From the Sunday Times today:
So, austerity here we come because Rachel Reeves has not noticed we have a fiat currency as yet.
Why is Labour stuck in gold-standard thinking era? And why does it want gold-standard era austerity that inevitably follows?
Reeves really does need to break out of her City style thinking.
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:
Politicians are only echoing the thinking of the electorate, aren’t they? Even friends and family to whom I’ve tried to describe MMT, or encouraged to visit this blog, keep coming up with the same “how will we afford it?” schtick. They’re all over 65s and certain-to voters. Early understanding is very hard to displace.
Also, “There is no magic money tree,” has the ring of a hard truth to older ears. Deceptively like honesty, isn’t it?
It’s frustrating isn’t it?
As an engineer I like the KISS principle and I was wondering if a bit of logic would help.
If we assume there is no money then it there is no money to pay taxes.
The government has to mint and print money, spend it into the economy and only then can it collect taxes.
I like and understand your logic. Unfortunately, twits will simply seize on the phrase ‘no money to pay taxes’ and start arguing for more tax cuts. There really are people that gullible out there. Maybe add ‘or buy goods and services from business’?
I have had some success recently discussing debt. I give the example of a prudent person who is saving into a car-buying pot and a holiday-buying pot. Unfortunately their car is written off so they have to take money from the holiday pot to help buy the needed replacement car. I then invite estimates of how much extra debt the prudent saver has incurred in this way.
Reeves? Huh! She has form, but I must avoid name-calling.
The main point is that she’s cut from the same cloth as Annaliese Dodds, her predecessor, who wittered on about the dangers of inflation and the need to maintain BoE ‘independence in her dire Mais Lecture.
Based on this though, Reeves is even worse. She promised, when in Ed Miliband’s Shadow Cabinet, to be tougher on benefits claimants than the Tories. Clearly she has now expanded her remit, aiming now to be tougher on the whole electorate – the whole population actually – than the Tories, by embracing austerity, and denying the existence on a “magic money tree” (has she been asleep all through Rishi Sunak’s Chancellorship?)
I called Anneliese Dodds’s economic thinking ‘flat-earther’. It would seem that Reeves is not only a flat-earther, but also a pre-Copernican believer in geocentrism.
What a prospect! A geocentric flat-earther as Chancellor! She’ll just put square wheels on the economy’s vehicle! Good grief, what have we done to end up with Dumb (Tories) and Dumber (SKS Labour)?
Andrew
I share your sense of despair
Richard
Surely Reeves is enough of an economist to be aware that much of mainstream economics (Krugman, Stiglitz, IMF etc etc) as well as many governments in the last 18 months , have moved way beyond the household model, the ‘money tree’ image, the ‘fiscal responsibility’ cringe etc etc.
She and Starmer must have decided they dared even engage in debate about what spending models might be possible. Shutting down debagte at this stage is a criminal waste of precious limited inter-election time,
Agreed
Reeves is incapable of breaking out of her thinking – it forms part of her – it defines who she is. I doubt if the woman has ever had an original thought in her life, ditto Sir Stalin.
I like gold too! I’ve got a band of it round the second finger of my left hand.
Other than that there’s not much else can be done with it. You can’t eat it, nor can you spend it in the local shops (if there is anything on the shelves that is).
I’ve never heard such a load of clap-trap in all my life.
It just goes to show that when it comes to neo-liberal stupidity both men and women fall for it.
Note that she uses the word ‘believe’ – knowing your beliefs is one thing; knowing how the world actually works is another.
As I’ve said before politics is not religion but seems like it these day – it’s meant to be about getting things done based on reality. Since Margaret Hilda Thatcher we’ve had to endure ‘belief’ allied with ‘conviction’.
I don’t know about anyone else but I’ve had enough of the neo-liberal fairy tale land that we’ve been living in.
Dear Rachael – read some books and they maybe I’ll vote for your duckie, because as things stand you don’t do anything for me.
Disappointing to the point of deplorable.
Living in this country is what I imagine it feels like when you support a team who are going to be relegated. There’s no doubt in my mind now – we’re going down. Labour will not save us. They’re done as long as people like Reeves are where they are.
Rachel Reeves has an MSc in Economics from the London School of Economics.
She has also reportedly turned down a “City” job which would have made her considerably richer.
