This comment from David Wearing has just been published by the Guardian:
For a sense of the division now tearing through the Labour party, consider a moment that occurred during the Fabian Society conference back in January 2010. The day's proceedings finished with a Dragons' Den-style competition for a big idea for the next election manifesto. A pitch for a “Green New Deal” that would provide a Keynesian stimulus, create good jobs, and decarbonise the economy was greeted enthusiastically by delegates, but rejected by Gordon Brown's pollster Deborah Mattinson, who said that, while climate change was “the biggest issue facing humanity”, this was not an idea she could sell to voters.
There, six years ago, was the essence of Labour's civil war. On one side, a grassroots bursting with ideas, determined to tackle the most urgent issues. On the other, a party establishment so deferential to “political reality” that the survival of human civilisation has to take a back seat. This is the real struggle taking place in the party now: not one between “Blairites” and “Corbynistas”, but between conservatives and progressives.
Or, to put it not too unsubtly, it's been an argument about whether ideas I have promoted (the Green New Deal to create jobs, tackling the tax gap to beat austerity, delivering tax haven transparency and People's Quantitative Easing to fund investment) are what Labour is about or not.
Which is why I am now a little annoyed to be told I'm a Blairite when I have had to acknowledge that Jeremy Corbyn cannot (and may not even want to) deliver this radical agenda, when I wished he could.
For the record, I think that Owen Smith would deliver the agenda I have proposed: the hype Wearing offers in the second half of his article is just that, and wrong. It's time he worked out fact from fiction. There is only one chance of a Green New Deal right now, and Jeremy Corbyn has never been near the idea.
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:
A pretty awful article. Personally id dispute his idea that Blair/brown weren’t interested in transformative change. Eg. they introduced the minimum wage, the windfall tax etc. And more generally their idea (particularly Blair’s) was that transformative change would involve establishing labour as the natural party of gvt. Obviously there were many examples of things they didn’t go far enough with or didn’t really focus on at all eg. Social housing. And people are free to disagree that they were interested in transformative change as well and also point out massive mistakes eg. Pfi. But the implication is that there is no difference between labour in 97 and the Tories at the moment which is a pretty egregious misrepresentation of labour then and the Tories now in terms of impact on the country. At least in my opinion.
I think you’re right to point that out
It is true
Do you know for definite Owen Smith would?
(I am a neutral in the Labour wars so don’t have an axe to grind either way).
He’s suggested he would go for £200 billion investment in infrastructure but I took that to mean by conventional borrowing as rates are so low. I don’t know that he would argue for Green/People’s QE. He’s definitely right on the need for investment whether through borrowing or QE. I must admit I’d be surprised if Owen said he was in favour of people’s QE as although the need for investment is beginning to be more widely accepted I don’t think doing it by the BoE printing money is.
Smith has also said he is anti-austerity. I hope that means he would cancel the day to day spending cuts as well as the infrastructure investment.
I guess we will hear more from him as time goes on.
He has suggested a British New Deal which is based very heavily on the Green New Deal. The GND includes People’s QE
I do believe he is anti-austerity
I have spoken to him about these issues
Owen Smith – “I do believe he is anti-austerity”. I have doubts from what I have heard and sense from Owen, I really hope I am wrong. I’m trying to process what you say about team Corbyn. BTW, Greens are electing their own leaders over the next few weeks and have some great choices 🙂
There is one and only appropriate term for team Corbyn
Useless
I wish it were otherwise
There is only one term for the PLP plotters, and John McDonnell has already said it: f***ing useless!
So it’s useless to oppose the government and competent not to do so?
I don’t get it
Unless you’re a Tory
In all seriousness, Richard, how do you feel about Alastair Campbell & co’s brazen campaign to smear Corbyn supporters as thugs, misogynists, racists? https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/07/barbarians-at-the-gates/ Because, I’ve got to say, I do not like it one little bit. Was a violent mob of cultists your experience of John McDonnell’s New Economics seminars?
Some Corbyn supporters are undoubtedly all those things
It is not their exclusive preserve
I would condemn it from wherever it comes
But I will tell you many comments I have received have been pretty unpleasant and given I have not changed my ideas but only pointed out Corbyn is not competent to delver them, which is obviously true, I see why the opinion can be formed
Craig Murray does not seem to be a very objective source on anything. He has yet to learn that limited evidence cannot be extrapolated with the confidence he presents
But that, Richard, is the opposite of what I am doing in that article.
