In odd moments I confess I do wonder why I write this blog. This weekend has been one of those occasions.
After a pretty exhausting week I wrote a blog on Friday about Corbyn and Europe. I am far from alone in pointing out he does not have a coherent policy on the EU. He's not alone of course; nor have the Tories. There is a difference though. Corbyn wants to be prime minister. It seems no one in the Tories really does any more. As a result I think it's beholden on him to have a realistic plan.
I knew when I wrote it I probably shouldn't say it. The sense of foreboding was real. I sensed that what I thought a completely logical comment, that was also utterly consistent with my previous apology to Corbyn that made it quite clear I thought he had a long way to go on policy, would be received badly by Labour tribalists, who had been a subject of criticism in that apology. And it was.
The usual nonsense was rolled out. Apparently I am plotting coups. I am anti-working class. I know nothing about politics. It is arrogant of me to write. I shouldn't be a professor. I shouldn't be demanding Labour sing to my tune. And on, and on. And to be candid, it's really boring, for three reasons which seem worth reiterating.
First, I do not do party politics. To put this in plain terms, if you came here thinking this is a pro-Labour blog, you're seriously mistaken. It is instead commentary on the political economy as I see it, which is from a left of centre perspective.. There are good reasons for this appraoch. I'm too honest for party politics: I would find it extraordinarily difficult to say a party was right if I thought it wrong, but that is what party allegiance requires. That is why I am not in any party, criticise all on occasion and also offer praise across the board when I think a party gets things right. As a political economist who is not seeking to be a politician but works from a base of fairly clearly thought out principles that should be pretty obvious to all by now I think that's a completely reasonable thing to do. But some clearly don't think so, which brings me to my second point.
This is that I never asked Corbyn to adopt my ideas: he did so without ever seeking my consent. It was flattering but it neither makes me beholden to him or on any way responsible for what he does now. Or vice versa, of course. We're not in any form of relationship and never have been, although those criticising me now might want to think what doing so says about Jeremy Corbyn: he did, after all, run for leader of Labour on an economic platform quite largely of my creation. But that does not mean he 'made' me as some Labour tribalists seem to think. The ideas existed before he used them, as did the principles on which they're based. There were 1.6 million reads on this blog in 2014 and 2 million in 2015 and 2016. This year there will almost certainly be somewhat more since there have been 1.4 million reads in the first half year. Corbyn didn't create much of a blip in the progression in that case. And I also made only a minor blip in his progression. The nonsense thrown at me by some of his supporters is then unfair to both him and me, and I'm sure he'd agree, wholly unjustified.
Third, as a matter of fact I am, when writing a blog of the duration this one has enjoyed, allowed to change my mind, offer differing perspectives on occasion as part of the exploration of ideas, and even be wrong sometimes without having to do more than acknowledge it. Writing a blog does not make me someone else's property. Nor does it make me beholden to any reader. I'm just a person at a keyboard, nothing more or less. If some ideas resonate I'm happy with that. But I have actually never asked anyone to approve a word I have said here. And I never will. So take or leave what you will, or ignore it all. I really don't mind. But it does not give you the right to say I cannot say what I think, because that right is mine alone and I will use it as I will. You can disagree if you like, and I respect your right to do so. I even provide a space for you to do so if it's done reasonably respectfully: I can't be fairer than that.
But in the process don't tell me I'm not allowed my own thoughts.
And don't tell me I am demanding others agree with me when I am most definitely not.
All I'm actually doing on this blog is working out what I think. Nothing more, or less. And please be aware that if you don't think I have the right to do that what you're then doing is something much more sinister, because what you're actually asking for in that case is a curtailment of my right to free speech, and I am really hoping that's not on your agenda because if it is I am really worried.
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:
Spot on, Richard! Please continue to bother!
I’ll second that! Keep on keeping on!
Hello Richard,
Keep your blog going regardless.
I have learnt a lot from you about economics and appreciate you being brave and sticking your neck out. I am a Corbyn supporter but I also know politicians often don’t know much about specialised subjects and they need to listen to experts with a proven track record of being correct.
I hate putting an opinion on the net as I know there will always be a certain amount of ridicule and antagonism coming back instead of logical argument. I advise Jeremy Corbyn and his other supporters to take note of what you are saying and consider changing their strategy in the light of your opinion.
When we can disconnect the crocodile brain and use our intelligence we can agree or disagree and get along in a more friendly way. Sadly this is easier said than done for us humans.
Ron
Thanks Ron
All engagement with political parties is self-defeating. Praise, support, constructive criticism or vituperation: it all turns out as wasted effort.
Those who give them money lose far more than you; although I cannot find the slightest trace of sympathy for that particular folly.
That is not to say ‘despair, and desist’: public engagement is more useful, and far more rewarding.
My sympathies.
The internet is a strange place and a continually evolving one. Some of us view it as a place to nurture debate and improve the society we live in (perhaps a bit like the role of the debating arena in e.g. Rorty’s view of democracy), while others try to control the debate and field of power, sometimes by shutting said debate down. It seems increasingly post-election to be a place of (almost screeching) political warfare in which the stakes are felt to be very high.
One of the costs of this is the need for moderation of comments (a far cry from the original views of the first internet pioneers) and undoubtedly the impact of having to read some of it on the moderators.
My point really is that despite and because of all of the above, blogs like these are really important and much appreciated by us self-educating readers.
Thanks
I am not giving up
But sure as heck it can feel thankless sometimes
Radicals and innovators will always cop a lot of flak. Don’t let it put you off!
First they laugh at you, then they shit themselves, then they say they agreed with you all along.
I agree with that
I can take it from the right any day
The Labour stuff is quite weird though
I can see why Owen Jones has given up social media
Well said, keep putting it out there.
