A lot of people - mostly, but by no means solely, journalists - have been calling me and asking if I have a job with Jeremy Corbyn. For the record, the answer is no, I have not.
You will know if I do: I will say so. What is more, as a member of the shadow cabinet who I saw when in Westminster this week said to me, if I do have such a job then this blog would have to stop. So you can tell that it has not happened because I am still posting.
And for the record, I am making no predictions: the Labour Party have a whole team of shadow junior ministers to appoint and I am sure other things to deal with and even then there is no certainty or even reason that anything might happen. It would be presumptuous to think otherwise. And even then the job has to be one I think I could do, and would want, and I already have funding in place for work I would like to do.
So I am, as I have been throughout the summer (and a very long time beforehand), a person who has created ideas. Jeremy Corbyn has used those ideas and I have no complaint about that: why should I? Ideas are made to be used. And I am, as ever, willing to vociferously support my own thinking, and to defend those who are willing to use it. That was why, for example, I was on the Daily Politics show on BBC1 yesterday. I was talking about the tax gap and the idea that I created as green quantitative easing. My version of the tax gap. My version of QE. Defending my work. I think that needs to be said, even if the words 'Jeremy Corbyn' did, inevitably, come up.
And as I made clear on that programme, I am not a member of the Labour Party or any other party: my work has been to create ideas for tax and economic reform that will benefit ordinary people and relieve poverty. That has always been my aim. In the past Greens, LibDems, Labour, the NHA Party, unions and the Tories when George Osborne when he appointed me to a Treasury committee, have used those ideas and I have been quite happy about that too. And last night on Question Time Alex Salmond supported People's QE, which pleased me too.
But I am, of course, pleased at the publicity the ideas have been given by the Corbyn campaign, and grateful to them. Which idea creator would not be?
What I am also looking forward to is the time when the ideas are widely adopted. If they make sense (and I, of course, think they do) then I would like to see their general use. I note the Telegraph is saying that is likely. I suspect they are right.
And unless you hear otherwise that is exactly what I am working on whilst, as ever, being more than willing to explain those ideas to those who want to hear them, politicians included. And to support them, as I have, for example, supported many NGOs when taking on my ideas in the past.
So I can say that as far as I know nothing has changed. Except that, as is my goal, the ideas have made progress. And I am quite happy to say thank you to Jeremy Corbyn - a man I have known and liked for a decade - for that.
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:
Richard
I have followed your blog for a good many years, it might be fair to say since you were ‘a voice crying in the wilderness’. To disappear into the bubble of the political elite (yes I agree Corbyn might well deflate if somewhat) at this point would be a disaster. Please retain your independent voice and thinking.
if you do get appointed, Richard, it would be shame that the blog would have to stop -don’t know of another one in this country so effective and educative as this one.
The task ahead is clearly one of gradually exploding the Tory economic myths and getting across to the people the sheer waste of human possibilities that is austerity-which as Paul Krugman has pointed out, entirely ‘gratuitous’.
I’m sure you are one of the few around that could do this effectively and could change the way language is manipulated to skew perceptions-the City post should help raise your profile further. Andrew neil performance shows you are more than up to the task. I think Corbyn needs you there!
To be honest I think that you are better off where you are. However, get used to the limelight too whenever the media chooses to talk to you.
And I seriously hope that family life is not being intruded upon too much.
It’s a strange world where the new shadow chancellor apologises for things he has said in the past but where the current Chancellor has not apologised for the first 2 years of the coalition government he was in that nearly destroyed the economy and many people’s lives.
It’s a strange world where your book ‘The Courageous State’ – one of the most sane and sensible books written about an alternative management of the economy I have read – is called ‘polemic’.
Long may you remain friends with Jeremy – and all other politicians motivated by fairness, justice, freedom and a desire to look after our planet.
Richard, I have to say that if abandonment of the Blog is the price for being “on the inside” with the Corbyn Team, that is a price to high – a “bridge too far”.
And the price would be paid, not just by you, but also by us who comment on your Blog – but we are small fry, who get delight enlightenment from your Blog – for the main price would be paid by all those organisations and people, seeking to influence the debate, whose own thinking and policy formulation has been influenced by what you write and say – writing and thinking that has undeniably been to the common good.
Just as for John Wesley ” all the world is my parish “, so for you, all the public domain is your field of action.
