The Tories have launched a new think tank, called 'Onwards'. They have featured in an interview in The New Statesman.
My first reaction was to wonder what they were marching towards apart from oblivion.
My second reaction was amusement. When the think-tank's creator, MP Neil O'Brien, was asked about Labour The New Statesman reports :
How did he respond to opinion polls showing widespread support for Labour policies such as the renationalisation of the privatised utilities? “You're promising loads of free stuff to people, of course it's popular!” O'Brien said.
And then noted:
But did Labour's 2017 manifesto not owe more to social democracy than Marxism? “It's not in the social democratic mainstream to borrow £250bn through people's quantitative easing — it's totally crackers,” O'Brien said, referencing Corbyn's 2015 proposal for banks to print money to finance state investment.
The New Statesman then pointed out that:
The £250bn, it should be noted, would be spread over a decade and Labour does not currently support people's QE.
It could, of course, have added that the Tories had done substantially more QE to support banks.
But let me just note that I still seem to have contributed the Labour policy the Tories most dislike. That's got to be considered doing something right.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“You’re promising loads of free stuff to people, of course it’s popular!” – O’Brien got that part right in the sense that it applies to risk-free substantial profits to monopoloy providers of public services who for the most part are owned by non-Uk companies. I guess this is an example of (tory) markets “working” – by recycling money from citizens to corporations – & in that sense Tories are socialists or possibly marxists – supporting socialism for corporates (risk-free play-grounds?) and “markets” for citizens (may the fittest survive and thrive with the rest that don’t having to accept things as they are..
I see Conservative and Republican “think tanks” have been meeting in Washington to discuss how a post brexit trade deal will look. It will not be good news for the NHS or any of our remaining state provision.
In the past, the Cato Institute, who are powerful, influential and financed by the Koch brothers, have advocated the privatisation of all public schooling, broadcasting and transportation, and endorses the abolition of the minimum wage, child labour prohibitions and the entirety of the welfare state, they have also highlighted their intention to scrap numerous EU rules on food safety, chemicals, animal welfare and the environment.
The initiative for free trade (IFT) UK think tank, another attendee, have consistently advocated a hard Brexit and everyone in attendance are of the free market persuasion, so no one to argue any alternative thinking.
So if you live in the UK and have coal fire you will soon be able to hire a ten year old chimney sweep. Gruel anyone.
https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/12799/conservative-uk-and-us-think-tanks-meet-washington-plot-post-brexit-regulations
Daniel Hannan is one of the founders of the IFT. I have posted this before but I think it is worth reminding ourselves. If one scrolls down, the ideal free trade agreement has a list of sponsors which include not just the Cato Institute but the Heritage Foundation which claims that two-thirds of their recommendations for the Trump government have been adopted. Pompeo threatened any one trading with Iran with sanctions. His speech had the heritage Foundation logos behind him. Brexit is about whether we have a European future or an American.
http://ifreetrade.org/event/ideal_fta_launch
These are deeply dangerous organisations
They say they are libertarian, but actually all they do is threaten the freedom of most
I don’t see how QE has supported banks. In round numbers the UK government has spent about £900bn more than income from taxes in the last 10 years, a gap which can only be filled by borrowing and some variant of printing the money. In this case QE has meant about half the gap of the last 10 years incurs no coupon charges, so while it is a nominal debt burden on the government finances, it doesn’t feel like a debt burden because there’s no interest due.
This could all have happened if the only banks we had were nationalised, co-ops and credit unions. If you’re going to ramp up State spending at a rate far higher than the rate of growth of the economy as happened between 2002-2010, and you’re not going to use taxation to balance it, then QE and borrowing are your options. I just don’t get why people seem to think QE directly supports the private banking industry, apart from keeping the basic functions of government going, which benefits all private industries.
You don’t
But most here do
Why?
Because QE boosted the value of assets
And who traded many of those assets, took profit from it and have done very well as a result
As well as having much of their cost of capital entirely underpinned
Of course QE helps fund spending
But you are turning a blind eye to its consequence
I suggest that is deliberate
“If you’re going to ramp up State spending at a rate far higher than the rate of growth of the economy ”
Take out the ‘far’ and that is exactly what you have to do to create growth in the economy. With a negative balance of trade how else is it going to happen?
And what do you mean by “a gap which can only be filled by borrowing and some variant of printing the money.” If you have followed any of the posts here about MMT you will know that is a nonsensical statement.
I can see that borrowing money would ‘fill the gasp’ but there is no necessity for a sovereign money creator to ‘fill the gap’ in the first place. The government does not have to borrow at all. Nor does it have to use QE. ‘Printing money’ does not have have to mean QE – buying back bonds – the government can simply create and spend the money into the economy and take the risk of possible inflation. ‘Balancing’ a budgetary deficit by issuing bonds or other debt is a choice not a necessity.
And it baffles me why you say QE ‘keeps the basic functions of government going’ rather than bails out the banks. The first round of QE in Oct 2008 was called in the press a ‘bank rescue package’ as was the second. Why do you think it wasn’t?
The Tories have launched a new think tank, called ‘Onwards’.
Seems to me that is an admission they are currently going backwards.