I think a fairer interpretation is that she is a bright one who has been captured by politics which means regaining those marginal seats where people at the margins don’t trust Labour to be fiscally responsible.
Those people do not want what she is offering
I think in fairness they’re probably too dumb to understand she’s offering them austerity and a reduced standard of living. I imagine too she’s well aware of that. You aren’t going to be able to teach such creatures economic reality as it would simply disorient them. No new paradigm will be introduced by politicians accordingly. Politicians follow herds, they don’t direct them. Educators do that, so that’s what we must be. I argue a lot about money creation on forums, and lately I’m starting to see like emojis instead of laughter ones. It’s changing out there.
@Thomas Traca
Given the amount of unsupported “taken as Holy Writ” axioms in standard university economics – as Richard has reported passim on this Blog – I wouldn’t place much credence on Reeves having an Ms.C. in economics, even from the L.S.E., given the hold the pre-Copernican model of economics has even on academia.
That’s why I heartily approve of the quotation from the great Joan Robinson on the profile picture of the Facebook Group Modern Money Scotland
(at https://m.facebook.com/groups/1466864300089196/?ref=group_browse).
which runs as follows, if you can’t access the site:
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready made answers to economics questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.”
Never has the need been greater for tools to do just that, in an era when neoliberal untruths (long shown to be invalid) have been presented, and widely accepted, as unchallengeable truths on the level of the Law of Gravity, leaving “the great and terrible Wizard of Oz” firmly hidden behind his curtain.
The MSc doesn’t really mean anything other than a student passing a course to a certain standard in a learning institution at a certain level.
I have an MBA and a BA(Hons) – good ones – so I can talk with authority on that.
What matters is what you do with that MSc and from where I’m sitting she’s not doing much. At masters level you are supposedly meant to be more critical of the theories you are exposed to. You could have fooled me.
Nothing this woman has said yet gives me that impression. She is straight ahead orthodox and wants nothing more than to do the economic equivalent of arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic – play with neo-lib orthodoxy at the margins.
I couldn’t give a damn whether she’s a woman, gay, transgender or whatever. Her gender is nothing more than incidental. Her economic ignorance is not. Ignorance of the law is not a defence, and for me after over 10 years of austerity means that I drive a hard bargain now when dealing with ignorant pigs – male or female.
What is for sure is she is going to be nothing more than the latest in a long line of well paid political numpties who will do nothing for working people or the country.
And with Reeves being a woman that is also a tragedy for her sex because at the end of the day neo-liberal bull shit seems to win over male and female alike. There’s going to be no ‘feminine’ revolution in economics, no ‘feminine’ compassion in Government policy no ‘feminine’ anything to give us relief from the injustices we are enduring. So much for those pushing the female agenda eh?
Male or female, these people are ideological fanatics – whether its BREXIT, Covid or economics. It’s just what we don’t need and I feel that I have the right to be angry and appalled.
They are so paranoid about how it will be portrayed in the media that they dare not do anything except this. They do not have the guts to go, “You know what, spending needs to take place and this will be the benefit”. They are economic cowards.
We need someone, somewhere to challenge the status quo and say we can do better, we must do better.
Craig
Craig, your comment goes to the heart of it. Cowards, with no hope or vision to offer. As a man I know put it, “trying to out-tory the tories on the economy “.
From my perspective anyone advocating for a gold standard just wants to see their gold investment succeed. After all, it’s the “landification” of money. The cryptocurrency space has lots of investors that would benefit from the adoption of Bitcoin by governments and that is their only motivation.
Rob #1
‘A person cannot begin to learn that which they think they already know.’
Epictetus.
Can someone please ask her to explain how a Labour government managed to create the NHS in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, and how on earth we managed to pay for that?
And then ask if she and her colleagues have s any ideas of similar scope and ambition.
We know that they have not
I have not renewed my membership of the Party in despair. It was a difficult decision because I would normally argue that you should remain and fight your corner but at the age of 75 I just give up. They don’t want socialists anyway. Tory light…..
No need to go back to the end of the war to ask how the NHS was funded.
Someone should ask Reeves how the hundreds of millions was found to
pay for the Covid crisis, if there is no ‘money tree’.