To me it is quite clear that there is a huge amount of sensitivity within Labour of Corbyn being under attack from the right wing of the party. They are desperately spitting their dummies out and have thrown every thing they can at Corbyn. So whenever people like Chukka Umunna, who to me clearly represents the careerist, Blairite neo-liberal, pro-war, element of the party (basically most of what went wrong with it), start criticising Corbyn, people are very sceptical about it, as it just seems like another attempt to revert to the Blairite status quo.
The big problem is that Brexit is totally illogical to begin with and is an absolute nightmare of a mess to navigate whoever is in charge.
Well said indeed. I certainly hope you continue doing what you do in the way you have been doing it.
Well said Richard. And thank you for keeping on blogging – and writing great books. Parti tribalism isn’t pretty and only offers a blinkered almost ‘religious’ view of the world. If only there was a way to help them look sideways at times.
It was your commentary that made me respond in the way that I did. I just saw it differently – based on what I’ve seen the Corbyn Camp do recently before the election and how toxic the BREXIT issue is. Had you not said what you said I may have remained ignorant. So what I am saying is thank you for blogging and enabling me to arrive at my own conclusion. And you published it too.
Corbyn does not seem to be an atypical politician but then again this whole toxic mess created by Tory misrule is far from typical. The Tories have taken divide and conquer in this country to new extremes. Any opposition politician now is working in unknown territory – caution is needed. The Right in this country are on the ropes but as you have pointed out they know how to get off and are just
playing for time.
As for the those who have said what they said – I detect that some will defend Corbyn to the hilt. This is because for such people, he is the only alternative the voter actually has and I think people become overly defensive when they sense he is being attacked (my apologies to the Greens).
They are sick of austerity
They are sick of a Blairite Labour politicians emulating Tory policy (or copying Clintonesque social policy)
They are sick of Corbyn’s own party trying to undermine him
They are sick of the media portrayal of him
They want social justice.
The over reaction you speak of seems to be a result of all this above really. Can you blame them? The unmet need for a better politics is open sore in this country as a result of extremely poor Tory rule and an out of control right wing press. And open sores need careful handling.
As to why you bother – well I am glad that you do.
Thanks
I am glad that you choose to comment too PSR, the comments in Richard’s Blog are very educational too and yours always seem to enhance the debate. Thank you.
Seconded
nil desperandum
Keep up the good work Richard. Many appreciate it including myself. I know you are not a political party member but rather a centre left progressive alliance person. I don’t always agree with you but you stick to your principles and are open and Honest.
Corbyn is still the same person for good and ill. To me part of the problem is the antiquated first past the post UK electoral system. We have two main parties which are coalitions and seem to be ripping themselves apart over Brexit. We badly need a PR system with smaller parties with coherent principles. There are extremely good reasons for disliking the EU but stay in and reform has to be the way to go. I have no clue what is going on. I’ve used this quote from Fintan O’Toole from http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/06/10/britain-the-end-of-a-fantasy/ before and make no apology
“But what do you do when your crowd-pleasing applause lines have to become public policy? The twenty-seven remaining member states of the EU have to try to extract a rational outcome from an essentially irrational process. They have to ask the simple question: What do you Brits actually want? And the answer is that the Brits want what they can’t possibly have. They want everything to change and everything to go as before. They want an end to immigration–except for all the immigrants they need to run their economy and health service. They want it to be 1900, when Britain was a superpower and didn’t have to make messy compromises with foreigners”.
Thanks Sean
And Fintan, come to that
Please don’t stop your blog Richard – it’s one of the few things that keeps me going at the moment!
But regarding Corbyn and Brexit I have just been reading the Another Angry Voice blog where the author writes
“The reason that Jeremy Corbyn wants to leave the single market is that the rules of membership make several of his core manifesto pledges impossible.
If the UK remains in the single market the EU would be able to impose economic sanctions on the UK if Corbyn ever tried to deliver his pledges to repatriate the UK rail system, water companies and National Grid from the assortment of profiteering corporations and foreign governments that operate them now.”
I would love to hear your views on this. As a left wing remainer, I am very confused!
First, we can in effect bring rail back under control. But the rest? I am not sure. However, I think that this is not the biggest issue in the UK now and to destroy jobs to achieve ownership of water and the national grid is crazy. We can regulate these sectors and that is the way to control them. Bizarrely, Thatcher gives us that legacy.
I would say an ownership obsession when we can control via regulation is a 20th century issue, and the Green New Deal is what the 21st century needs
“First, we can in effect bring rail back under control. But the rest? I am not sure.”
Many EU countries have publicly ownded energy companies, including France and Germany, so the EU is not in any way a block to re-nationalising these industries. In Sweden they have liberalised the electricty market to the fullest extent possible, but the competitors in the market are largely state owned.
I think most of the impediments here are UK made
Spot on Richard! Keep up the great work. A greater knowledge of economics is slowly changing amongst the electorate. The £1Bn bung to the DUP and a 1% cap on public services is certainly helping people see that something they’re being told is not quite right!
And that’s where change comes from
Something to make you smile Richard:
Brilliant spoof song on the Tory-DUP deal from Irish band The Remainers to the tune of 500 miles…”And I will get £500 and you will get 500 more…”
It us indeed very good
Richard, I find your blog fascinating and consider it essential reading to counter my ignorance of political economics. I would like your ideas to be debated much more widely in the MSM particularly on the BBC which has a mandate to educate us, the license payer. Thank you for holding firm in your resolve on freedom of thought and speech.
I get the odd go
That’s as much as I can hope for, I suspect
Why bother?
Because it’s helpful to share both the results and the process of how some rational, intelligent and compassionate people reach their standpoints. Keep it up, please.
