This blog has been going for more than a decade.
There have been more than 13,000 posts and over 100,000 comments, every one of which I have read.
To protect my sanity and my time I adopted a moderation policy some time ago that said you are free to comment but I am also at liberty to delete your comment if I so wish.
I made clear there were some reasons where by default that would happen. They include occasion when I think the comment not legal, but more commonly they arise when then the person is either not trying to make serious contribution to the debate I am seeking to develop on how tax and economic policy can be used to create change to meet the needs of all and not a few, or is being repetitive, or is simply trying to be provocative.
Over many years this has, by and large, been an adequate basis for dismissing those who rather boringly sought to promote neoliberal or pro-tax haven views here when it was very clear that these did not in any way add to the debate I was seeking to develop. Endlessly they told me that if I did not engage with them I would never succeed, my blog would collapse, my reputation would be ruined and the causes I believed in would be forever harmed. When I blocked them some resorted to sending abusive comments, sometimes for months. But on no occasion where they ever proved to be right: the blogged progressed happily without them as did the causes I believed in and worked for.
I regret I am for the time being going to have to extend this policy to those making comment in support of Jeremy Corbyn's candidacy for the leadership of the Labour Party. There are four obvious reasons:
- I know many think Corbyn is the Messiah who has made Labour the ultimate election machine but for the actions of 172 MPs and one or two others, including me, but first if you say that I've heard it before and second there's no evidence to support either case;
- I know many think Corbyn's the only person who might ever have offered left wing policy in the UK, but objectively he's not. John McDonnell's dedication to government debt management means he is bound to impose austerity whatever he says, which is socially and economically the wrong thing to do at present and far from being left wing. It's an unfortunate fact that I am to the left of both Corbyn and McDonnell and object to being told otherwise by those who have not appraised the evidence and I am not going to spend my time rebutting the claims who have not bothered to properly appraise the evidence each time it happens;
- I know many think anyone who does not think Jeremy Corbyn walks on water is a neoliberal, Blairite or worse, but I know that's not true in my case and that of many others who question his competence but not his values;
- Objectively many have pointed out that try as they might have done to work with Corbyn that was not possible because he never showed any sign of knowing how to do so. I shared that experience and any comment that ignores that fact makes all debate on his leadership credentials impossible in any meaningful way.
I am most certainly not banning constructive debate on what Corbyn actually says or plans to do: that is fine, but I have no time at all to waste with the abuse that I know no Corbynista thinks has ever happened but which the rest of the left is really bored with. And in this context I note that many Corbyn supporters are already offering the same types of comments that the neoliberals once did i.e. that my reputation, cause and so much more will be ruined if I do not now see the error of my ways. The neoliberals were wrong. I did not succumb to their threats and prospered because I did not do so. I am entirely confident that history will be repeated.
But let me make it clear that I am not banning criticism of Owen Smith by saying this. Far from it: if there are issues to be raised make them, constructively. But saying he's in favour of austerity when he's clearly not, or that he's an outright neoliberal when he's obviously not or a Blairite when he clearly isn't will get you nowhere when the reality is that so far he may be offering the most left wing agenda of anyone seriously seeking election as leader of Labour for a very long time (although I'd prefer it to be further left still, and see good reason why it should be, and will be the first to shout with reason if it is not to my liking in due course).
In other words, you can offer as much constructive contribution to debate here as you like.
And you can also offer abuse if you wish but I will not post your comment and will add you to the automatic deletion list that WordPress conveniently lets me maintain that ensures that from then on I do not even see your comment before it reaches the trash bin.
And if you want to know why I am doing this there are three reasons.
First, I have a life.
Second I am utterly bored at being told that I am now a neoliberal when I have not changed my beliefs in any way at all but simply want to see genuine left wing electoral policy delivered within the UK parliamentary framework.
And then there's this by Hadley Freeman in the Guardian today which neatly summed up some of my sentiments:
Trump and Labour's hard left both claim to be a cause, but have become cults of personality, ones it is forbidden to criticise. They don't merely object to their opponents — in Corbyn's case, the centre left; in Trump's case, anyone but him. They demonise them. Their supporters say the rise of these fringe groups proves the power of democracy; but movements that demand devotion and prompt vilification are not grassroots democracies — they're cults.
I've never trusted cults.
I didn't trust the cult of neoliberalism and have worked tirelessly to oppose it.
But I will never stand by and see it replaced by another one.
So if you want air time for your cause and are a member of any cult I suggest you go elsewhere. This is not the place for you.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Bravo!
What do you mean by John McDonnell’s commitment to government debt management? Don’t understand.