Agreed
Oh, sure, but I expect she would mention debt in that context, which no doubt she’d say needs to be repaid in a reasonable period if we are not to saddle future generations with an excessive burden. If so, she should explain who the creditor is.
Agreed
According to her wiki she worked at the BOE.
So instead of politicians telling the BOE what to do we have the BOE infiltrating their staff into political parties.
Like Simon Stevens ,an agent for american accountable care organisations, who somehow persuaded both the prime minister and the Labour Party that allowing these companies to run the NHS was a good idea.
Its about time the membership of the Labour Party woke up to what is being done in their name.
I sense that they are fixated on that section of voters who have gone to the Conservatives, including the Red Wall. Many of them are both socially and economically conservative, contributing to their vote for Brexit. Labour really ought to reflect on whether they share what should be core Labour values.
Rather than trying to compromise, Labour should accept that they will not come back – until and unless they recognise the self harm they have done by voting in Johnson and co. Better for Labour to go hard for the genuinely progressive vote. That IMHO would include going hard to point out the massive damage of hard Brexit and making it clear that the Tories own that. Finessing the arguments for undoing the damage in a phased way will be key.
I agree…
Richard, I have the disadvantage that I understand things better when they are shown in graphics form. Can you give me a link that explains MMT in a tabular/graphic format so that I can get my head around more fully?
There are such things but I am up to my neck in things today
Might anyone else help?
It is a bit basic, but you could try this kitchen sink metaphor: https://www.marketplace.org/2019/01/24/modern-monetary-theory-explained/
This video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHQCjFebIf8
explains it as a series of plumbing diagrams (and very well IMO)
Thanks very much this is excellent for spatial awareness people like me.
Insults may make us feel better.
Yes, me too.
But directed against people we want to persuade is counter-productive. However much we may believe they are:
“cowards” ; “ignorant pigs”; “numpties” ; “fanatics” ; “too dumb” ;
“duckie” ; “flat earther” ; “dumb and dumber” ; “twits” ; “that gullible”.
As I recall, despite Dr John Snow’s cholera maps in Soho, the action taken was very limited:
“I had an interview with the Board of Guardians of St. James’s parish, on the evening of Thursday, 7th September [1854] and represented the above circumstances to them. In consequence of what I said, the handle of the pump was removed on the following day.”
It appeared that whether members of the Board of Guardians were convinced or unconvinced by Snow’s theory of how cholera was transmitted, they were prepared to give it a try. I assume that however disappointed or angry Dr Snow may have been, he did not criticise the “ignorant pigs” nor suggest their universities were not “good”.
Rishi Sunak appears in a somewhat similar position.
Your argument is?
You asked me what my argument is. Here are a couple of aspects.
For one thing, to remind people writing comments that this is a public website. And all too easy for debate in vital matters to be hijacked by even a single word. (Like “scum”.) Though not because opponents are truly offended or outraged. But because they are delighted to trawl through a speech or blog, or twitter thread to find a “gotcha!” word or phrase.
Maybe one model is a man who once lived in your city. In the style of his time Oliver Cromwell famously wrote beseeching people … “think it possible you may be mistaken.”
Isn’t that your own intention? To reach out and explain and persuade and beseech people about MMT? That it offers a route out of the apparent economic dead end we’ve met. Which would of course be more than disastrous without Climate Change. Preceded by Covid and whichever new viral “monsters” may be in waiting.
So never mind where Rachel Reeve or anyone else went to college. (I’m certainly far too old for all that “going up” nonsense.) The task is surely to find more effective ways to reach and beseech people that they may be mistaken. There isn’t much time left, is there?
I’m no sort of devoted Jeremy Corbyn fan. But it seemed to me that he’d found a key which looked like working. At least a very wide range of his opponents thought so.
Prima facie Alan you have a point.
But the truth of the matter is Reeve and others in her party have already been turned and are beyond our reach anyway because of what her and they BELIEVE. Not what they know you understand, nor what we know exists.
Does Reeve know about the 1866 Treasury & Audit Act and how that places Government in a sovereign position of power over the BoE? Does she know or even care that the BoE is nationalised?
Has she heard of Stephanie Kelton?
Who do we apparently owe all this debt money to? Who’s going to come knocking when we don’t pay?
Did taxpayers money pay for the NHS? Did Atlee save up tax payers money and THEN launch the NHS then?
