I was on the Alex Salmond Show yesterday discussing Keir Starmer's progress to date. My interview is the second half of the programme:
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:
Precipient?!
We don’t see or hear enough of you in the media in my view. You maybe heterodox but you sound very sane and nice with it I might add.
I need a haircut!
It’s the corporations and billionaire rent-seekers benefitting from financial malfeasance who need the haircut, Richard……
To me, “smart” is an intellectual, not tonsorial quality!
Keep up the good work.
Don’t we all. Except I notice government ministers with neatly trimmed barnets. Funny that.
Odd, isn’t it…
One excepted of course, but that is frequently quaffed to look that bad I think
Now is the time to get some clippers, a towel, a chair and a mirror for good luck. Have the vacuum cleaner handy too. However it turns out, I will not mention it.
Nope…I can wait
I’ve done long hair before
I was at university in the mid to late 70s, after all
I forgot the mirror. That now explains quite a lot …….
Starmer – red tory, dumps lefties, and just supporting the government. I say he is doing a great job of supporting the neoliberal consensus. In other words he is crap. i have no faith in the labour party or him, even if he won the election. Winning is not the key here, it be just the same old blairite stuff. No MMT just cuts, and slagging off the poor, rinse and repeat. We are back to consensual politcs again, where Starmer nods and smiles, no oppositon to the government, nothing. When a labour politicans comes on tv i turn it off, that is if i have it on, mostly i do not.
If that happens I will criticise
A cynic might suggest this is your latest attempt to grovel and worm your way in to a paid consultancy role!!.. I actually like Starmer and he his doing a good job in liberating the Party from the Jon Lansman / momentum nonsense which had made the party unelectable.. it is a stretch however to see how his and your ideology meet other than with a massive degree of compromise by your good self.
Wow, you have a vivid imagination
Applying for a shadow cabinet role via Alex Salmond on RT is pretty darned unlikely, I would suggest
@Ben h
Tony Blair made the Party electable.
The real challenge is to make the party worth electing.
You are a man with contacts. How is it that you can’t plant the seeds of MMT among the political class? Does anyone in the Labour Party know anything about macroeconomics beyond the ‘how are we going to pay for it?’ mantra. The only politicians who seemed to know were John Redwood and Chris Williamson and the latter has been dumped by Labour. Does the new shadow chancellor know about MMT?
I am not aware of any awareness of MMT in the new shadow cabinet
And my contacts are not that strong right now
A new shadow cabinet is making its own cautious way….
Labour’s failure to embrace MMT is an existential problem for the party, You can’t “out -austerity ” the Tories. I have no contacts but, as a member, did submit some thoughts to their request for input on policy. I live in hope!
Several posts back I asked for some clarification about debt and borrowing as I was struggling to grasp the ideas, replies and links were forthcoming and I am relatively confident now. What struck me then was that rather than my ignorance being purely information based it was also prejudice based. By that I mean that the associations triggered by words like debt and borrowing were getting in the way of my learning.
Lots of people are terrified of debt, given the way personal economics works now its hard to avoid. Their fear of personal debt translates to a national level aided by successive governments. Perhaps what we need it a Talbot, a renaming of the terms. Just like you did at 24:30.
Talbots, a Hillman or a Chrysler by any other name, if I recall correctly?
Or a Windscale.
I have made it my lifes work to always be needing a haircut.
Agreed, Nicholas. I find the word “borrow” deeply problematic when referring to government borrowing. For most people it implies :
1. The government doesn’t have enough money.
2. The government will have to pay it back, and then the taxpayer will have to cough up.
Economists (including Richard as far as I can tell) just don’t seem to see this problem.
I would suggest Richard asks his blog readers to come up with an alternative word or phrase for when the government “borrows”.
My suggestions:
1. “Furlough”, as in “the government furloughed x billion pounds last year.
2.”Sequester”
I do see this problem
I am working on it – and was much of yesterday
But just saying it’s not debt is not enough
Technical explanation is required too
That is taking more work
“Replace” is the key word
There was about the right amount of money in the economy
A lot of that money disappeared
The Government created new money to replace it
So we are back with about the right amount of money
“Paying it back” = taking it out of the economy again
Which would put us back into crisis
Why would anyone want to do that?
