Larry Elliott has an article in the Guardian this morning in which he speculates on why Labour are doing s badly when the opposite should be the case. Havign outlined then disaster of Tory economic policy he says:
There is — and always has been — an alternative to all this, which involves rejecting austerity, an interventionist state, a fairer tax system that cracks down on abuse, a national investment bank, and greater workplace democracy.
Labour's internal polling shows that the public supports this agenda. Voters are up for nationalising the railways and for workers on boards. They see the sense of the state investing in the sectors that make up the fourth industrial revolution if the private sector proves incapable or unwilling to do so. The public can see the blatant unfairness of those who rely on disability benefits to make ends meet paying the price for the follies of the financiers. The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said at the weekend that he would like to restructure the UK economy to make it more Scandinavian and there are obvious attractions in Norway's sovereign wealth fund or Swedish-style childcare.
But the internal polling also shows that when the word “Labour” is attached to any of the above ideas support for them halves. That's scary. In business parlance, Labour has become a toxic brand.
I agree. And it's been going on, as Larry notes ever since Labour failed to defend its own track record in government. As Larry again notes:
Disastrously, Labour appears to have learned nothing from this episode. After the 2010 election, it spent six months navel-gazing: this time there have been not one but two leadership elections. The message sent out to the public — and amplified by a hostile press — is that the party is at war with itself. There is also no getting away from the fact that Corbyn, while adored by his supporters, does not cut it as a potential prime minister with voters at large.
Richard Murphy, who provided much of the intellectual heft behind Corbynomics during his 2015 tilt at the leadership but has subsequently found his advice less welcome, says the leadership has become too timid and is critical of McDonnell's attempts to boost Labour's reputation for fiscal rectitude.
“To use a footballing metaphor Labour have chosen to play away all the time and with a team made up solely of defenders. They have no hope of ever winning. Even a draw is beyond their realistic hope.”
I know Labour do not agree. Larry notes that. But I strongly suspect he agrees with me.
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:
Tragically – for the country – you’re both 100% right. Despair and despondency prevail.
There are a group of us that actually support Corbyn for his policies, and some of them cover the above items.
He is the properly elected leader under the rules, rules he didnt make.
There have been, and still are, factions within that would dump him to the extent of actively supporting the Tory Party
There were 2 efforts to change the leadership and they both failed, and a growng number of other MP’s who are gaining a reputation for out and out treachery and skulduggery.
I will not be voting Lib Dem or anyone else, as some deluded kind of Protest vote, for that way we end up with a government that nobody Wanted.
If another bid for leadership happens,either by demand or Corbyn stepping down, I and many like me will be ignoring any of the MP’s we see as treacherous/Disloyal and voting for Integrity and policies we agree with.Dont see many of those, they are as rare as Rocking Horse shit.
I know that you dont like Labours financial policies Richard, and you do a great job of outlining potentaily better policies in your book.
The struggle we are in is not all about money though, there are bigger stakes here. Brexit and Trump didnt just coincide when they did. The Thatcher founded, Atlantic Bridge project has been winding this Clockwork Orange up since 1997 under the auspices of Liam Fox, ably assisted by Mssrs Gove and Johnson on the board.
The US hated the idea of the UK becoming more EU orientated, they would lose the biggest Aircraft carrier they ever had FFS!
Now let me see, “Who has an almost unblemished record for the number of Successful regime changes since WW2?”
How is it that a group of NeoCon Hawks are now Donald Trumps advisors, and are, or have been Directors of Atlantic Bridge?
I am afraid the struggle is over much more than pure Financials, whether we like it or not Mr Ideology is banging loud at the door. We need to sort that out first, for half of the Labour party would welcome USA 51st State status, and so would the entire rest of the HoC and a fair few lords too
Not sure where Murdoch, Dacre, Rothermere, Barclays x2 would come down but I have a bloody good idea.
A very quick poll on Twitter last week elicited 18000+ Responses to the question “Which of the 4 most recent Labour leaders would make you likely to vote Labour(If none, dont vote)”
43% Coirbyn
14% Miliband Ed
13% Brown
31% Blair
18663 people is a lot for a poll, YouGov use far less, and exit polling is in the hundreds.