He has committed to a balance budget as Ed Balls did with the same inevitable consequence of austerity
I don’t agree with that
And I won’t if Owen Smith says he will do it either
Honestly Richard, this depends on if they keep the same economics advisors. I have even talked to Simon Wren Lewis, designer of the ‘fiscal rule’ about this and he refuses to budge. Madness.
I agree that under Corbyn labour are heading for disaster, and not just for that reason, unless a recession happens between now and 2020. I don’t see how Smith will improve things. I guess the one good thing you could say is that it is more likely for the left to stay on board, especially if you can convince them (and you must), than the Blairites get behind Cornyn.
” I guess the one good thing you could say is that it is more likely for the left to stay on board, especially if you can convince them (and you must), than the Blairites get behind Corbyn”.
Keith R, has something of a point here, quite a good one at that. If you (and I mean you in the collective sense) are going to convince them – and you must – then I don’t quite see how taking a cranky, defensive, high-handed or dismissive tone is going to do that.
I would also question the wisdom of persistently using the Corbynista “cult” label to describe such a large and diverse contingent. Are we also to assume that the millions who supported Bernie Sanders are all rabid ‘Bernie bro’s’?)
Given that Sanders is clearly Corbyn’s closest American counterpart, Freeman’s “Trump” comparison is specious (to say the very least) and now gives rise to a new form of Godwin’s Law:
If an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Trump.
I do think there was a Sander’s cult
And there is a Trumpmcult
I do not dispute all are looking for answers
But the hopes are misplaced because the cult focuses on an individual and for some is used as an excuse to be deeply abusive in each case
Of course politics needs to provide the answers to neoliberalism so failures but cults do not provide that
And nor does defining democracy as Corbyn does
Wren-Lewis claims his fiscal rule that McDonnell adopted is different to the Balls one because of the zero lower bound knock out clause. He says that if interest rates are at their lower bound then policy shifts from deficit targets to helping monetary policy support the economy. W-L hopes Smith would adopt the rule if elected.
Simon and I differ on that one
‘Twas ever thus between economists
I think there are much better guides for management
“W-L hopes Smith would adopt the rule if elected”
And Richard, by is own words (above) will cease to support Smith if he does adopt it.
Rightly so, rules based policy is an authoritarian, ideological, neo-liberal nonsense that seeks to eliminate “discretionary policy”. Put another way it seeks to dictate terms and eliminate the right of democratic leaders to use the options that are available to them.
I fail to see the attraction with Wren-Lewis, for a number of reasons, too many to list here.
Hang on
I did not say that
I said I would disagree with him
Don’t make things up
OK, sorry. I see that now.
Thinking again about Wren-Lewis’ fiscal rule, on reflection, this “zero lower bound knock out clause” doesn’t really appear to offer that much of a difference. It sits there within the context of fiscal restraint, where we are continuing to rely on monetary policy, and persists right up to the point where conventional monetary policy is rendered null and void (the Zero Lower Bound).
It reminds me of Churchill’s famous (if apocryphal) comment about the Americans – that they could always be trusted to do the right thing, once all the other possibilities have been exhausted.
The Guardian has reported this today – http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/31/economic-advisers-jeremy-corbyn-cant-win-next-election-owen-smith#comment-80276830
It seems to me that THE JC JM team has upset you with regard to PQE, wrongly in my view.
But listen to this – the irony of it – he has also been rejected by Simon Wren Lewis – the man imposing the fiscal rules and balanced budget. Danny Blanchflower also, without much explanation.
There is no secret that Simon has never bought the idea of PQE and argues it undermines central bank independence which he thinks essential and I think a charade
I am not quite sure how you conclude as you do in Danny’s position: he and I have discussed this issue at length and he believes PQE entirely possible
The three of us were in Twitter conversation yesterday
There us an issue we’ll,agree in, and that is that a renewed Corbyn leadership would be bad news
My worry is that Smith will talk the talk on PQE and the other sensible things we could do.
And – if he wins – he will then ‘baulk the talk’. I’d be hopping mad if he did that.
I am not happy with the politics about politics at the moment. Therefore for me, I prefer to focus on the more practical issues about what would the candidate actually do about the economy.
The decider for me was when McDonnell seemingly publically backtracked on the Richard’s input. Game over.
To me its about the economics – not the politics. Because the economics we labour under are just plain wrong and if we don’t change them we, our children and our grand children will be like the greek character Ixion -condemned to be strapped to burning wheel that travels through the heavens for all eternity in never ending torment.
But I do find the politics of this very difficult because to be honest it just gets unpleasant with each side being disparaging of each other over small details.
For example below are references to ‘clickocracies’ and ‘slackavists’ – all very negative ways of portraying people trying to be involved in something (which is what we want don’t we – for people to give a damn about their polity?) but seemingly not up to the ‘standards’ of others who seem to look down their noses at online methods.