I am examining the anecdotal evidence presented by the mainstream media to make their case that Corbyn supporters are thugs. I am then proving that the anecdotal evidence they present is false, and often knowingly so.
I am not presenting any anecdotes myself or extrapolating from them,
I read it
I disagree
The evidence that there are bullies in the Corbyn camp is overwhelming
There may well be in others too, and I do not say otherwise, but please don’t deny reality. It does not make a plausible case if you do
Or alternatively, try being on the receiving end, as I have been
Richard, have no doubt that Craig Murray has been on the receiving end of bullies. The very worst bullies on the planet. And stood up to them. An exceptionally brave man.
Maybe
So?
Richard,
I’m sorry but it’s simply disingenuous to quote the bits of the article that supports your case while dismissing REAL CONCERNS ABOUT OWEN SMITH as “hype”. I’d put it out so that others can make up their mind on the basis of your claim: “For the record, I think that Owen Smith would deliver the agenda I have proposed”. You might have the crystal ball to see what would happen in the future but it’s only fair that you allow your readers the benefit of empirical evidence. So, here goes:
ED NOTE: DELETED FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS. I CANNOT LIFT WHOLE GUARDIAN ARTICLES
And let’s be honest, it was also just the pure drivel I have come to expect from Corbynistas that I think shows an absolute lack of judgement or ability to think critically in any way
If you honestly think Owen Smith is Tory lite, or a neoliberal then you left your ability to appraise a situation behind long ago
And let’s be honest, your bitterness at being frozen out by John Mcdonnell has left you with “an absolute lack of judgement or ability to think critically in any way”. Owen Smith will lose very badly and your new-found friends on the right (or is it middle?) will desert you while John Mcdonnell will continue to work with renowned economists that have the credibility to keep out selfish, partisan politics.
I walked away from McDonnell because I saw the contempt he had for those appointed to his team and knew there was a dsisaster in the making, as there has been
My bitterness is that Corbyn and McDonnell I have so badly failed those who trusted them
I have changed not an iota
I advised Miliband, Corbyn, McCluskey, Lucas, Osborne and Cameron (when he borrowed country-by-country reporting) alike because they wanted my ideas
Most have used them well
Corbyn has not
And please note his entire economics advisory team have walked away
Do you really think he’s going to find another one?
Get real
His entire economics advisory team have NOT walked away. Why resort to blatant falsehood? You should get real, mate ïŠ Piketty resigned and stated that it was due to other commitments. Others have said that they only suspended activity pending the resolution of the leadership contest as they agreed to serve the party rather than the leader. That’s called professional integrity. (Blanchflower supports Owen but he is not part of the economics team).
I know them
You are clutching straws, I assure you
And Blanchflower was one of the team, just for the record
Lying does not help your case
I heard two of them say publicly that they suspended their work for the leadership contest. Your friend Prem Sikka is still doing the HMRC review but as it doesn’t suit your narrative anymore you’d probably say he’s rubbish too.
I heard what they said privately
And yes Prem is still doing the review
That is his choice
I have no clue what is in it. I was not asked. I will comment when (or if) I see it
I’m a little confused by this comment Richard. A couple of days ago you didn’t feel it proper to answer my request for a ‘naming no names’ estimation of who in McDonnell’s advisory panel might consider BoE independence a good thing – this is the kind of matter that I’d have thought any ‘public’ economist ought to have a public opinion. However, you feel it proper to divulge what they may have said in private.
You may not have seen their open letter published on Simon Wren-Lewis’s blog, which says just what Tom has posted above, but what you are stating here is that the open letter was not a true reflection of their views.
Feel free not to post this comment – it’s sent as an observation. I am hugely disappointed that the prospects of a major party meaningfully breaking away from the neoliberal consensus has receded – I’m just hoping that personal relationships haven’t been so poisoned as to make further collaborations impossible – and I fear that comments like this one of yours won’t help this at all.
Have you ever written an open letter?
If so you’ll find they never wholly reflect anyone’s views
And some may be akin to the suggestion of wanting more time with one’s family
I take your point about the open letters, but then I wonder about why you thought it improper to comment on the possible views of the advisory panel re the independence of the BoE. Forgive me if I’ve misinterpreted this, but the impression you are giving regarding McDonnell is that he’s so indifferent to the views of the advisory panel or is so hard to work with that the members are walking away.
My initial question (about the BoE) was just trying to get a measure of whether or not McDonnell might actually just be following the majority view.
To me, McDonnell’s well-short-of-PQE ‘alternative fiscal rule’ looks just like what one of the panel in particular might have advised (although McDonnell hasn’t, as yet, mentioned helicopters).