Can we believe all we read in the papers
Best regards
I despair of Corbynistas
You are the most right wing fundamentalist support group there has ever been in UK politics
That, and pretending to be left when Corbyn / McDonnell and neoliberal book balancers to their core
Whilst I consider you to comment in a considered way regarding financial matters, I consider this, like many comments on the internet, to be intentionally provocative and unnecessarily offensive. It devalues any points you would try to make. Your response to this perfectly reasonable comment is anything but reasonable. I will not be back. I can work my own view out on the policies I would support and I will work out my view on the way forward with taxation and management of the economy from other sources. I find you too offensive.
If you think supporting a person who has no chance of ever being leader of the opposition is sensible, more fool you
And I am entirely within my rights to say so and to resent those who are denying this country the democracy it needs
For personal reasons (my late wife’s health) I didn’t follow this Blog very closely for about 3 or 4 months last year, when skimming it showed Richard was discussing McDonnell’s arguments about “fiscal stability”, but heard the phrase crop up in Rebecca Long-Bailey’s interview with Andrew Married, and realised yo my horror that McDonnell has locked himself into an “Emperor’s new clothes” denial of sectoral balances, all in the vain hope of establishing Labour’s fiscal bona fides.
Given that Margaret Thatcher paid absolutely no attention to all of this, as the Tories ran a deficit for 17 of their 18 years in power between 1979 and 1997, the dead-end futility of this approach is staggering.
It is even MORE staggering – given that Labour FAILED to establish, indeed voluntarily turned away from establishing, that not be only had Labour NOT overspent between 1997 and 2010, but that its spending had been massively effective and beneficial, so restating the case for proper government intervention – it is even more staggering, I say, that Labour has STILL not understood its own REAL record and history, and not, then, gone on a crusade for government investment to address the serious shortcomings of the British economy and society, but has instead retreated into a replay of the old arguments that have served us so poorly over the last 40 years of neo-liberal hegemony.
If only Gordon Brown had stayed on as Leader over the long 6 months of Summer 2010 to argue for New Labour’s, and state intervention’s, real achievements!
I voted for Jeremy Corbyn last year, because Owen Smith really didn’t persuade me. But now Labour MUST find someone who can really argue for the role of imaginative state intervention, and the real role of spending and taxing in a post-BREXIT environment, and so pointing out the cruel idiocy of the current Government’s whole take and drift (for drift it is) on this most important question in a generation, and probably several generations, because Jeremy Corbyn nd John McDonnell are simply not doing so.
Thanks Andrew
I think you might like to re-think that comment Richard. The most right-wing fundamentalist support group there has ever been in UK political history is quite some statement to make.
All the ‘Corbynistas’ I know are desperate for the kind of policies you recommend and are indeed disappointed by McDonnel’s rejection of many of them, but we also see the context within which Corbyn is working – particularly within the appallingly neo-liberal obsessed PLP and stitched-up NEC.
Yes it’s a disaster that McDonnel has been so thoroughly Wren-Lewissed, but the only possible hope of the grass-roots making policy headway within the Labour Party at the moment is with Corbyn rather than any of the alternatives (feel free to point out any other options if you have any).
If you’re looking for right-wing supporters – I think Progress a much more apt target for the abuse you’ve just thrown.
I am sorry – I think Progress is vastly more honest than Corbyn supporters right now
At least we know what they want
Jeremy and John don’t, and let the right in by their incompetence as a result
And that’s worse than weak left
I’d genuinely rather have Progress – because that’s better than Tory rule for good
I’d rather something much more progressive, of course, but right now that’s not an option
” now Labour MUST find someone ..”
But WHO???
Who in the PLP not only *understands* MMT, and the concept of Functional Finance, but, crucially, *also* has the stamina, skills, and all-round appeal to proselytise it (with all the neoliberal ridicule that would initially ensue), and, what’s more, would actually also *want* lead the party – hopefully to a GE victory in 2020?
Is there anybody? At all? Even one name? With any past performance that could indicate their suitability?
It’s a nice thought, but seriously…if there’s no-one there who fits that bill, then what..?
Who knows….
They’re all hiding right now
Richard – Can you expand on the “Corbyn/McDonnell are neoliberal book balancers to the core” comment, please?
They have committed to balanced budgets
That means they refuse to use the power of the state to create wealth and instead think they are constrained by their power to corece taxation – leaving them at the whim of markets
You really can’t get much more subservient to markets than that
I dont think you read what I wrote
I am not a Corbynista, I am a supporter of the Labour party first and foremost, and voted for Corbyn because there was no other alternative to him espousing the policies I wish to see
They are very simple. No privatisation of the NHS, The Schools, The Prisons and renationalise the Railways.