Downside? Some readers will demonstrate their own illiberality and irrationality in a hurtful manner.
Upside? You can connect with others who share aspects of your own journey and direction of travel which may lead to interesting off-shoot ventures.
Conclusion? Keep going but if you want to avoid the worst excesses of others reactions limit the posts on party political infighting and religion; that’s where the biggest seams of illiberality lie.
I don’t do much religion
It’s hard to do political economy without politics!
Thank you for writing this blog, Richard. I read it to help work out what I think, not that what I think matters to anyone but myself but I try to keep myself informed.
That’s all we can do
If it changes the world by tilting it a little on its axis, that would be good too
Don’t give up and don’t give in. You are one of the most important voices we have. Your writing often makes my head ache from having to rethink the way I wrongly believed the world works, but that’s why I so value your work.
Only suggestion I’d make is to focus your engagement on people making substantive arguments. It can be difficult, but best to not feed the trolls.
Noted
But sometimes it is not obvious where they are coming from – just as it is not obvious why some blogs get a life of their own
Just to say, thanks for the blog.
Appreciated
Illegitimi non carborundum! Long may you find the energy and passion to continue. The struggle for social and economic justice is a never-ending process which requires all the ‘foot-soldiers’ it can muster. Battles will be lost but I’m optimistic we’re gradually winning the war. At this moment in history it is against the destructive forces of ‘Neo-liberalism’. Way still to go, but your blog provides an important source of ammunition. Thank you.
Thanks
your blog is a bright light in the darkness. You have more support out here than not.
Thanks
It’s the aggression that worries me
Richard, your blogs and tweets are one of the highlights and “must-reads” of my day. I love that you are beholden to no one. You often uplift me with your ideas, challenges and solutions. As others have said, please keep going if you have the energy.
I’m interested in your thoughts re nationalisation versus regulation in relation to the single market. Have I missed your postings on that?
All best wishes
Mary
I will try to do it – on my list
Richard
Many thanks
It is highly credible that Umunna has a plotting intent and you have a purely EU message to make.
All I offer is from Lab Conf this unanimously agreed statement:
“Unless the final settlement proves to be acceptable, then the option of retaining EU membership should be retained. The final settlement should therefore be subject to approval, through Parliament and potentially through a general election or a referendum
Just to add my gutfeel – right or wrong but sincere – is that complexities and democratic sincerity mean Brexit attempt is right path with ironic and real potential to result in Remain.
I would ask Remainers (I am one) to consider this potential reality which IMV is another chance being offered to vote in future without causing a stink that could stop it.
And also consider the very real hurdle of being bound by democracy to negotiate Brexit but not able to declare Remain hopes because your negotiating hand would be useless.
This last point is being exploited by Lab right IMO because they take advantage of tight line he has to walk.
If people consider those points before making judgement about Corbyn, then fine.
That’s not what the amendment said
It is not what the manifesto said
That rather makes my point
“Unless the final settlement proves to be acceptable, then the option of retaining EU membership should be retained. The final settlement should therefore be subject to approval, through Parliament and potentially through a general election or a referendum”
But that is not within our gift. The EU would have to agree to that. It’s like other Labour manifesto pledges concerning Brexit – and, to be fair, Tory pledges too. You can say what you want or what you propose to do (such as retaining the benefits of the SM but ending free movement), but at the end of the day the final say is the EU’s.
A renegotiated Remain – in event of an unacceptable Brexit – would indeed need EU to agree conditions as much as UK would.
Renegotiation was always a feasible position though – if approached sincerely and comprehensively.
My gut feeling is that such UK position if it happened would trigger all nations to look at the whole and overhaul the whole basis – the very long-standing thing the EU has needed.
Bear in mind that Corbyn subscribes – in the way many left have evolved on EU thinking – to Varifaroukus-type vision of Europe. But UK democratic socialists cannot shout that out at the moment, can they?
Bottom-line IMV is that if you strive to remain you won’t – at thus stage – but if you go through the Brexit process (as mandated and obliged) I believe Brexit will show itself up so much to be flawed/awkward that Remain could become clear option that public will welcome chance to vote again on. If process followed.
I don’t usually comment on public posts or blogs because of having to deal with trolls (and I agree they are sometimes very hard to spot) but just wanted to say thank-you for your posts to FB in particular (that’s where I link to your blog) – it’s so important for those of us who understand the various MSM biases to have some clear-headed and impartial voices we can turn to – and I count you very high on that list. My own personal bugbear is with the lack of understanding or even engagement with the monetary system we live under, so I’m always grateful for your posts on money in particular.
Thanks
Keep at it Richard. You were simply 100% right in what you wrote about Labour’s Brexit fudge. As a party member it irritates the hell out of me to hear shadow ministers waffling about tariff free access to the SM & CU retaining all the benefits and none of the costs and obligations as if this was a realistic option. I know we have to play the political game to a degree, but sooner or later we’ve got to stop facing two ways.
That you have received stick from certain quarters is no surprise. I’m afraid there are elements within Labour who refuse to engage in honest critique of any position we adopt, believing that to do so is an attempt to undermine the leadership and sow seeds of dissent.
It doesn’t seem to have dawned on many that the leadership’s position is at odds with the vast majority of MPs, members and supporters. Corbyn and McDonnell are the ones out of step with the rest of the party, a fact that will have consequences further down the line.
Hi Richard, I don’t always agree with you, esp on Brexit, Corbyn, and Bill Mitchell, but I don’t see the point of creating a stink about it in your blog, so if u look back at my posts, they tend to concentrate on areas where we do agree, which I think is the most polite and positive approach when posting as a guest on someone else’s blog.