One of the panel might have advised
And it’s clear, they have walked away
They said so: they are not advising now
The most vocal on what happened is Danny Blanchflower
There is now a serious possibility that the Labour party will not survive in a form to provide a credible government-in-waiting. It has flirted with political irrelevance in the past (1931 and 1983 for example), but a sufficiently concerted commitment to provide a credible government-in-waiting eventually secured the necessary majority in the Commons – even if it took 14 years in both instances. I would contend that the situation is worse now because it appears that a majority of members, TU affiliates and supporters are not committed to or see no value in putting in the effort to provide a credible government-in-waiting.
Unlike many of these members, TU affiliates and supporters the vast majority of citizens have little interest in politics on a day to day basis and delegate their power to MPs to make laws and provide governance between elections. And out of this majority of voters (and excluding those who are totally die-hard Tory and Labour supporters) there is a large number who place a high value on having a credible government-in-waiting – and are prepared to switch between parties at elections.
Winning a Commons majority requires retaining and building core support while attracting sufficient numbers of those prepared to switch. The current disposition of the Labour party is incapable of achieving this – and, following what appears as an inevitable split, it looks like it never will.
But the requirement for the parliamentary basis of a government-in-waiting will remain as pressing as it always is. And the Tories will steal and adapt any policy ideas that might appeal to those who might switch away from or to them and seek to maintain a dominance in the Commons.
Well said
Thank you
Thank you. It doesn’t give me any pleasure to make these assertions. I find it galling that in every generation since it was founded the Labour party has to learn the hard way about the deep-seated and unyielding adherence of the vast majority of the population to representative parliamentary democracy.
I also recognise that it poses a serious challenge for progressive “policy entrepreneurs” such as you. The Tories will steal and pilfer sensible progressive policy ideas without any shame. For example, I doubt we’ll see any sort of government-directed QE to fund public investment (unless in the form of “helicopter money” if things go really badly), but the suggested use of Treasury-backed project bonds might be a functional compromise. And I wouldn’t be surprised if egregious aggressive tax avoidance, dodgy and abusive corporate governance and large consumer-abusing firms providing essential services get a legislative working over. The policy implementation will always fall short of what is required, but, as Ted Kennedy eloquently put it 36 years ago, “the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.”
I will work with those who will deliver
I would clearly prefer they deliver a lot
And competently
Your first para is a gem
Paul, agree with you but also slightly disagree with you in terms of where to take the points you make. Of course there will be some Corbynistas that aren’t too bothered about getting into government. But to be fair to most Corbyn supporters, most think on some level that an electoral victory under Corbyn is possible (or at the very least think that no one else as leader as the party would win a victory either).
The reason I mention this is that one of the dangers is that if Corbyn remains leader, but suffers for instance a heavy electoral defeat, then Corbyn supporters will start blaming the centrists in the labour party for undermining him etc. And that is when the party will start to become untenable. ie if following a heavy election defeat, Corbyn remains in power, and it is clear that there is no place for moderates.
So in a sense, although it will be very hard to do, we might well have to accept that Labour will not be able to form a credible government in waiting, if that means letting the current situation run its course (which will be electoral defeat). As that will not be as bad ultimately as allowing Corbyn supporters to blame moderates for an electoral defeat (given how many of them are members of the party at the moment).
Corbynistas are already blaming everyone but Corbyn for a 27% poll rating
Paul Hunt says of Labour “It has flirted with political irrelevance in the past (1931 and 1983 for example)”
Neither of these is correct, I’m afraid, unless we correctly identify the “flirters” concerned.
In 1931, it was Ramsey McDonald and those Labour Party members (the vast majority) who rolled over and let Stanley Baldwin pull the most audacious scam in history, by getting McDonald not only to sign up to TOTALLY counterproductive austerity (when the spending into the economy that Atlee was only able to do, in FAR worse circumstances in 1945, was what was required), but even got McDonald to front the surrender, so that he drew all the flak. Baldwin was a very sly, smooth operator, a world away from the bluff country squire he liked to present himself as.