I havent heard a single opponent to Corbyn get anywhere near those items, let alone change Taxation to recoup the billions being evaded,the Corporate taxation bleeding offshore, a revamp of HMRC.
Labour are also looking at UBI and have commisioned a study on it, as they have with Land valuation Taxation, both of which I believe to be ideas way overdue for execution.
I support Corbyn because there is nobody else. Yes I would like an educated dedicated younger man to step up and run, but they are all too bloody busy eying up the revolving door to a 6 figure salary with Goldmans.
Do you seriously expect anyone to take such policy requirements to the likes of Owen Smith or Angela Eagle? They dont even talk about policies, just about getting rid of Corbyn…..to leave what exactly a f****g great big vacuum?
No thanks
Slagging me off as just another Corbynista may make you feel good about your self but it makes me angry/feel like shit, in equal measures. I have no High Profile,but I’m working on it
After 50 years working in Oil Exploration I can only say one thing with certainty, I can recognise bullshit when I see it and the WHOLE Labour party is full of it….except for Corbyn.
He may be all sorts of dreadful pumpkin growing, vegetarian bike riding things but he is NO bullshitter, and for me thats a start.
As for calling me out as a Right winger? I’m speechless verging on incandescent
Ah, one man is in step
Everyone else is out of it
Is that definition of a party?
I really enjoy your work, Richard; you bring sensible ‘anti-neo-liberal’ political economy (for want of a better phrase…) to a broader audience and I think you have an important role to play in public debate.
Having said that, though, I find some of your comments here unhelpful and, frankly, not an accurate representation of reality.
Lets deal with ‘Corbynistas’ first. The vast majority of ardent Corbyn supporters, in my experience, are younger people with no political/ideological background who believe in a (vaguely conceived) better Britain of affordable housing, decent paid jobs, greater security at work etc. They’re maybe a tad naïve, but they’re fundamentally decent people. There are a distinct minority of self-styled Corbynites on the old sectarian ‘Hard Left’ – yes, they’re nutters, by and large, but still, non of this is ‘right wing fundamentalism’. That kind of phrase seems to me to be intentionally provocative nonsense…
As for the McDonnell economic prospectus (since that what you’re ostensibly talking about; the economic and fiscal platform has far more to do with him that it does Jeremy Corbyn) – I see what you’re saying but I think you go over the top a wee bit. At conference in autumn 2015 McDonnell was foolish to essentially tie himself to what appeared to many of us to be a reheated Ed Balls-ism (all that nonsense from March 2015 about a fiscal lock excluding capital infrastructure spending etc.). The current Shadow Treasury Team weren’t that extreme, though, were they. They explicitly gave themselves more room for borrowing and on the revenue side they were far more open to what we might call ‘progressive’ tax solutions. In fact, if memory serves in that very speech McDonnell paid homage to a number of your ideas regarding bringing multi-nationals and the tax-avoiding elite back into fiscal contributions, closing the ‘tax gap’ etc.
More importantly, since then, they seem to have broadly abandoned any lingering ‘Balls-isms’. This is surely evidenced by the absence of any continued nonsense re: fiscal locks, lazer-tight adherence to Tory fiscal plans etc. What they need to do (and surely you would agree?) is get more serious about devising better thought out policies on the kinds of things I mentioned briefly above, that McDonnell has alluded to on a number of occasions. We need to move away from unhelpful, divisive continued speculation about internal party issues (whether from Corbyn and McDonnell’s supporters or their detractors). Instead, we accept the fact that they will lead Labour into the next GE, and no matter what we may think of that on a personality-politics related level, we need to make sure the policies are the right ones.
Hang in
He’s completely committed to a fiscal rule built in the logic of balanced budgets
As such he fails all corbyn’s supporters every day
Seeing as you mentioned A Clockwork Orange, perhaps someone needs to strap John McDonnell down, with his eyelids clamped open, and force him to watch endless Stephanie Kelton, Steve Keen, Bill Mitchell and Warren Mosler YouTube videos to the accompaniment of Beethoven, until he gets it!! : )
A Twitter poll?
18,000 responses you say?
Sigh. I despair.
Me too….
I broadly agree with this article, opting for fairly long leadership campaigns, repeatedly have damaged Labour. Labour are unlikely to win until they at least appear united. Sadly those on the right of the party are determined for that not to happen, perhaps even preferring a May premiership to a Corbyn one. This is demonstrated by the constant attacking of the leadership in all forms of media.
The other obstacle Labour have to surmount is the blatant hostility of the press including the BBC, which significantly hampers the ability to get the message across.