If you asked her she would not be able to answer those questions.
Reeves as an MP was on £81932.00 a year for her ‘beliefs’ as were the other believers who vote through austerity to make our lives worse based on their ‘beliefs’ about money.
Starmer is on around £144,000+ per year as leader of the opposition and he sanctions Reeves ignorance and presides over a self-capitulating party who seem to just want to fight over Tory voters.
All I see are a lot of people paid a lot of money to believe in things that don’t work – that we know don’t work.
Nice work if you can get it I say. Sorry, but my contempt remains undimmed.
I am certain she has heard of Stephanie Kelton
But she is an Oxford PPE, which says it all
I have to say, I’m really disappointed with this approach from anyone in a position of economic authority (or who has any such ambition).
*****NOTE TO THE FOLLOWING – I KNOW AND ACCEPT THAT I’M NOT PERFECT!*****
But I think I agree with what Alan is saying here. This blog is a great place to learn, discuss and share ideas. All too often though, I am turned off to comments (and, in fact, commentators) by the extreme and sometimes tabloid use of insults. Every time I read “Brexshit” or “The Fatberg” or “Toryscum” (all of which are used ad nauseum) then I feel strongly that I want to walk away from this place and never come back. That kind of childish behaviour has no place on a serious blog and doesn’t add anything AT ALL to the quality of the debate.
The economic truth that MMT exposes is an extremely powerful message and carries with it a clear, scale-shedding view of what could be in the modern world. By simply explaining what money is and what tax is for, it consigns the need for Austerity to the dustbin, exposing it for the ineffective and cruel policy that it is.
If we stick to making that point, the war will eventually be won. Every time we bark out a litany of frankly embarrassing and childish names for those whom we oppose, we do nothing other than give them a perfectly justified reason to describe this blog as embarrassing and childish. The message is too powerful and Richard has worked too hard for it to be broadcast for us to ruin it with primary school name calling.
Address the issue, not the person. It works really well. That’s why I never scroll past any of John Warren’s posts.
I think this a fair point
Perhaps I have been too tolerant although some who make such comments know I do sometimes reject what they say or ask them to revise
Well put and I’d agree. In particular re John W.
Keep the ranting for Twitter.
Geearkey
Ok – again, as with Alan a fair point.
For your info though, I don’t know what you mean about ‘economic authority’. I’m certainly never going to be a politician or a economist despite having two firsts in my BA(Hons) and MBA (FWIW).
My ‘economic authority’ Geearkey comes from my experiences as a consumer of Tory policies both as a citizen and pubic sector employee, where I’ve had to deal with the continuous loss of income and the undermining of our services since 2010 if not before during the ‘Neutered Labour’ years.
Like you I appreciate Mr Warren but please remember that this is a blog not a university debating chamber; we’re not all the same – I think I can do the full gamut from intellectual high mindedness to ‘outraged profanity’ myself but that is who I am.
And let’s not forget another thing: one of the weapons we have against the cruel stupidity of power is ‘ridicule’. We’ve had that from Hogarth if not before.
And sometimes ridicule is all we’ve got.
Ridicule keeps us smiling when all seems lost.
And remember that those who pedal this neo-liberal orthodox line are well organised and will not give up easily.
For what it is worth, I agree with Geearkay. I find the abusive invective to be an unnecessary distraction, and it switches me right off. I fear, if it has a similar impact on others, it could even be counterproductive.
To pick a recent example, calling a political opponent “scum” poisons the debate and does little to change minds. Even if he is a racist, misogynist, homophobic liar. Much more powerful to present an unimpeachable case, fully documented line by line, than to roll it up into an insult that can be dismissed out of hand.
Noted and I think I will be more robust on this now
Might others please note?
Are we crediting politicians such as Rachel Reeves as having honesty and integrity? Because I don’t!
I believe these careerist are working to a Neo-Liberal agenda, which is where Thatcher got her inspiration from.
They are part of the establishment, and working in favour of big business interests, when we look at Blair who initially opposed PFI for all the right reasons, but on taking office immediately used it for all his public capital projects, putting the NHS into unsustainable levels of debt etc., It has of course been revealed that Brown gave private companies PFI contracts that has ripped off the so called public purse:
Extract from The independent: “The great PFI heist: The real story of how Britain’s economy has been left high and dry by a doomed economic philosophy
PFI debt for the British taxpayer is more than £300bn for infrastructure projects, with a value of £54.7bn. To put it into perspective, the PFI debt is four times the size of the budget deficit used to justify austerity.