I would urge you not to give up, in fact I think that you, as a ‘semi-public’ figure outside party politics, could well be perfectly placed as a catalyst to inform and encourage left wing MPs and activists to adopt MMT principles in their understanding of the economy, by boldly pushing the simple message that taxes don’t fund spending in your various media appearances.
I feel that there is an inflection point occurring right now, and MMT offers the road map out of the austerity-cursed jungle. As most of its better-known proponents are full-time academics, and mostly in the US and Australia to boot, I would say that you are the perfect candidate to proselytise its message at every given opportunity.
Keep calm and carry on… please!
I will
And thanks
Your contributions here are appreciated
And agreement is not required!
What is hard to work out about Corbyn and where he stands on the EU?
He voted no as a private citizen in the referendum in the 70s.
He voted no to both Maastrict and Lisbon as an MP. First time when Labour was in opposition, then against his own party in power.
His heart wasn’t in the Remain campaign last year. He delivered the Brexit vote as much as anyone.
He was vigorous in whipping his own MPs to support the Bill giving the PM power to issue the Art 50 notice. He can’t wait to get out.
He is an old fashioned protectionist. Doesn’t care about the single market. He will be happy if he can replace EU imports with British-made goods.
He isn’t bothered about EU social protections. If he gets into power, he will implement his own, with bells on.
He is probably the most pro-Brexit leader of any party today, other than UKIP.
I am not particularly pro Brexit or pro JC. But am stunned how anybody can be confused by where he stands on this.
So where is the Labour Party in this then?
No serious commentator knows, and that was my point
JC appears to be the Labour party at the moment.
I don’t move in those circles, so only know what I read, but he seems to be comfortably in control. Star of the show.
That’s an extremely narrow view and ignores many political realities
Part of the problem, imho, is the spill over from the vile adversarial political (and legal) system that passes for democracy in the UK, aided and abetted by an equally vile print media, where the aim is to score points, insult and character assassinate any opponent and create headlines, however repugnant, that will stick in the collective memory. So, some on the internet, hiding behind anonymity think it’s alright to ape this kind of behaviour and post comments like they were down the pub, well into their twelfth pint, where anything goes.
Both politicians, who should know better, and trolls, who presumably don’t, should understand that their behaviour only serves to undermine what limited democracy we have and hastens the day, which I fear may come, when a kind of totalitarianism is imposed due to some (possibly manufactured) “emergency”.
To echo others, we need people like you, independent voices who are not afraid to be counter-establishment; democracy needs more voice like yours if we are ever going to change a moribund system.
Well, most people won’t understand how you think, Richard. Although there might be little to no support from the outside, the support you can get on your blog here can make up for other pains you get outside. Moreover, you don’t have to bother yourself about the aggression, just keep doing your thing.
Thanks
But even the tickets skin gets fed up sometimes
‘Tickets skin’ now that is some kind of typo, Richard. 🙂
Autocorrect!!!!!
I like your blog, it is essential!
Labour Brexit strategy is probably deliberately fudged I reckon. The Tories won’t reveal their tactics so we will have to wait until EU sources tell us what is going on. I can’t see any point in definitively revealing what Labour strategy would be in meantime as it won’t win any (highly unlikely) commons votes and could scupper electability if another GE was called this year (or even next year)
In other news, what did you think of Phil McDuff’s article on Job Guarantee? I really like it.
I admit I have no idea who Phil McDuff is
Ah sorry its on Guardian today
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/03/stop-exploiting-people-cut-unemployment-job-guarantee-underwritten
Thought of something else re: Labour. Stephen Kinnock is being quite useful talking about EEA transition deal. Not against manifesto and moves argument forward. Other Labour MPs should follow his lead. I doubt Corbyn would be against this.
I have real issues with the JG
Do we have the right to make people work?
Why?
The JG is not about *making* people work; it’s about making available full-time, living wage employment to anyone who wants it.
As opposed to giving them £70pw to f*** off and go away, which is what UBI does.
But it does not feel like that – and will not be introduced like that, I fear
Sorry Richard, but I think you’re being rather negative here.
There was nothing about compulsion in the Guardian article, besides which the JG offers a living wage, rather than benefits as in the case of workfare.
Of course it could be implemented badly, but we’re just at the theoretical stage, and there’s every reason to explore, design, and propose a just and effective methodology before any implementation took place.
You can write it off prematurely if you like, but what would be your solution to give those without jobs, often the unskilled, under-educated, or redundant middle-aged, a chance to earn a decent living, rather than a £70pw bribe to just shut up and go away?
I would prefer a UBI
That I call universal basic capital – let people decide how to work
“let people decide how to work”
But there needs to be a *demand* for their labour. Where will that demand come from?
In many areas of the UK – in fact those where a JG would be needed most – there is simply not enough ‘horizontal money’ circulating in the local economy to afford the goods and services that the otherwise unemployed might want to do, or produce. A direct, and considerable, injection of Gov money is needed.
I just don’t see a UBI reaching the level of anything like the equivalent of the weekly *living* wage, which is what would be required to sustain existence, in the absence of other benefits.
Besides which, there are likely to be many *essential* as well as “nice to have” things that need doing in the public realm in many of the run-down and abandoned parts of the UK where a guarantee of a job for anyone who wants one is sorely needed. These requirements may need to be directed by the state rather than left up to the market.
Anyway, perhaps this might be one of those areas where we may have to agree to differ in our opinions!!
The GND is intended to create a ‘carbon army’
I think we are going at the same issue from mildly differing directions
‘The ideas existed before he used them, as did the principles on which they’re based.’