Maybe the timidity of the leadership in economic policy is down to an effort to hold the party together.
I still support Corbyn for 2 reasons, what is the alternative and bottom line I and a lot of others believe that fundamentally he is a decent principled leader which has been severally lacking in modern politics
Saying Corbyn is hopeless is not attacking the leadership
It is stating what anyone but the wilfully blind can see to be true
Corbyn will never ever win for Labour. Saying so is about wanting a Labour government and nothing else
Wake up, for heaven’s sake
Who will win for Labour?
Right now, no one
Give me a credible alternative that would follow a non neo-liberal agenda and I would consider changing
There may be none
In which case Labour is not your answer
The point is, Corbyn and McDonnell are following that agenda
And that’s my beef with all who argue otherwise
I absolutely agree with you. This is a battle for any democracy at all. Overwhelming resources are being thrown at this to ensure that we sustain our current system allowing increasing inequality. To meet with a good review from the media we would have to select someone who would perpetuate this under the guise of “Labour”. We are being distracted to look at immigration and movement of people where my real concern is how the wealthy and multinationals can move unnoticed round the globe and avoid their social responsibilities.
I am sure Richard Murphy will have something derogatory to say about my comment. I will not be back to see it. He has published extensively – I will take that material and alternative views and I will keep my own view on this and not be bludgeoned to a view he would have me take on.
Please feel free to go where you like
But I assure you – all my effort has been to deliver radical reform
And that’s exactly what Corbyn cannot deliver
Sp feel free to be a closet Tory for as long as you want
Because that’s what supporting Corbyn now means
I agree with all of the above, but the key problem, which I doubt can be fixed by a change of leader, is that over half the current Labour MPs do not. They are products of the long Blair/Brown years of triangulation – neoliberal economics and foreign policy, fiscal ‘prudence’ and the need to square Murdoch and Rothermere. The main aim of these MPs is to re-capture the party for the ‘moderates’ from the ‘hard left.’ This war has a long way to run and will probably end in defeat for both parties.
Yesterday I explained why the Tories are on course to lose the next General Election, it could happen. Apart from that on the subject of playing away, I recall a match in 1958 when I found myself up against JGMW (Gerry) Murphy of The Army and Ireland, a Reverend and later Chaplain to HM. We lost, but not by much.
I have recently posted the following Tweet:
http://bbc.in/2nvvtdp Liberal Elite’s navigators frantic search 4 way ahead
http://bit.ly/2n00olG Corbynistas already off and running
I think your footballing metaphor and critique of Corbyn’s leadership team demonstrate that you value being right as more important to you than solidarity in political power plays. Maintaining that balance is something that Sean Dyche of Burnley could teach you a lot about.
I don’t underestimate the importance of bringing the best advice and talent to bear on the complex uncertainties of top level football contests and national politics. I also don’t underestimate the importance of maintaining the difficult task of the being true to your own excellent analysis.
But it seems to me that you have not adequately thought through the inevitable contradictions of wanting both to be a first rate economics commentator and a trusted public advisor to the Corbyn leadership of the Labour Party. Trying to do both in public is inevitably destructive first to the political project.
What the Corbyn leadership are being subject to from some of their supporters and friends is closely paralleled to what is now happening to Arsene Wenger at Arsenal.
One of the preferences, among many, which have contributed repeatedly to bringing political supremacy to the the Liberal Elites/the Ruling Classes in ‘persuading’ the Lower Orders to vote against their own best interests, at various periods, is their understanding of the crucial importance of the pantomime of solidarity when forced to engage in the musical chairs of succession battles.
I admire the political maturity of the persistent solidarity of the Corbynistas for knowing a real socialist leader when they see one.
Thanks for your comment
First – if Corbyn is a socialist heaven help us – his Shadow Chancellor believes in austerity and book balancing
Second – I am not a member of any political party
Third – Corbyn supposedly chose me (although he was clearly clueless about the real radical implications of what I was saying and stays stuck decades behind the scene) – I did not choose him
Fourth – unless you are a Trot you believe in democracy – at least I do – and Corbyn can never be elected – so the conspiracy to support him destroys hope for those who really nee3d it in this country
I want a radical government
Corbyn does not know what the terms even mean
So stop playing silly games and instead take part in real reform
“First — if Corbyn is a socialist heaven help us — his Shadow Chancellor believes in austerity and book balancing”
Are you seriously suggesting that McDonnell’s problem is that economically he is too right wing?