(sorry to bang on about this)
I think bank loans will need to be replaced
Or become equity
I have argued for the latter
It remains a good point. Powerful ideas require to be conceptualised and expressed in very simple and at the same time striking terms, to have any public effect or influence. Neoliberals have always had the advantage of simple metaphors; ‘household budget’ for example, so simple it can be applied totally wrongly with impunity; they wrongly turned the issue upside down.
We also need to think in terms of turning things on their head; which of course is what MMT actually does. Government debt we should perhaps think of as ‘privatising the creditor’.
“I need a haircut!”
Maybe so, but you seem to be managing to maintain the platinum rinse without showing your roots. 🙂
🙂
Not seen the Alex Salmond show before. Pleasantly surprising to hear him let his interviewees have time and space to set out their thoughts.
I am tribal Labour so realise that I am one-eyed…. but Keir is doing well. My concern is not whether he can win the next election (he can!!) but rather what state will we be in when he does take over.
4 years of Boris is a grim prospect.
Alex is no saint, in his own words
But he is good to work with and let’s me develop a theme when being interviewed
Brilliant. I really like the way you’re banging on about government debt being no problem. I think that’s what might get through the noise. Some people will want to find out more about it but I am guessing it’s the simple message that could possibly start to take root.
Government debt? Not a problem!
You are a real revolutionary.
Flatterer
Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told PoliticsHome:
I feel if you have made greater contributions to the system, there is an argument that you should receive more out of that system. It doesn’t mean that you will ever be leaving people without support or leaving them destitute. But I simply feel that that lack of a connection between what you put in and what you get out has become a major problem of social security and the political support for it.
Is this really Labour / Starmer’s approach? How very depressing.
Have to say I have never been a fan of him
But remember many working class Labour would completely agree
But Starmer has given him the shadow post- what does that say about Starmer and his approach? Nothing that I can support very sadly. And the disappointment is profound.
IF we get a Starmer Government it might be an improvement on Johnson- what wouldn’t? but it will be very unlikely to make any radical changes so we will continue to sink and the majority of the population will continue to suffer. What is the point of a Labour Party?
It says Starmer may be seeking to keep his enemies close
I would….
As a party member I was utterly depressed reading Reynolds comments. Its back to Harman/Miliband times. My membership is hanging by a very thin thread at the moment. Much more of this kind of talk and it’ll snap.
Alex Salmond is in the mould of Brian Walden, the ex-Labour MP, who used to do those devastating political interviews on ITV in the 90s. Not as good yet, but certainly talented. Andrew Neil fancies himself as a successor to Brian Walden. He has some way to go.
Hi I am new here Can anyone tell me what MMT is?
I also agree Kier Starmer is doing a good job leading a party,but is it a Labour Party or SDP #2? I’m sorry but seems same old same old ‘New Labour’ with Shadow Cabinet evading questions.
Try this
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/03/24/modern-monetary-theory-a-short-guide-for-a-world-that-now-realises-that-its-an-explanation-of-whats-now-happening/
Can I thank you for that link too, as someone like Bill who is a non-economist who has recently chanced on this website? I was directed to it from an unrelated forum, when I contributed to a discussion about “how is the government going to pay for this” by suggesting that paying it back was unnecessary and a better outcome would be a rethink of taxation to ensure it supports the country’s recovery and long-term sustainability. Someone suggested “read Richard Murphy” so I googled.
The link raises lots of questions in my mind, but I guess if I keep reading your very prolific posts I will find them addressed.
And on topic, I too am relieved to see Keir Starmer leading the Labour party, really because in my mind his predecessor had proved so ineffective in opposition that Labour really didn’t look like a realistic alternative government to the electorate. Starmer is providing the serious scrutiny of an effective opposition in a grown-up way – but I am still waiting for him to elaborate his vision for a different future.
Please remind me of what the questions are – it always helps
There are moments when I feel overwhelmed with things I want to do but it is ever harmful to be reminded what people want
And thanks
OK I will try to frame my main questions (apologies again for the non-economist – and non-accountancy – naievity).
If the government can spend without being constrained by taxation – but then needs to tax to curb inflation: how does that differ (much) from relating spending to taxation? Obviously there may be a time lag, and an adjustment which could go in either direction for any other inflationary or anti-inflationary factors, but it doesn’t seem that different.