As a long time reader and commentor on your blog – predating 2014 by some years (though not nowadays as active as I once was), I can more than vouch for the statement above. Indeed, reading the blogs you’ve posted over the past year or so – and those running up to the recent election in particular – I frequently think back to the blogs and discussions that took place on here in the year running up to the 2010 election. On many topics you were ahead of the curve or challenging orthodoxies, or just plain directing your anger over issues that could be resolved but never were because of cowardly politicians. And Corbyn’s supporters who are latter day readers of your blog would no doubt be surprised at how frequently you and many of your readers of the time criticised the Blair governments and the roll they played in advancing the neoliberal agenda (all long before you became a Professor and without need of that title or of loyalty to any political party).
In short, I’m not surprised the comments on the Corbyn and the EU blog got to you a bit: I gave up reading them when they hit 30. But your argument was and is correct, as indeed is patently evident by the front page story on The Guardian today, which confirms that at senior levels of government the idea that the UK can ‘have its cake and eat it’ Brexit is now recognised for what it always was – pure fantasy. Regardless of what political party it is, therefore, promoting or staying silent on the nature of such a policy is both tactically bad and dishonest. And now we know that even David Davis and his department ‘get it’ this fallacy is well and truly dead as is a policy of silence based on it.
Anyway, I know this doesn’t need saying, but ‘keep on keeping on’.
Ivan
I’ll keep on buggaring on, as the saying goes
Richard
PS Thanks….
…or Keeping On Keeping On – worth a listen.
Alan Bennett?
Very good….
Not sure what G Hewitt is referring to, Richard, but my line came from the classic Northern Soul track, ‘Keep On Keeping On’ by Nolan Porter. ‘When the going gets kinda rough, now, you gotta keep on keepin’ on…You gotta keep on keepin’ on no matter how hot it gets, no matter how rough it gets,…hold you head up high and keep on keepin’ on’ and so on.
Well that was a new one on me….and I was around in 72
It was Alan Bennett.
May be simplistic but seems to me Umunna etc want single market because it could stop rail nationalisation etc ie. scupper Corbyn.
I’m not btw subscribing to that would happen because if in EU as could still be got round IMV but point is there seems to be intent to scupper ‘anti-neoliberalism’ theme.
I respect all views but plead for eyes to be open to Labour right politicians who strongly appear to be compromised by agendas and obligations eg. Umunna funded by PWC.
Other aspect to consider is that Umunaa and other Labour right want not just single-market but TTIP and a general neolberal EU that becomes a poodle to US clout and whim. Including all public services getting grabbed by the vultures.
Cautiously judge and question whole situation when Labour right stir things up always has to be guiding maxim.
How about accepting at face value they want the EU?
Why assume what is not said?
Because – including debate I have had with right Labour views – I have hunch that the right agreed Corbyn stance was right and miffed he took it. He avoided trap of calling for ‘strong Remain’ because was at a time when ‘where will UKIP votes go’ was issue. Consequently Lab right rubbished his strategy because he did not hand them the chance to scupper him on ‘not attracting Kippers’.
I firmly believe that their ‘stance’ is whatever suits them to oppose Corbyn – on behalf of neoliberalism let alone Labour neoliberalism.
I also feel sure that Remain has no chance if put on a pedestal but every chance if Brexit attempted to result in opening up 2nd democratic scrutiny of the EU.
Sincerely respect all views but convinced New Lab choosing an attack angle just because the complexity will always provide it.
I am so bored by this paranoia
Richard. A friend of mine tipped me off about your blog a year or so ago. Since then I’ve become a regular reader & twitter follower – I’ve even got my 22yr old daughter reading your articles now.
As wearing as it may be for you taking flak and the associated nonsense that comes with the internet by sticking your views/opinions out there, please do not underestimate the value that this reader places on being able to access your views and ideas – this stuff has changed the way I think about the world we are living in – even if I sometimes struggle with trying to get my head around it – but that’s my problem! Your articles are illuminating,educating and thought provoking, and for that Sir, I doff my cap.
Thank you
Appreciated
Richard
A bit of lighthearted Entertainment regarding the DUP deal which works out at about £500 per capita in Northern Ireland – a song by the Irish Band “The Remainers” I just got £500 …..
http://www.progressivepulse.org/brexit/spoof-song-on-the-tory-dup-deal/
Made me smile!
Brilliant and tweeted
A former boss of mine classified people as “radiators” or “sinks”. You are very much the former 🙂 Your blog is uniquely informative, and I for one appreciate the herculean effort required to maintain high standards and interesting topics flowing. I speak as a former editor, of 20 years standing, of a main stream scientific journal. We appreciate – Why you bother!
Thanks Tony
I am familiar with the classification – I’d rather be a radiator than a sink!
“I am so bored by this paranoia”
Many lukewarm right now regretting not being ‘paranoid’ enough about the Smith challenge that cost decisive seats where this and other pressing needs could be now being positively tackled.
It’s a view, Richard, and irrespective of my Umunna suspicion my main point offered remains:
I also feel sure that Remain has no chance if put on a pedestal but every chance if Brexit attempted to result in opening up 2nd democratic scrutiny of the EU.
Cheers for the debate, appreciated.
I can’t see what’s wrong in criticising Corbyn’s policies. It isn’t as if he’s very logical when he says he’ll use the Government’s Magic Money Tree for capital spending but not for current spending. It’s like having a hospital built but then refusing to pay the salaries of the medical staff who need to operate it. Or it’s like Corbyn illogically wanting to “take back control” from the EU and then meekly hand it over to the WTO an organisation corrupted by Neo-Imperialist big business previously to be seen driving Britain’s brutal Imperialist conquering of a large part of the planet!
I’ve read your blog for probably 2 years now and I appreciate the courage necessary to put you and your thoughts so publicly out there in the public realm in such an uncensored and proliferate way. Even more so as the online space can be so cruel, as you have experienced yourself. I imagine it hard not to take criticisms personally.