Is this behaviour really necessary? We can’t all be in Richard’s shoes job wise. We can’t all be traditional party activists. We can’t all sacrifice family life for politics. Some of us have demanding jobs that have to come first. Can’t we have a mixed economy of invovlement methods?
Are some of us that uncertain about the things we hold to be true that we just pour scorn – any scorn on the slightest weak spot – on those whom we feel oppose us? And I’m talking of both pro and anti Corbynistas here – many of the comments do not come out of this smelling of roses.
You get it!
It’s about the economics, not the politics
And John McDonnell has the economics wrong
I too would be livid if Owen Smith did
You can be sure I’d say so
I suspect he knows
I’ve not seen or heard anything from Owen Smith supporting PQE, although I’ve searched for this on Google. I know some of his backers were very hostile to the idea last summer. Do you have a reference?
I have heard John McDonnell say quite recently that it is still an option if circumstances required it.
I have no written reference
Well said.
You have my sympathy, but sad it is the left is so divided.
Entirely agree, on the cultist nature of Corbynism, and also on McDonnell’s mad balanced budget nonsense. I am at a loss that such a fundamental of their policy platform has not been noted by their lumpen followership. The critical faculty has gone missing, and that is always dangerous.
I too have worked with good people who lacked leadership qualities. The sad thing is the Labour Party is going through its periodic crisis of identity – does it represent the working class, or socialism or does it have a liberal makeover so it can take over from 19C liberals in taking turns to take the reins of power ? We can argue endlessly about the definitions of these terms but the parallels with the 1930s are concerning, with brown-shirts purporting to represent the workers exploiting political weakness with simplistic sloganising. The left needs to see it will never achieve power without broad agreement that includes recognition of the fears and needs of those who have not benefited since the 1970’s.
Keep up the good work!
Interesting that you are suffering from the Corbyn mob. What on earth has happened to political debate in this country that an mp of the same party as Corbyn can be verbally abused, bricks thrown through their office window and their staff threatened!??? Insanity
Don’t automatically assume that bricks through windows are thrown by supporters of Corbyn. If you read the memoirs of ex MI5 agents there is a history of agent-provocateurs. And that is without the activities of the Met Police’s unit which infiltrated the ecological movement, fathered children with some of the women and then left, having initiated various aggressive activities to bring the movement into disgrace. I don’t say this is what is happening, but it is a possibility.
Hello Richard, and thank you.
I’ve not commented before; I’ve been reading your blog regularly for about a year – essentially since Jeremy Corbyn’s espousal of your ideas made you a minor political celebrity.
Within that time I’ve learnt a great deal from your blogs, and indeed from the continuing content that continues in the comments that follow them. Also within that time frame I joined the labour party, voted for the aforementioned in an ultimately successful leadership campiagn, and have since spent a good deal of time trying to make sense of a world that seems to be increasingly slipping it’s moorings.
I understand that you’re disillusioned with Corbyn’s leadership. Fair enough. I’ve not been overwhelmed myself.
I except that your decision to blog about that disappointment has made moderating comments harder.
Your blog has changed the game for me – I accept, I’m a noob – but I’ve learnt so much in the last year, not just from your own valuable missives, but from the comments below each article, and the ideas they portray.
So, Please, please, please – take another day to think this over. This blog is doing massive traffic, clearly – and rightly – and I imagine admin is a pain. But I also imagine that there are loyal readers out there who would willingly act as sub-moderators, if you asked – and who would be doing alll of us lay-readers a favour by continuing a tradition of healthy debate.
I will not stop debate
I will block repetitive comment and abuse
That then makes debate possible
And keeps me closer to sane when doing this
As long as it promotes better discussion……Still not clear to me why you are so down on John McDonnell.You said earlier his GLC record was a long time ago,but seemingly not bad.His moral compass seems intact too,which might prove rather important.
I don’t think describing Corbyn supporters as a cult is helpful,and ironic, when there is clearly widescale popular support for his approach.Hadley Freeman comments in Guardian about Manson family don’t really give you hope much for the paper getting it’s falling readership back but do rather back up the out of touch metro journo line.
Your better ideas Eg PFI,Tax Haven action,meanwhile need further promotion.Stay busy.
Good ideas do need support
But there is no way there will be change without parliament
And Corbyn is holding that in contempt
Well done – the left needs you out there fighting the good fight, not rebuffing empty falsehoods from Slacktivists
A ‘slacktivist’ cult?
Thanks Paul, for the term:”Slackavists”. Politics is suffering from them terribly.
Though there are many good and promising people coming from univirsities, some operate in a mode of self-centredness and accussatoriness (Passive agressives).
Not for them the use of evidence and logic based on research . No that means “work”.