As Anne Pettifor makes abundantly clear (here http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/labours-panicky-establishment-referencing-the-wrong-period-in-history) it was the Lansbury/Atlee Labour Party that got things right, even though in 1931 it appeared that Labour “was not a credible Government in waiting”, where the National Government, and the Baldwin Government that succeeded it, were an almost classic case study in “cowardly Government”
As regards 1983, far from “flirting with political irrelevance”, Labour was steam-rollered by a totally unnecessary war, which transformed Margaret Thatcher’s polling, and that of her Party from 27% in early 1982, to 51% in the aftermath of the Falklands War. (See http://www.redpepper.org.uk/1983-the-biggest-myth-in-labour-party-history/)
In addition to this, the “Gang of Four” had broken away from Labour, syphoning off about a quarter of the electorate. It is interesting, is it not, that this led to Thatcher securing her 140 seat majority in 1983 on 700,000 FEWER votes than she had secured in 1979.Thatcher WAS beatable in 1983, except for the Falklands and the “Gang of Four”.
As regards that War, to the end of my life I will believe Thatcher provoked it, by withdrawing naval support from South Georgia; she totally misjudged it, expecting Galtieri to go in for some minor sabre-rattling, and not a full-scale invasion, and was VERY lucky it did not go spectacularly belly-up.
As regards the SDP, I will pass that one over in silence, but can only say that the Labour Party should have elected Barbara Castle as Leader when Callaghan stepped down: I do not believe the “Gang of Four” would have set up the SDP with Barbara as Labour Leader, nor do I believe the Falklands War would necessarily then have taken place, given that Barbara was seen as a far more formidable opponent than Michael Foot (even though Thatcher was an intellectual pygmy by comparison with Foot). And I believe Barbara Castle would then have won in 1984 – for Thatcher would have gone to full term.
But to return to the point – the flirters with irrelevance were the official Labour Party in 1931, and the SDP in 1981.
But on both occasions it was Labour members across the divide who flirted with extinction – by refusing to accept compromise
That, I think, was the point
Accurately and concisely put, Paul. You expose the fundamental weakness at the heart of the Corbyn “project”. The rapid growth in Labour party membership – many of whom appear to be Corbyn supporters – is being equated by those concerned as signalling the much broader popularity and acceptance of their man amongst the general public, when nothing could be further from the truth. In short, while core support for Corbyn within the party is obviously high, support for Corbyn (and for Labour in general thanks to the mess the party is now in) among the general public, and particularly those ‘prepared to switch’ (as you put it), is running in the opposite direction. Sadly, this reminds me of the Michael Foot years of the early 1980s. As a Foot supporter I well remember how those of my persuasion convinced ourselves that our depth of commitment to a truly socialist agenda was as attractive to the general public as it was to us and that the shortcomings of our leader would also be overlooked. We were very wrong on both counts.
And it took a long time to recover
With the Militant episode in between
Hi Richard Last year I recall that you strongly supported a big chunk of the ant-austerity and investment narrative that was being advocated by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnel. If I understand correctly then are you saying
1. that the narrative and policy ideas have not been delivered or even looked like being delivered by Corbyn and McDonnel
2. JC and JM are very poor at working with members of their teams and won’t listen to others
3. Do you believe Owen Smith in his assertion that he would deliver many of Corbyn’s ideas or is this just PR to attract votes.
Many thanks
The ideas I promoted were borrowed by JC and JMcD last year
Re your points:
1) That is what I am saying: worse, I ma saying they have substantially back tracked and moved very much to the right
2) I am saying that
3) I do think this much more likely than JC delivering, a) because OS has that intent and b) because JC never could now: he can’t even form a shadow cabinet
Whilst I reluctantly agree re Corbyn, I find the alleged reversion of McDonnell to something like the neoliberal economic narrative difficult to fathom – why showcase different economic ideas from different economists throughout the country if you have no intention of paying attention to them? Seems compleltely illogical. And a failure in and on McDonnell’s own terms.
Why commit to a balanced budget with the implication of cuts is the question to ask in that case?
I wish I knew why
Jeremy Corbyn is not an economist. He’s a trade unionist, a pacifist and an internationalist. John McDonnell deals with the economy – as he has been doing for many, many years.
But he isn’t
That’s the problem
Of course John has. I have seen you at numerous People’s Assembly events he organised over the years. He gave you the limelight you have never had before last year but you got carried away and started fantasizing publicly about ‘Lord Murphy, the Shadow Chancellor of Exchequer’:) I can see how not even making it to the team of economic advisers would hurt but you’ve done your reputation and credibility huge damage these past few weeks. Ask yourself why Corbyn’s poll ratings have increased 12% and Smith’s have decreased by the same margin since your pathetic hatchet job. Smith’s political career will be over by September and so will be the political ambitions of his little helpers.