I have find your blog and the subsequent comments it attracts immensely helpful to my understanding, and I am in no doubt it is a healthy influence on the public debate.
I think it is not just the contents of what we discuss that is important but how we conduct ourselves discussing it, and that is why I think your blog is particularly important: it has such a high visibility and profile, how we conduct ourselves on it matters. It can be either seen as a benchmark in good social behaviour where there is a plethora of opinion and diversity voices enriching discussion, or it can be seen as yet another depressing display of the lowest forms of human nature present at times in all of us, where discussion is reduced to personal attacks and counter attacks.
How we treat each other matters also because if we don’t look at our own behaviours, triggers and reactions, even if we achieve the political changes that we all desire, are the seeds of conflict not still there – inside us?
It is one of the things that disheartens me the most when I read online comments. It is often obvious that there are more commonalities than differences, and yet it seems to be our nature to pick up on the differences and make them personal. I take comfort that human nature is still only beginning to learn how to behave in this new online social space, and I believe it can evolve to the good. And by participating in this new online space, we are the very actors that can help evolve it.
I am reading Naomi Kleins’ new book, http://www.noisnotenough.org , which is so brilliant and lucid in its diagnosis of our current times. She mentions the infighting in the left which is such an obstacle for it becoming the force it needs to be if neoliberalism is to be overthrown, very much echoing your views that a progressive alliance is the way forward. I think if we are to get there though, as well as changing policy we also have to look our own actions and behaviour, even to the degree of how we post online. In fact I believe it needs to come first, because if our arguments don’t come from the right place within ourselves, they will not ‘land’ in the listener the way we would want.
If you would permit – some observations regarding this in the context of contributing online are as follows.
1) It helps to have the attitude that although I am sharing my thoughts and opinions, they are actually not mine. I am merely a conduit , a channel for them. Although these words ring true for me I am in no doubt being informed by the countless books, interactions and knowledge that have been brought to bear on me. To acknowledge that what you have written in a post is an opinion and not actually yours might sound strange thing but one that is strangely liberating. And yes although these thoughts presented by me ring true for me now, it is only for now — it does not stop me from changing my mind in the future. Everybody and everything is changing all the time. To acknowledge this is to acknowledge the humanness of myself. Yes I am open to change, and my opnion can change. And this is likewise true for those who engage with my post.
To have this mindset allows for less reactivity – you take it less personally when somebody criticises what you have written. They are criticising what you have written, they are not criticising you.
2) it is also helpful to distinguish the statement from the person making the statement. Take, for example, the following two variations of the same statement:
A. You are frankly stupid and clueless.
B. I find your statement (regarding x y z)stupid and clueless.
It is clear that statement A would be the more problematic.
Statement A above is an invalidation of a person as a whole, it amounts to a character assassination. You are judging the person as a whole, indiscriminately, as stupid and clueless, based on one comment. It’s highly probable that the discussion will go downhill from thereon in.
Statement B is less inflammatory because it is specific. You are not saying he as a person is stupid and clueless, you are saying you feel a statement he said was stupid and clueless. It is less likely to trigger the other and as it is one step removed from attacking the person’s ego itself.
You are attacking the ball, and no longer the man.
Our egos are very sensitive to attack. Any references pointing to ‘you’ or ‘yours’ can still be seen as a red rag to a bull. So this would be slightly better still:
C) I find the statement (regarding x y z) stupid and clueless
But it still amounts to an attack. It’s pretty hard to use the words stupid and clueless without them having a charge. So if we are composed enough, we could write
D ) I frankly disagree with the statement (regarding x y z).
So how do we get from a) to d)?
Easier said than done! Personally, I try to notice how I am reacting in response to someone’s post. If there is sense of real sense of anger, a sense of righteousness, or defence, it’s probably not the best time to reply. Any reply I post from this mindset will have the charge of anger/righteousness, no matter how many times I reword it. I believe it is possible to still write with conviction without giving in to the initial urge to react- to respond rather than to react, to play the ball and not the man.
This is our own very personal challenge for these hate-filled times . We all strive for a gentler kinder politics, but isn’t that just a framework (albeit a necessary one) for what we really want – a gentler kinder way of being – with ourselves, each other, and the world? Can we have one without the other? How we go about achieving it might just be the way we get there.
In gratitude,
Ian
Thanks Ian
Richard,
Keep writing the blog. There is always a need for impartial, considered advice.Politicians, on the whole, don’t have that much respect with the general public.
Without your blog (and books), I don’t think I would have ever learned how money really works
Michael
Well that was worth it then
Seriously
“Never give up , never surrender” – Galaxy Quest
[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Galaxy-Quest-DVD-Tim-Allen/dp/B000056JQE/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1499110662&sr=1-1&keywords=galaxy+quest]
This should make you and yours laugh
Bill Mitchell who is one of the advocates of MMT which you apparently agree with describes the EU as a “right wing corporatist failure”.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=35711
I agree but you are so blinkered you cannot see any other point of view.
Bill and I do not agree on quite a lot actually
I’m a dedicated follower of Bill Mitchell and have huge respect for his forensic intellect and clarity of thought on macro-money. However, I don’t think he sees the whole picture when it comes to the EU.
I agree that it has been economically hi-jacked by a criminal Neo-liberal banking mafia, with the devastating austerity results we’ve witnessed. Having the sovereign freedom to issue one’s own currency is paramount for long-term social progress. And I assume Bill Mitchell is (understandably) uncompromising on that crucial point.
However, there’s more to the EU than that – culturally, philosophically and socially. Maybe one has to be ‘European’ to understand it. Many predict its eventual implosion but I wouldn’t bet on it. It will have to change in order to survive and to accommodate externalities but at its heart (I believe) is a genuine, popular desire for its permanency. Yes, the ‘nationalist’ extremists from both Right & Left will do whatever they can to destabilise it and, depending on world events, they might succeed. Only time will tell. But I fear its disintegration would be a massive set-back for global peace & co-operation.
