A commentator on this blog yesterday suggested that:
Corbyn's the best leader we've had in a long time and if we all got behind him we could completely transform this country.
That is a contentious claim. But it made me think. As a result I re-read the introduction to my 2011 book, The Courageous State. There I argued that:
As I argue in this book, we could have a Courageous State. A Courageous State is populated by politicians who believe in government. They believe in the power of the office they hold. They believe that office exists for the sake of the public good. They know what that public good is. They think it is their job to help each and every person in their country to achieve their potential — something that is unique to each person and which at the same time is a characteristic we all have in common. And they believe they can command the resources to fulfil this task — whether through tax or other means — and that they should command those resources so that we as a country can each achieve, both individually and collectively.
We have not had politicians like that for a long time. These are politicians with the courage to work out when the market is absolutely the right mechanism for delivering what society needs — and which backs those who wish to partake in that market openly, honestly and accountably by providing them with the environment they need so that they can flourish, while delivering all the resources required to curtail those intent on market abuse.
And they are politicians who are as capable of deciding when the market can never deliver — because it is wholly unsuitable for the task in hand — meaning that it is the job of the state to ensure that what society needs and wants society shall get, at the lowest possible cost for the highest possible outcome for the benefit of all involved.
These are politicians of integrity. Who will carry their conviction with pride. Who will stand up to those who get in their way, not by ignoring them and not by bullying them but by presenting them with reasoned argument that shows that these politicians have worked out what they are doing, and why, and how they mean to achieve it.
I suspect a great many of us want such politicians. Politicians who are strong and effective; people we can believe in and who inspire but who we know we can hold to account through the democratic process. Politicians we can hold up as examples. Politicians with the ability to admit mistakes and move on. Politicians who we are willing to follow. Politicians of the stature of those who built the post-war consensus in the UK, for example, which proves that such people can exist.
I stress: those are not my sole criteria. My focus was in the economy. The environment, equality and other issues are addressed elsewhere. They are then necessary but not sufficient conditions to identify the leadership we need, in my opinion.
Does Corbyn meet those criteria? I wish he did. I have to say I am not convinced. There is too much ambiguity as yet for it to be said that he does. And on principles I do not think there is a need for ambiguity, even (and perhaps especially) when in opposition.
I do not dispute Corbyn has merit. I shared platforms with him because he did so. But has he the clarity of thinking to lead real transformation of our economy? Not yet, I suggest, and not least because he has not yet made the case for the private sector which is the necessary corollary of that for the state. At least I have not seen it.
Do that, and the lines are drawn in a way that make it harder for opponents to attack. That's why this is important.
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:
Well said.
I sincerely hope that he or one of his advisors is reading.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
“I sincerely hope that he or one of his advisors is reading.”
I doubt it. More than 140 characters.
Sadly you rely on an assumption of good faith, rather than class war as the motive for government. Look at state policies through the class war paradigm and 95% of the state’s decisions are logical and devoted to the same end. Model coherency is the basis of government in Britain, not fatuity.
Do you really hope and believe that John McDonnell, Seumas Milne or Andrew Murray, the people who wield the real power around Corbyn, have any interest in developing efficient and effective market mechanisms? For them markets are an anathema.
I have that concern
Those of us old enough to remember the fifties and sixties ( regardless of the party of government ) also remember what the economy of those times was called ; it was ‘ mixed ‘ which meant that some things were better done by private businesses, some by the state and some – defence is the best example – by a combination of the two. The issue is where is the balance struck i.e. in which sector is it most appropriate for this , or that particular activity to sit. The relentless desire to privatise anything and everything has demonstrated beyond doubt that an ideology bent on making money out of any part of our society is just fine with financial manipulators to the detriment of society at large. On the other hand Richard’s blog about ht e failure of Maplin today which he puts down to the rapaciousness of the private equity brigade demonstrates the need for some greater constraint on the ‘ market ‘ .
Corbyn doesn’t tick the box on all counts – not even close. Nevertheless, he’s still miles closer than any leader of a major party in recent years. He has a heart and he has a backbone – two out of three ain’t bad.
The fact that he and his team don’t have an economics brain between them can be fixed.
A small group of us lowly Labour members tried very hard to get John and Prof Bill Mitchell to meet at conference last year with no success. We need bigger guns.
Richard, any chance you and Warren can gather an MMT posse to descend on the Labour Leadership and refuse to take no for an answer?
Honestly I think there’s a chance for the MMT crowd to do so much good here but it’s all just hot air at the moment. Britain in 2019 could be a progressive mirror of the Chicago School’s exploits in 1970s Chile. MMT could do so much good here and I really can’t understand the lack of urgency among its main proponents.
They tried to set up an MMT UK working group but it is all amateurs with no big guns and has quickly descended into pointless debate and no action. We need Warren, Stephanie, Bill, Randall et al over here where the opportunity is and we need them sooner rather than later.
I can ask….
Thanks Richard, much appreciated!
