aimed at reversing the years of damage caused by ideologically imposed austerity” can possibly be correct.
And yes I have spoken to a small number of Labour MPs, including a number of former shadow ministers, none have professed or been able to demonstrate any such competence. Worse I have had to endure the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Rachael Long-Bailey and others utter the lines in public like: “We have to live within our means”.
I am with you on this one Roger
Coming to this late Roger, but just wanted to add my despair to yours not only vis a vis Labour in general but Rachel Long-Bailey in particular. I was unable to watch tv over Christmas having thrown a brick through the screen when she came out with that glib ‘we must live within our means’ arrant nonsense on, I think, The Daily Politics ‘show’.
They seem to have convinced themselves now (notwithstanding the evidence that adopting that very same position failed miserably at the last election) that telling the public what they think they want to hear is the way to win back ‘credibility on the economy’.
I assume that someone has suggested that ‘explaining’ to the voter and attacking the government might be a better way of going about things but has been shouted down (probably by Balls on the basis that he believes his star is in the ascendendant again…because some people kept voting for him to come back and make a buffoon of himself until they finally despaired and voted for another. That this might be a metaphor for what will happen at the next election has evidently not occurred to them!)
This is McDonnell’s policy – I know, for sure
It was why I could never have worked with him
Labour has said how they will provide an alternative to austerity economics – including £500b that Jeremy Corbyn suggested for a National Investment Bank. McDonnell is in the middle of a consultation excercise on these matters – see here Roger, you may like to make a submission: http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/the-new-economics. I’m fairly sure there are plenty of Labour MPs able to understand the economic models being discussed here. Whether they would agree these are the best way forward is another matter but their agreement or otherwise does not mean Labour’s policies aimed at reversing the years of damage caused by ideologically imposed austerity do not exist or are “incorrect”.
That’s a lecture series, not a consultation
And most have now disassociated from McDonnell
The £500 bn makes no sense in isolation – it is not costed, cannot be certain to be needed and has not been said what it is for
My original work was far more nuanced. John has forgotten that and gone for big numbers and illiterate balanced budgets instead
So we have established that Labour is saying how it is going to stop austerity albeit you disagree with what they are saying or would like further information. Why not attend the lecture series. They are there to broaden the debate around economics in Britain.
You may not agree with what Labour are doing to stop the Tories taking us to hell in a hand cart and you are invited to submit your alternative suggestions here: http://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/agenda-2020/commissions/economy but, as demonstrated, Labour are doing something.
I know most of those who have given lectures
Most now have nothing to do with Labour
I know a balanced current budget and big capital spending is absurd: how do you staff the new hospital?
I have submitted my ideas to labour – they were called Corbynomics
Then they chose to be neoliberals again
Anne,
“I’m fairly sure there are plenty of Labour MPs able to understand the economic models being discussed here.”
Please can you provide some names of Labour MPs who do, demonstrably, understand the economics being discussed here.
Might I add my name to that request?
I genuinely do not know who they might be.
Gloomy, indeed.
2016 was the year of stupid and dangerous decisions.
2017 will be the year of stupid and damaging actions.
Probably
It’s taken the FT a while as this has been the underlying theme of your blog for the past year & more. I fear the outlook is even worse as the local authority and welfare cuts continue to take their toll. The tide is rising and the LP shows no sign of reform & national responsibility. When will it ditch the Corbyn leadership? I read somewhere recently that he’s being positioned as the UK’s Donald Trump. April 1st came early this year. It’s so frustrating isn’t it?
Yes, in a word
I got Wolfgang Streeck’s book (How Will Capitalism End?) in the post this morning.
Be warned however: although not a big book, the font is tiny.
The FT will of course over-react – the investor class it supports loves ‘level playing fields’ or certainty and I feel that BREXIT has caused many of the investor class plenty of problems (problems that they may have no control over for once – one hopes that they now know how hard working people might feel?).
My biggest long term concern over BREXIT however is that it was not really a glowing advert for democracy was it? The Financial sector in particular will not forget this and may be moving even now to have more of a say in our democracy than we would like which could have serious repercussions for progressives everywhere.
As for Labour – I still see this as a joint failure to work for the voter. It’s ‘six of one and half a dozen of the other’ as we say here in the Midlands.
I am reading that book right now – but the font is a real pain….
I have a feeling the intro is all that is needed to follow the argument
Thanks for the head’s up – I will persevere.
Anyhow – I’ve got an appointment with a Mr Streeck. Cover me……….I’m going in………..