Sadly the UK has now abrogated its wider responsibility to help develop a sustainable European consensus of progressive, socially responsible states that could make a defining contribution to global peace & prosperity; something which would be impossible individually. That’s the ultimate objective, as I see it.
However, reverting to my original statement, its long-term prosperity will depend on radical monetary reform and that doesn’t sppear to be on the agenda right now. That’s the immediate challenge. The parasite of Neo-liberalism has to be removed from the host. With a change of government, the UK could have played a pivotal role working with other European member states to achieve it. Perfidious Albion? Strikes me there’s a hint of that.
Whichever way you view it, the EU project is ambitious and unavoidably complex. But, as Thomas Paine said: “We have it in our power to begin the world over again”.
You strike the right balance John on the EU and Bill
I have no need to defend RM but….
….if you’ve read all the comments that preceded yours, what you’ve said is nothing more or less than a refusal to engage with someone with whom you disagree expressed in the most contemptuous you words can find.
The point of this blog, as far as I can ascertain after many years of reading it, is that RM writes what his principles dictate without any demand that his readers agree with him, but a perfectly reasonable expectation that, if anyone chooses to reply, they do so with civility, not contempt.
For the record, I suspect that RM agrees with Bill Mitchell’s description of the EU, as far as it goes, but understands that the widely predicted financial consequences for the UK population of leaving the EU outweigh BM’s reasonable description.
Along with many others, I hope that RM’s skin can remain thick enough to survive the contempt of those, particularly those essentially on the same side of the argument, who choose to express their disagreement in such negative terms.
You know me too well Nick
Nick, I was going to point those who’ve responded here in a way that suggests Richard is some form of EU acolyte to his blogs between December 2014 and June 2015 and the Greek debt crisis. And indeed, back as far as 2011 – again with regard to Greek debt. No quarter was given to the EU, ECB or any other EU related entity at the time by RM, or indeed by many of those who added comments to his blogs over that period. The point you make in your penultimate paragraph is therefore spot on.
(Note: anyone wishing to check the points made above should type ‘Greek debt’ into the search box on the right of this page)
Thanks Ivan
I hope you’ve seen enough here to feel that, actually, all your work on this blog *has* been worth while. For myself, what you have given me is enough education in economics to feel that voting Labour was not economically irresponsible but quite the reverse. That must go for quite a lot of us.
As to Corbyn’s position on the EU, I understand your arguments, but I feel that as a politician he is right to prioritise the public perception of his integrity in terms of carrying out the result of the Brexit referendum. It’s not his place to say, ‘You were fooled by the arguments, I know what is better for you and that is to stay in the EU’ – that approach would go slap against the bottom-up way he does policy. Even if that is what he really would like to do, he knows he must approach it in a much more oblique way, because if he loses people’s trust – if they start to think he will say one thing and later do another, even if it is ‘in their own best interests’ (how often has the electorate heard that before?) – that’s the last hope of a Labour government gone, for years probably.
Richard, I echo many of the sentiments that have praised this blog.
It is certainly helping me ( an economic illiterate )understand and gain a different perspective on political economics.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks
Richard, thank you so much for the blog and the books. I am half way through The joy of Tax and it is a revelation. I am not really financially literate, but your writings appeal and challenge on a philosophical level. Once I can get my head round them, your ideas make sense and your integrity and intelligence are a force of enlightenment in a world of obfuscation and corrupt ideology. I’ve never commented here before, as the standard (apart from the trolls) is forbiddingly high, but I am beginning to get the confidence to challenge the austerity narrative in debate amongst friends and also on facebook and I often refer to your writings and recommend your blog. Sometimes this pays off, as I have been able to open the eyes of friends who are far more clever and influential than me. This is how change happens, please keep up the good work.
Phil
What I am saying is no rocket science
It involves massive unpacking of what we think we know
But after that it’s just common sense and open to anyone
Good luck
Richard
This blog has helped me to understand how the UK enconomy ‘works’and I would be really upset if you stopped writing it. I can understand that sometimes you feel ‘why am I putting myself through this?’ but, believe me, your efforts are much appreciated by lots of people. I’m learning from your blog every day, reading your thoughts on current events as well as more overall topics. Thank you.
I admit even I think I am mad when I start writing five minutes after waking most mornings – and yes, in bed sometimes (you didn’t need to know that).
A revealing post. Can I suggest that you set up a new page on the blog, say “Mission statement” or something similar, and copy in your post verbatim.
When you are “verbally abused” disabuse the trolls by referring them to this new page.
I had pretty well inferred your raison d’etre for maintaining this most excellent blog, but it was illuminating to sense the man the other side of the keyboard.
I for one fully support your mission to seek out truth and justice, and anyone out there that is peeved by this process should look inward to find reconciliation. If we are to make progress, attempting to shut down debate is not a productive way forward.
Thanks Bob
Richard I’ve read your blog for about three year now, and occasionally I comment. It has helped me immensly in my understanding of how money and the economy works, and for that I am hugely grateful.
Occasionally you’ve written things that I’ve disagreed with. Things which have induced a good deal of anger in me. At these times I realise that whatever counter arguement I put forward would be coming from that place of anger, and therefore better not to comment. Commenting from a place of anger is something we are all guilty of at some point. Even yourself. Almost two yearss ago I sugested to you that perhaps what was needed was a quieter kind of politician (my thoughts being Atlee) and you were very dismissive of the idea, so I made no further comment on that subject. This was why I also made no comment in yesterday’s blog. I could think of no way to put a counter arguement that would not be coming from a place of annoyance with you, and anger after reading some of the comments posted. And as you were probably also feeling under attack your reaction would not have helpful. As Ian above elucidated, our argument when coloured by anger appears to be an attack on the person rather than the point being made, and is unhelpful.