Wow, what an imagination you have
But, just for the record, I am not sure I have ever been to a People’s Assembly meeting and if you think that’s where what reputation I have was made then you may need to think again
Oddly speaking at such an event was not listed amongst the reasons why City University appointed me as Professor of Practice in International Political Economy, which is the role I really wanted last September, and which I got for reasons wholly unrelated to Corbynomics
But if you really want to spend your time thinking about my role in a parallel universe then feel free to do so. The only other people who have do so as far as I know are the Mail
You have chosen to misunderstand, Richard. In my opinion, you’re the leading individual advocate for tax justice in the world. But in terms of economics and politics, Corbyn was the making of you, which was precisely why you were very keen to claim Corbynomics. It is a testament to Mcdonnell’s big heart that he allowed you to do so even though there was ample scope for a counter-narrative. So, for you to join the “coup” against Corbyn on the ground that you are the “father of Corbynomics” (or words to that effect) was a very low blow.
Hang on
I was involved with Downing Street in Brown’s days
I advised Miliband’s team numerous times
I have co-authored with Carline Lucas for years
And written for unions
And my ideas have been taken on board by the Lib Dems and Tories
I have spoken to an SNP meeting this year
And you say Corbyn was the making of me when in practice I wrote nothing for him? He borrowed ideas I had already written, and in a not very coherent way, without asking for my permission first?
Please get real
I owe nothing to Corbyn
I regret that he might owe me a lot
And as for joining a coup – what nonsense. I remain outside the Labour Party. I am more than happy for my ideas to be used by others if they wish – to even advise if they want. As I’ve just noted, that has always been the way I have worked with many parties
Your problem is you have no grip on reality whether it be mine or anyone else’s
I suggest you get one fast
Especially is you want tax justice
The self-proclaimed “father of Corbynomics” owes Corbyn nothing, apparently. Why didn’t your publishers market your book as adviser to Caroline Lucas et al?
I never asked them to do that
And it was happening simultaneously
As for you though, might you be working in John McDonnell’s office?
Goodness me – here we go again. When I implored Richard to ‘stay out of it’ in the now famous (infamous?) marathon ‘Corbyn Challenge’ blog this is the sort of stuff I was worried about.
Anyone who thinks Richard is a Blairite cannot be serious. They have not been spending enough time here on this blog. Stop being silly.
In addition, anyone who thinks that Corbyn ‘made’ Richard REALLY cannot be serious at all (how insulting is that?!!!) since I think it fair to say that Richard has been more high profile than Corbyn who has only been in his job for less than a year? I’d never heard of the fellow before his election for goodness sake and I know I have been coming to this blog for some time well before then!
My own position on the Corbyn saga is that my main worry – given that we seem to agree that politics is so divorced from real people – is the possible disenfrachisement of the membership by the actions of the PLP. However, the latterly negative tone of Labour towards Richard’s ideas (like PQE) was such a display of bad judgement (or was it venal self gratifying revenge?) that I did not become a £25 Corbynista as a result (and I am not a Labour voter but for me now it’s definitley ‘Labour? Sod’em’).
Come on now! By all means lets debate the details.
But this is not a Punch & Judy show for goodness sake it’s meant to be serious and rewarding blog.
Not at all. In fact, I have much more time for you (whose work on tax justice I’ve admired for ages) than McDonnell (who I don’t even know). I stood up for you when the likes of Tim Worstall and ‘Christie Malry’ tried to malign you for purely selfish reasons and I’ll stick up for Corbyn now you’re doing pretty much the same thing to him.
I understand why McDonnell went for the likes of Stiglitz, Piketty and Mazzucato for his economic team (let’s face it you don’t have any post-graduate qualification or any peer-reviewed publication I can see on economics) but I thought you should have been given the HMRC review.
But It pains me to witness what you’ve done to yourself these past few weeks, particularly when you know that your admirably frank ‘cold shoulder’ interview with Zoe Williams is in the public domain for fair-minded folks to put two and two together.
City University were entirely happy with my academic record when appointing me Professor of Practice in International Political Economy
And I have not for a moment done anything like Worstall or ‘Malry’: I have offered reasoned argument
There was nothing selfish at all: it would have been vastly easier to say nothing, but wrong.
And as for the joke at the end of Zoe’s piece – the person spreading that rumour at the time was David Gauke. I laughed at it
I could add more on the issue, but won’t
Tom
Your comment about Richard’s apparent lack of economic bona fide’s is really very low indeed and just not necessary. Please stop this now. It’s extremely rude.