What we found out from this, is, that if the public sector had built these projects, it would have been a quarter of the actual costs done under PFI.
This of course also has two dimensions, one is debt, the other is the asset stripping of public properties, all of which serves Neo-Liberal objectives that I am sure Rachel Reeves and the rest know all too well about”.
I don’t accept that these politicians are acting in the public interest, Brown’s own Mansion House speech to the world’s bankers, boasted how well the financial institutions were doing and that he and his government spent two years convincing EU countries to adopt the liberalisation of financial markets as they had done, and that ED Balls would be working with Ed Cready of the City of London to ensure more liberalisation into the future. Then of course in 2008 we experienced the benefit of all that hard work.
Jonathan Reynolds (Shadow Work and Pensions) was at my constituency Labour party meeting a couple of months ago, so I asked him what he thought about MMT. His answer was (a) it’s unsellable to voters (b) we don’t need it in order to achieve what we want. I have no idea whether he believes (b) or not, but I strongly suspect that he (and Rachel Reeves, and the rest of the Labour leadership) believe (a). And to be honest, I suspect that unfortunately they are right. Now, I hope that nonetheless some of the kind of policies you argue for will be introduced anyway by Labour. But I’ve always thought that making MMT sellable to voters is not a short-term task and probably can’t be done by the Opposition, though backbenchers in ginger groups can play an important role.
If you don’t try to sell something you never succeed
Odd that
If you have limited ambitions you dont need resources to achieve them.
But Labour think that they dont have to do much to get their time in power which amounts to reward enough.
Their strategy relies on Johnson losing the election rather than Labour winning hearts and minds.
It amounts to a limited vision, of dubious merit, based on a belief that Johnson will trip himself up in a race for the line.
The reality is that the UK faces a huge crisis: Climate, Brexit, Covid, War mongering towards China. Labour plans on facing it with its hands tied behind its back in the belief that Voters will not support effective action.
When the country cries out for another Keynes Labour plans on emulating Montagu Norman. Starmer wants to be Ramsay McDonald but without his charisma.
The vision is going to have to come from other countries with their own currency and enlightened leadership. Shall we all move to Iceland or Norway/Sweden?
Or the EU under a different German leadership prepared to do what is necessary?
“we can’t sell it” is one thing – like global warming, it remains factually correct, whether or a not a timid politician feels able to explain it, and whether or not their listener choses to take the time to listen and accept it or not – but “we don’t need it” is an extraordinary position to take.
Is he planning to close the Bank of England, or does he gave an alternative explanation for how the nation’s public finances operate at a macroeconomic level? Does he actually believe the government might run out of money and be unable to pay his salary, if I don’t pay my income tax on time?
Do we want one or more politicians to listen and engage? Or do we prefer feeling good by insulting them as lacking honesty and integrity? Or dismissed as “timid”? Or ridiculed for their “cruel stupidity of power”. (By the way I am in favour of jokes and inventive satire.)
I’ve met very few politicians. I remember some especially. Why? They seemed to listen and engage. And not look round perhaps to see who was more important or interesting.
Just so you know that I try to be cross-party. These few included – as well as my borough’s two Labour MPs – Andy Burnham, Siân Berry, and – much to my surprise as I loathe his policies – Iain Duncan Smith. He wasn’t just polite but got something small & practical done for people in my neighbourhood.
In summary I beseech thee: assume Rachel Reeves is reading this page. Hi Rachel!
Try persuasion. Following if not the Gold Standard, then at least the Golden Rule Standard. Argue unto others as you would be argued with.
She may be reading this page
To Alan Stanton, perhaps people don’t realise that Rachel Reeves will tell you that we need to raise tax in order to spend on public services, knowing that of course is not true because she was an economist at the Bank of England before becoming an MP.
So in effect it is pointless asking her to use her knowledge for the benefit of the rest of humanity, she is working for the 1% and knows why she is doing it.
Think of the people she has denigrated as a Labour MP attacking the poorest in our society for political gain, meaning it is easier to blame to victim for their position in life, rather than the establishment that create the conditions that put them in that situation.