Vygotsky wrote that children have a zone of proximal learning, and others have gone on to extrapolate that this carries on into addulthood. We pick up and adopt as our own the thoughts, learning, leanings, from friends, family, and the things we read and they become a part of us. So when you critisise something that has been unconsciously adopted and assimilated, then people can feel it’s a direct attack on them and fall back into very early learned behaviour, and lash out. It all feels very personal at the time. But mostly its just reaction to a perceived attack.
I for one very much appreciate your blog, even when some of the things you post challenge me and my fixed mind-set creating cognitive dissonance. These things need to be challenged, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel.
Richard, what I’m really saying is don’t give up. Your blog is very much appreciated by myself, and many others, for which I thank you.
Recommended reading for anyone who is interested: Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Learning, Berne’s Games People Play, Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow.
Thanks
Oddly I have just done an interview on my work and explained a lot of it was ‘unlearning’ – changing proximal learning you might say
Thanks for the timely reminder
Richard
It seems to me that Corbyn is the only one to leave room for any result. Given that all things must be negotiated, and this is an unprecedented situation, it seems absurd that everyone is prejudging what is and is not possible. By holding back from blocking the Tories, he enables Labour to hold Davis to his outlandish promises that free market access and all other good things equivalent to membership can be won through his negotiation. He will fail. By holding Labour back from being a spanner in the works he keep the party from blame. However if the government falls and Labour can assemble a minority gevernment and force a General Election ltiresome as that might be, there is every chance that Labour can win a majority sufficient to race a new cross party team into the EU to negotiate two deals. Why two? Well, it would make sense for an EU that wants us to stay to offer a sweetheart ‘remain’ proposition as well as a leave deal credible enough to present a contest. Corbyn has promised a meaningful vote in parliament on the final outcome. Far better to vote on a two tailed option than a take it or leave it proposition. We have a split country – to ignore the remainers is a recipe for dissent long into the future, to ignore the exit lobby leaves the boot on the other foot. By presenting a chance for Parliament to vote to remain or leave (if the deal is atractive enough – very unlikely as that is) means that IF we remained and some concessions had been won, it is likely to offer many of the leavers a face saving way to get back on board. It seems to me that Corbyn has played a blinder here – let the Tories be seen to fail.
You may think that
I think he looks likes he’s having his cake and eating it and I expect better leadership than that
And I would add – this has always been his policy on Brexit – let the Tories fail. The trouble is they won the referendum and the election. It hasn’t been that good then
Richard, your blog is always a source of inspiration, both because it offers a fresh perspective on the nature of economics and money and because of your unwavering support for democracy which is under increasing assault nowadays, even by mainstream institutions such as the Financial Times. So please keep it up.
I will
But we all have down days
I’m not quite sure what he should do different right now. HIs position previously has always been weakened by the PLP rebels and the media tirade against him. He only got a thorough listening from the public once the election was called, and the impact over that short time was pretty legendary. By the way – I read your blog constantly, repost many of your articles, and have learned just about everything about economics that is valuable from you – so I appreciate your efforts. You have changed my views on many things and thus my life I guess…cheesy as that might sound. Thank you.
Thanks
I just think I;’m a guy writing a blog
That’s some outcome
And, I guess the responsibility that goes with it
I add my thanks to all the others. I have come to depend on your blog for a commentary that reveals the ignorance and deception in so much political and economic discourse. I keep finding myself recommending it to others.
Thanks
You are a breath of fresh air in your blogs Richard and you have educated many people on many economical matters and politics. There are no such thing as the perfect leader/party. The many years I was in Labour, our biggest mistake was trusting them 100% and never doubting their word,(I put my ex MP Gordon Brown on a pedestal but as his activist I seen the real Brown that returned from Westminster and that wasn’t a decent man) in today’s politics our main parties have long forgotten who they work for and have taken for granted, the many members/supporters who were not interested in politics and just soaked up what we were told. This has been a failing of the public, to bury our heads in sand about what we all need to use our heads and not our heart and be very aware of what our politicians are doing/saying and question it, how on earth are politicians ever going to change their dishonest ways unless we stand up and question them.
Corbyn supporters are doing exactly what my generation of Labour did for decades and I think we can take part blame for the arrogance and switch to the right with Blairites, Blair thought he could walk on air and we gave him that thought because we were so grateful that he’d ousted Thatcher. Corbynites need to accept that criticism of our leaders are healthy and right or else we will continue on the path of being screwed over by politicians and parties.
I left Labour in 2011/12, it had long stopped being my grassroots Labour and I finally joined SNP, there are a minority that are similar to Corbynites where the leaders can do no wrong but for the majority of us we keep SNP on their toes, at Conferences our delegates will send back amendments they don’t agree with and we are vocal to our SNP politicians if we don’t think something is right. That is as it should be and that is why we supporters and SNP politicians have a respect for each other, we stand up for them but majority of us don’t kiss feet. Hopefully Corbynites learn to accept he is not perfect, he does things that many don’t think are right and it should be brought to attention by his followers. They need to hold him to account and keep reading up on facts and most importantly, since I have followed your blogs since the run up of GE 2010 as Labour and never stopped when I joined SNP.
I trust you, I trust your words, criticisms and all, we need to stay grounded on the parties, leaders and politicians we support or they just go ahead and not consult or get public opinion.
Thanks Richard for all your thought-provoking and informative blogs.
The world needs thinking contrarians
It sounds like you fit that bill very well
Thanks