I am saying his problem is he thinks he’s left but proposes right
And so he has no credibility at all because he clearly has no idea what he is doing
Bullseye!
What the Labour Party doesn’t seem to be able to get its head around is that while its membership is approx. 515,000 (July ’16) – 9,344,328 people voted for it at the last election. On the other hand, the Conservative Party membership is estimated to be around 150,000 – and 11,299,959 people voted for it.
It’s long-overdue, and possibly already too late, that ‘Corbynistas’ figured out the difference between being a protest party and a potential government capable of representing a majority, no matter how big or small their paid-up membership is. Otherwise we’ll be stuck with the Tories for at least another 8 years and maybe longer, unless FPTP voting is replaced by PR.
I’m afraid Labour is trapped in a bubble built of its own cowardice and lack of self belief and has been since 1994.
It will only be when the party stops running scared of Murdoch & Dacre that any sort of recovery can begin.
It still is scared of them
Nigel S asks above “who will win for Labour?”
Thats not where we are. Whats is almost certain is that if Corbyn leads us into a GE, we will be hammered. We will lose 50+ seats and our influence in parliament will be further diminished. Corbyn is a disaster for Labour. Dull, intellectually shallow, a dreadful communicator, hopeless at the despatch box and unable to think on his feet. How that isn’t obvious to everyone by now is utterly beyond me. The real irrefutable charge against him is that in his tenure as leader we have moved further away from power. His job as leader was to move us in the other direction.
We are now in survival mode, or making sure we lose with minimum losses. Corbyn is so bad that almost anyone in the PLP drawing breath would be an improvement. What we need now is to restore some credibility; to perform something like an effective opposition; to be treated as a serious option for government and not a joke as we currently are.
When we’ve done that and look like a proper, professional political party we can start to flesh out some hard policies, not just in the economic area but in all areas where our policy platform is in dire need of refreshing.
I’m afraid that you Richard are the other side of the same coin that is Tim Worstall; a bigot who can not see further then the end of his nose.
You are a professed Quaker who dismisses JC’s views on the non renewal of Trident.
There is more to politics than economics.
Pardon?
When did I argue for the renewal of Trident?
Before you hurl abuse check your facts
I cannot disagree with what Elliott says at all, nor Richard’s posts. Labour are cowed like too many of our politicians.
I have just heard on the news that MPs have decided to reject two quite rational amendments put forward by the Upper House.
To me the BREXIT business is not just about Labour’s weaknesses therefore – it tells me that our parliamentarians are so detached from the reality of people’s lives in this country that the fail to see the trouble this will cause.
This is because too many of them (including those in Labour itself) are going to be insulated from the consequences because of their affluent and comfortable life styles.
This to me is the real problem in our politics. Politics is just another job – and an increasingly well paid one even in opposition. It affords those in it enormous opportunities amidst the chaos. Policy is now just a job creation scheme for MPs.
Labour may be shite. But politics itself in this country is lower than it has ever been. Do not look to it for answers. We are all on our own for now.
PSR
Like you, and most on this blog I find the lack of opposition verging on the incomprehensible and deeply upsetting. How can our MP’s have so little passion?
To some extent I think you are right that all parliamentarians have become detached from the reality of many peoples lives.
A couple of days ago I was reading a newspaper article from amongst my partner’s father’s papers that related to his years in a German POW camp. A group of survivors decided that if they ever made it home they would do something useful to help those who struggled in poverty. The article described the difficult conditions in the camp, Oflag 79 and the germination of the idea to set up a Boys’ Club :
“And most of these men are officers, accustomed to taking comfort in life for granted. For them it is nearly as bad as living in a pig-sty.Little food, drab surroundings, no chance to excercise or play,overcrowding, broken windows,intense cold, primitive sanitation,a feeling of hopelessnes…..A sudden thought comes to that officer ruminating in the rain. He thinks: Yes, this is it!For the first time in our lives a lot of us are just starting to realise what it must be like TO LIVE IN A SLUM, to live in certain parts of the cities IN OUR COUNTRY!”
They subsequently raised substantial sums of money to set up boys clubs and the one my partner’s father was involved in in Liverpool still thrives today.
It seems that our society is again so segregated that there is little possibility for empathy. Indeed has long been heading that way.
Thanks
Judith – very interesting and one gets an inkling of what drove improvements in life in post war Britain.
All I am saying is that we must gird ourselves for what is to come.
I am sure that empathy will come back one day but unfortunately we will have to lose it first.