And the idea that a government doesn’t need to borrow, but at the same time needs to appear to borrow, similarly creates for me a situation where the end consequence probably isn’t that much different. Though the numbers might not precisely balance within any accounting period.
I suspect you will answer by referring me to previous posts, I looked back through quite a few pages of this blog but only scratched the surface of the lot. And while you are at it you can no doubt answer or refute my proposal on the other forum I mentioned: wouldn’t it be more logical if all sources of money I might receive had aligned tax rates (income tax, CGT, IHT, dividend income taxed at source through corporation tax, bank/building society interest taxed at source, etc)?
Jonathan
Can I recommend Stephanie Kelton’s new book as a primer?
It’s literally out now
Richard
Given this government’s lack of preparedness in tackling the coronavirus pandemic in part caused by ten years of austerity mentality it doesn’t feel as though the majority of voters come anywhere close to understanding MMT and keeping the Tory Party in power was very much an issue of self-harming. One of the main entry points to changing this has to be the Labour Party but if it has a leader determined to keep stum about the relevance of MMT the question has to be asked what really is the point of supporting the Labour Party. There really isn’t any point in keeping a dinosaur on life support!
Helen Schofield asks:
“…what really is the point of supporting the Labour Party….”
None whatsoever in Scotland currently. The position in the rest of the UK is that there isn’t another viable option. In part (in large part) this has to be the result of FPTP preventing any other party gaining any electoral traction. With a two party duopoly whichever side of the fence you sit the choice is between a bad, dysfunctional party and a worse one.
Unsurprisingly neither of these parties shows any enthusiasm for a change towards a more progressive representative voting system. Buggins’ turn seems to be the order of the day with Labour happy to be in opposition most of the time.
In general party policy terms Labour has to somehow shake off the impression that it is a party of opposition and stake a claim to a progressive vision for the rest of this still newish century. To my mind they have so far signally failed to do this without giving the impression that they hanker for a past which no right-minded person wishes to return to, because we HAVE made some progresses since the seventies. But there’s plenty that was not good and needs radical reordering.
Who is describing the vision of a better world? Nobody with any degree of clarity, so we get the Tory fallback of throwing the Lego out of the box with Brexit in the hope that the pieces can be picked up and formed into a brave new world? Fat chance of that; there stands to be far too many losers.
It’s not such a big leap of imagination to see the likes of Jonathan Reynolds refer to the poor as feckless or workshy. This is what happens if you play for the “middle ground” rather than collectively decide on a progressive programme AND campaign for it.
Guys like Reynolds surely are not the successors of Keir Hardie, Nye Bevin or even Harold Wilson.
I agree
This is not my idea of anything even vaguely social democratic
I enjoyed the analysis of Keir Starmer’s approach and the respect for him – which I share! I think he is one of those rare political leaders who are intelligent, balanced, unafraid of and not impressed by bullies, profoundly compassionate and whose integrity is unwavering. He has broad vision and insight and doesn’t engage in petty or egotistical game-playing.
A good person, through and through. “Clever and decent”, somebody said of him. He reminds me a lot of Barack Obama.
Think what a mess Labour was in after the GE. Things could hardly have been more challenging when Starmer took over. In a short time he’s improved Labour’s standing and that of the Labour leader. I have hope for the future.
Well said Richard.
Starmer is an establishment stooge and an ardent Blairite.
His shadow cabinet , let alone considering MMT, will try out-Tory the Tories.
If you couldn’t persuade McDonnell and his team , you have no chance with this lot.
If that proves to be the case I will say so, of course
A very interesting programme and some fascinating insights. I have a lot of time for Sir Keir and have been impressed by his performance so far. He does come across as measured, thoughtful and has real attention to detail, as you’d expect from his background. And also I think, he gives off an air of integrity which I think people are starting to look for in our leaders. A welcome “adult in the room” in these very strange times. My only fear is that he won’t take the opportunity (or may find it difficult) to develop some of the more more radical thinking I believe is needed, such as a Green New Deal and other more imaginative economic policies. It’ll be interesting to see how he progresses. But at the moment I have confidence in his patient and measured approach.