Touché. But if you think “timid” is an excessively dismissive insult, you should meet my friend PSR.
I can understand a politician needing to choose their battles, but it is no small thing to say it is not worth the effort.
It you concede that MMT is “unsellable to voters” and “we don’t need it” – notwithstanding the current government spending money like water, without first taxing or borrowing from anyone – then you are effectively conceding that your policies need to be based on a false economic model chosen by your opponent. That the government has to pay for expenditure from tax and debt, has to balance the books, the deceit of the household money and of “taxpayers money”, and all the rest of it. Well, good luck trying to beat them at their own game. Rather, we need courageous politicians who are willing to attack the premises, not just the conclusions.
I included this in a letter to my MP (Labour) several months ago now:
“It is clear that most of the mainstream media are currently urging Keir Starmer to continue the ongoing purge of the left, to make Labour more ‘electable’ again. But it is surely not a binary issue of “socialist purity” versus “electability”, as the media seem to be implying. (…)
I really baulk at the idea that the only way to get rid of the current government is to install Labour as a sort of “Tory second eleven”, whose only virtues are likely to be negative ones: less incompetence, less cronyism and less corruption, but otherwise continuing the neoliberalism project initiated by Regan and Thatcher. This project has been disastrous for the majority of people worldwide, who have seen their standard of living either stalled or eroded and above all their planet ruined, possibly irreparably, while a relatively small number of people, their families and henchmen have become obscenely wealthy.”
Months on, and it is now clear that Starmer, Reeves & Co have chosen what seems to them the easiest path to power; hope the Tories self-destruct; have a policy agenda replete with slogans and buzzwords, and maybe a few bribes, but which does not seriously threaten the economic status quo – that way the establishment’s attack dogs in the mainstream media can hopefully be kept at bay and and maybe the establishment will decide that it is Labour’s “turn” once again, as in 1997, in order to maintain a semblance of democracy.
But voters’ opinions are not formed in a vaccum. I agree with the good folk at Media Lens – we tend to seriously underestimate the use and power of propaganda in a democracy. “News” is not an objective category of information; it is subject to selection, omission, framing and presentation.
And propaganda can work both ways. As I think I’ve argued here before, any party with policies that might seriously threaten the coalition of interests that led to the electoral debacle of 2019 needs to be aware of exactly what it is up against, and consequently needs to devote sizable resources of time, energy, expertise and hard cash into an effective media strategy. Without that, defeat is certain, and we are left with the only alternatives: the Tories, or Tory-lite.
There’s a very old joke: “You want directions to there? Well, I wouldn’t start from here.”
Two ancient anecdotes from the last century.
A health expert I once met told me he regularly spoke to Robin Cook when the latter was Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary. He tried to persuade Cook to consider various successful new health initiatives from other countries. Cook showed him opinion poll datawith high approval ratings for Labour Health policies at the time. Cook commented on the irony that people overwhelmingly approved Labour’s health policies before they were decided.
Don’t we now have something like the opposite? With perhaps widespread public perception that the Tory expenditure on Covid-19 means the Government must somehow “pay itself back” by measures which unavoidably damage pubic health and well-being. In other words, what Mary Mellor and others called Thatcher’s “handbag economics” is still intuitively seen as common sense. (Just as the perception of sun and stars going around the earth was accepted. As was the “big stink” of the River Thames was once “proof” of previous theories of how Cholera was caused.)
It may have been demeaning for Tony Blair to fly to see Murdoch in 1995. But judged by the current media balance, Starmer’s (and Reeve’s) position is far far worse. A few days ago one BBC “news” person described the Labour Party as split between “the Left” and “the Centrists”. Even the Guardian appeared to swallow every detail of Corbyn as an existential threat for Jews. Godwin’s Law supercharged.
How are minds changed? If people follow events round the world they can actually watch climate change at work.
They may have friends and family made seriously ill or killed by Covid-19. But anti-vaxers are still in denial? Getting cross and dismissive doesn’t help. As Joe Biden found.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/07/biden-administration-vs-covid-anti-vaxxers
Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves know – or I hope they know – that more unnecessary austerity for the poorest people needs opposing. They also know that the initials MMT have the easiest possible scoff value for right-wingers.