You seem to ignore the fact that in many so-called professions (and particularly economics), there is an element of paradigm ossification – where one idea dominates (in this case neo-liberal sterility, markets first rigidity) and all new ideas are pushed out and any claims of objectivity are just not laudable.
I am glad to be associated with Richard Murphy and the fact that he is not a tradtional economist who:
1) is so wedded to the idea of self correcting markets that he/she could not predict the 2008 crash – nor none of the many other crashes that have happened before then.
2) totally ignore where money comes from and has no problems with debt fuelled economies even though we know this is bad and unsustainabale in the long run.
3) produce degree courses that students around the world are rebelling against as they do not protray the real world.
4) receive thousands of pounds of payments from financiers to write supposedly serious academic papers justifying the non-regulation of derivatives (for example) or the latest risky get rich quick scheme that the tax payer will have to bail out eventually.
5) bully, undermine and ignore those with new ideas in order to keep the paradigm gravy train moving.
All the above are the behaviours of the ‘peers’ that you believe should have reviewed Richard’s work – the equivalent of a bunch of lepers judging a beauty contest (thank you Robin Williams)!
With some notable exceptions (Krugman, Picketty, Stiglitz – who are all good at analysis but seem weak in my view on policy and then the Aussie contingent who are really worth listening to as is my favourite ‘real’ economist Ha-Joon Chang) I am overjoyed that none of these ‘paradigm economists’ have not had the chance to review the common sense ‘let’s at least try it’ ideas that Richard has put forward.
And Tom – he is a ‘Professor of Practice’ which infers his role is to contrast economic theory with reality – and we do not need a traditonal paradigm economist to do this as they would simply confirm that the theories work – wouldn’t they? And of course nothing would change. And nothing new would be learnt.
The economics profession is in crisis and economics is too important to be left to economists – we need multi-disciplinary approaches to economics from now on and people like Richard (and others) need to be listened to.
Thank you
There is nothing low in pointing out that Corbyn’s very many opponents in the media and elsewhere would highlight Richard’s lack of what I would call conventional qualifications if McDonnell was receiving formal economic advice from him. It’s just the way it works. Personally, I rate Richard’s opinion on economics more highly than those of many of McDonnell’s team but that’s not the orthodoxy. As I said before, I can’t for the life of me understand why Richard wasn’t asked to do the HMRC review. If I was working in McDonnell’s office as he insinuated that would be a resignation issue for me. I respect Prem highly but Richard “owns” that subject.
I said I would not do it
Given I own the subject as you put it I would have been endorsing my own views
That helped no one
No. You would be doing exactly what you purport to want to do! I thought your beef with Corbyn was about your mantra about translating ideas into policy. You’re now saying that you were offered the opportunity to conduct Her Majesty’s Opposition review of HMRC and you refused?!
I refused because I had already written so much policy in this area, which I submitted as evidence to the review, that to then appraise it would have represented a conflict of interest
I also thought it was telling that McDonnell’s team haven’t bothered to rebut your attacks. That should be a cause for sober reflection.
I assure you they have been
In exactly the tone you are using
Which is why I think you are in his office
I can assure that you that I am not in his office and that I am not paid for commenting on this blog; on which note I should get back to the day job! All the very best.
I have been following you for over 8 years now ever since we worked together to produce the film for Stamp Out Poverty high lighting the currency transaction tax, ex Torbin tax now Robin Hood tax. I remember Brown’s promise to David Hillman & the campaign before he succeeded Blair, that he would enforce tax justice once he got into power. I was insensed when he didn’t carry out his promises. Also when he bailed out the banks with public money he did the deal in favour of the banks not the public with nothing to protect us in the future. You have been campaigning now for over 10 years and no government has actually adopted your policies. I believe Corbyn & McDonnell listened to your ideas and took some on board but since then they have been wadding through mud slung by their own party & most of the media, they are not in a position to adopt any policy as they are not in power. Why aren’t you attacking those in power for pretending to be tackling tax justice while carrying on doing exactly what they have always down, protecting corporates, off shore UK tax havens. Why are you so annoyed with Corbyn, at least he listened to you, not like all the other politicians. He has a vast movement of the public behind him that will vote for him. These people will not vote for any of the other puppets put forward by the Labour Party as they have not credentials. I have great respect for your knowledge Richard, I wish those in power at the moment would listen to you and finally get in revenue we so need to make our country work.
I am tackling all the same issues
Haven’t you noticed the blog on HMRC, for example, this morning?
I just wish John McDonnell had done the same
But I can’t see it anywhere – and he’s have known this was coming a day ago because I did