Inside the Corbyn Team there can be no doubt, but that you would be powerfully influential in shaping policy formation and presentation (on which, PLEASE tell Team Corbyn to start attacking more vigorously the whole “deficit” nonsense, as YOU did in the Andrew Neil encounter), but you would thereby miss the chance to influence the wider field, as you have a successful track record of doing, as you have set out above.
Andrew
I will bear what you say in mind
As I often do
Richard
If you were to be appointed and this blog would have to stop, that would be a real shame.
However, I would hope that a similar blog could emerge on the webpages of, say, the Labour party leader/ or the Labour party. In fact that would be absolutely crucial. It could, for example, look through the morning’s press, and take issue with all allegations which are made there, and rebut them straight away. A website instant rebuttal unit. So by the time people look at the paper in the morning (increasingly on their i-pad) they could quickly click on the Labour party rebuttal site to see what the Labour leader really thinks. Rather what the right wing press wants them to think.
Equally, Corbyn and the shadow cabinet could use somebody to defend his policies robustiously and competently in the face of hostile opposition. I think you passed that test yesterday, Richard, when you were being interviewed by Andrew Neil.
And thirdly, I think to use a blog to publicise ideas and policy proposals, as they get developed would be a brilliant idea. The Labour party has obviously a mechanism to set policies, but no really open way to influence that process from their websites. They could really steal a march on the opposition.
You made a point yesterday in the Andrew Neal interview that that PQE would be a policy innovation. More of these innovative ideas would possibly need to be developed (and there will be some in your new book, no doubt). That would really rattle the Tories, and also make it more interesting for the press, who always need something new to write about. These potential policies would not necessarily be included and adopted by the Labour party. But they would certainly be talked about, and would show the Labour party as a party of progress and innovation.
Richard, my view is that you will be able to create more influence by operating as an independent consultant, and not get drawn to any one political party. Remember that there are many Conservatives who understand your policies and would be more than willing to give them a try.
What you have drawn up is a financial system which should benefit 99% of our population, not just the other 1%.
John
I would hope that Richard would have nothing to do with the Tories, who are bigoted, neoliberal and intolerant of any dissent from their worship of money and those who have it.
I for one would be pleased to see Richard making this explisate!
When the Tories appointed me to a Treasury committee I served
How could you have been appointed to a treasury committee? The members are usually all MPs.
Don’t you mean you gave evidence to a treasury committee?
The committee was appointed to advise on and in practice write the guidance notes on the General Anti-Abuse Rule
So it was the GAAR interim advisory panel then?
Not the actual committee itself?
The panel that wrote the rules: yes
The really influential one
Right. But you didn’t serve on the committee. You gave evidence on the advisory panel. Which I doubt Osbourne personally chose and appointed you to.
What this article is really about is trying to say that you aren’t supporting a particular political party or politician. Which of course would get you into trouble because of your charity funding.
Yet you are popping up at political rallies for Corbyn, advising him and defending his (your) manifesto in the papers and on TV. Which looks suspiciously like party political activism.
I did serve on the committee
And I was appointed by government ministers. And it was recorded on a Treasury web site
As for your remaining comments: sure I have promoted my ideas
Charity law specifically allows such advocacy. It also allows engagement with politics
I agree it does not permit promoting a party
The point I am making, if there is one, is I am not promoting a party. It is true that one has made it look like I have advised it more than I have. But the truth is that I have worked with many
That makes the suggestion you make rather hard to sustain
Should not you more fairly describe yourself as having contributed ideas that lead to the development of what has been known as corbynomics.
Claiming sole authorship/creation does give the impression of a lot closer relationship than you have, as you go to great points to claim above.
In fact when defending your ideas in the media might it not be preferable to disassociate from the direct tag of corbynomics, just acknowledge that some of your independent ideas have certainly been incorporated into and labelled as such for the sake of clarity.
As an accountant you understand substance over form and the fact you feel the need to make the points above must indicate that there is at least some appearance of doubt .
I have said repeatedly I did not create the term
And I did not write it
I have made clear there are parts of it e.g. the £93 bn corporate subsidy element I have not read
And I have often said things like ‘my ideas, now sometimes referred to as Corbynomics’
There’s a problem of communication here, I agree
But I really do not think of my making