Please do, for all our sakes
Adam Sawyer says:
“Corbyn doesn’t tick the box on all counts — not even close. Nevertheless, he’s still miles closer than any leader of a major party in recent years.”
You are suffering English Disease, Adam. Corbyn policies adopted in Scotland would put the clock back at least a decade here.
But then Scotland (and Ireland) are just distant countries of which we know little (and apparently care considerably less).
Corbyn has much baggage. He calls himself a democratic socialist as such capitalism is inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality, and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a centrally planned socialist society. Consequently he has shown a marked reticence to endorse anything remotely like a private sector or market economy. As he has demonstrated over the last 30 years he has votes 500 times against his party and one needs to ask is he in the correct party. It would be nice to see a man FOR the people not ideologue perhaps then we might get a proper opposition on things that actually matter
Jim
It’s pretty boring to have to say that I agree that Corbyn should do more today what markets are good for
It’s equally boring to point out that almost all,else you have said is pure dr8vel that says a great deal about your prejudices but nothing about political reality
Please don’t waste my time
Richard
We obviously got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. A lack of sleep obviously dulls the intellect. My opinion however boring is not based on prejudice or any preconceived idea but on experience and possibly coloured by listening to pedants for the last 70 years. However I never had the arrogance to consider their input as a waste of time. The political reality under Corbyn is there is a serious lack of a coherent strategy to defeat the embedded ruling classes or to mobilise anger against the Tory government. Labour remains a party devoid of parliamentary action. That is not drivel. That is a statement of FACT.
No, that’s just a diatribe
And this is a place for debate
Jim Craig says:
“The political reality under Corbyn is there is a serious lack of a coherent strategy to defeat the embedded ruling classes or to mobilise anger against the Tory government. Labour remains a party devoid of parliamentary action. That is not drivel. That is a statement of FACT.”
I would argue that it’s not ‘FACT’, but it’s an opinion I have a lot of sympathy with. It makes me glad to be resident in Scotland where I have a more progressive Party and leader to support at election time.
Jim Craig says:
“Corbyn has much baggage.”
Who doesn’t have baggage, Jim ? Neoliberal political/economic bullshit presumably doesn’t count as ‘baggage’ in your estimation. In my estimation it’s deadweight.
” capitalism is inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality, and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a centrally planned socialist society.”
Sorry, Jim that’s not right. You are just reiterating the propaganda of a distorted and malign right wing press with its own axe to grind. It is a straw man case. Made out to be a straw giant. Boo ! Sorry did I startle you ?
“Consequently he has shown a marked reticence to endorse anything remotely like a private sector or market economy.”
Yes we agree about that, but then his job is to make an opposition case against this broken orthodoxy we currently suffer. It is orthodoxy. It’s mass groupthink and it’s seriously askew. The GFC of 2008 was just a symptom of how flawed our current economic system is.
“As he has demonstrated over the last 30 years he has votes 500 times against his party ” and quite rightly so against Tory-lite policies masquerading as coming from left of centre. “….. and one needs to ask is he in the correct party.” i think he is. It’s a lot of others in his Party who seem to be confused about which side of the house they belong.
“It would be nice to see a man FOR the people not ideologue perhaps then we might get a proper opposition on things that actually matter” Like Blair and Brown for example for whom it was neoliberal business as usual. Keeping the seats warm for the Tories to return.
I think Richard may be a little unkind to describe your vacuous scribblings as ‘drivel’, but I struggle to think of a more apposite word that doesn’t have overtones that might be considered ‘coarse’ and rouse feelings of sanctimonious ire.
Debate requires the right of reply which you through moderation you have denied so no debate can take place. My reply is considered a diatribe yet crass comments which elicited my replies are not. Intellectual sophistry. Absolutely no point in continuing
One of the great rights is editorial freedom
I use it
And you are right there is no point in continuing: you have nothing of use to say
Editorial freedom as used by you is censorship as you have set yourself up as the arbiter of what is useful. Such arrogance. I trust your students are not treated in the same way.
“Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real, and I can’t vent any anger against them; I only feel this appalling sadness. Somewhere in their upbringing, they were shielded against the total facts of our existence.” Charles Bukowski
What a disappointing end considering I held you in high regard. Good bye
With respect Jim 0 stop being crass
I am not censoring you
You have complete freedom to run your own blog and decide if I can come on or not
Just as I have that right here
And not one thing you wrote indicated you had any such respect
Andy
Fact is that which can be proven. Has Corbyn mobilised anger against the Tories ? NO. Has Corbyn instituted any coherent strategy to defeat the embedded ruling classes ? No. Therefore that is FACT
It is unlikely this reply will see light of day as my previous reply to you has been deleted as has my last to Richard by the process of “moderation” all of which skews the outcome and hence makes a mockery of a site dedicated to “rational debate”
Jim
No, that is opinion
And it is your intemperate SHOUTING that makes you rather hard to tolerate
So please don’t call again
Richard