No they go for name calling and attempted labelling (libelling?)
I’m a Green Party activist (formerly Labour until 2007) and there is generally a very high standard of ethical behaviour in the Party but we have some “slackavist” behaviour at the margins such as the spreading smears/untruths about one of the candidates in the Green Party that “he is a bit sexist and a bit racist”.
Well done, Richard , for standing up, to Corbynista etc. McCarthysim in such a straightforward and clear way.
I’ve been one of your many silent fans. I totally agree with what you say about Corbyn. Not being an economist I’m not in a place to criticise McDonnell but it is wholly inconsistent to have a policy which adopts Balls’ fiscal rule yet screams “Blairite” at anyone who says that some spending limitations might be necessary and no, the Bank cannot responsibly print money and give everyone a few grand to spend as they like. I’ve been told so often to leave and join the Tories that my stock response is this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ddtfoiaWGqs&autoplay=1
I’m not sure slacktivist is as accurate as a claimed clickocracy. The idea that Labour MPs might be accountable or responsive to anything other than the (assumed) demands of members and registered supporters, many of whom have never voted Labour and were not members at the last GE, strikes at the very heart of our system of parliamentary democracy. We have a party system, not a presidential one – the recent appointment of Theresa May underlines this – and the parallels with the USA ought to be further apart than they are. The last time there was a personality cult of this sort in uk politics was probably with Churchill, and then arguably with greater reason.
For what it’s worth, Owen Smith has looked good and has apparently good values and I will back him, though in my heart I feel that his brave attempt to save Labour from itself may fail. I’m deeply worried about the infiltration of the party by those who intend to alter its structures to entrench their position. I do not regard it as unlikely that some of those closest to Corbyn have little interest in parliamentary action – indeed the more victimised and unrepresented by that system their supporters can be made to feel the more closely they will adhere to the saviour who offers them hope.
In the event Smith wins the NEC may prove difficult and the Compliance Committee will have its work cut out to remove from membership unwelcome members. In the event that Corbyn wins, the likeliest outcome seems to be that the rump of the party MPs will return to the backbenches and await deselection – it’s widely anticipated Corbyn will move to centralise that. Further attempts to prise the party machinery from his grasp will probably not only be futile but counterproductive for the reasons given above.
A week may be a long time in politics but it is also a long game. This one began in my youth in the 70s. If Seumas Milne and his crew are successful, in my honest, amateur, opinion, the best thing to do is to adopt the same policy we adopt with failing employees in the teaching profession. Give them every possible tool to do the job, so that if they fail, it is obvious to all, even the failing teacher, that there is no one else to blame.
In the event of a general election I’m confident under Corbyn Labour will lose, probably to about 125 seats. That level of wipeout would demoralise his soft supporters and may well allow the party faithful, me included, to retrieve the majority and remove Corbyn – depending on the extent to which he’s been successful in rule changing and deselection to have only MPs loyal to the cult. In that event we might regain a functioning opposition in 2025 and government in 2030 – I’ll be old but glad to see it.,
In other words, even though it’s abhorrent and the collateral damage to the vulnerable is huge, in my view we have no choice: we adopt the most successful military tactic the world has ever seen. Retreat to Moscow and wait for General Winter to arrive.
Thanks for listening to an old party hand. I feel terribly uninformed here, so I’ll shut up now.
Thank you for your comment
I think some need to take note
Thank you Richard for a sensible left analysis. I find it impossible to understand McDonnell’s acceptance of the rule when he puts so much emphasis on anti-austerity. However in the Labour Party at the moment if you criticise the leadership you must be a red Tory as far as Corbyn’s supporters are concerned.
I have to say I find Su’s predictions worryingly plausible – I don’t think you’re at all uninformed, Su.
Without his key advisors JM is going to need a bigger fag packet, if he is to convince the electorate and seek to put up a meaningful manifesto for election at some point.
My deep fear is that neither of those things is on the agenda. I’m honestly just appalled that our parliamentary opposition has become some sort of rotten borough to be bought by a few under the noses of millions of voters.
People can change their views with time but I puzzle over Owen Smith’s time as a professional lobbyist for Pfizer. Seems to me that lobbyists for commercial companies are trying to negate democracy by trying to persuade M.P.s to do or not do certain actions. Possibly I take a too simplistic view, but I see PAID lobbyists for commerce as an attack on democracy. Why did Owen Smith take such a job?
I have been a paid lobbyist for a long time
I have been paid to campaign on tax justice
Was that an attack on democracy?
I also worked for KPMG once upon a time
Well Richard I did say I possibly had a too simplistic opinion on this issue! But presumably when you were a paid lobbyist it wasn’t to improve the profits of the company/organisation paying you?
No
I agree