This Twitter exchange took place yesterday:
Peter is the executive editor of Byline Times, of which I am a fan.
We are now in discussion about my offer.
A vision for the left in 1,000 or so words that can be readily understood? There's a challenge. That, and work on my behind schedule book are my weekend homework.
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:
It’s unclear whether Jukes is aware that was a flawed paradigm all along.
The outsourcing of manufacturing to lower-wage, developing economies elsewhere and turbocharging the casino of parasitic finance in the UK never had any bearing on the ‘affordability’ of vital public services.
You’d think after almost 15 years of governments finding hundreds of billions down the back of the couch to prop up, first, banks, and then pay people to not work during furlough, that we could wake up to the new paradigm.
I think Peter is well aware it the weakness of the paradigms
I would call him a progressive thinker
“The outsourcing of manufacturing to lower-wage, developing economies ”
…. discussions in the EU are firmly focused on pulling back swathes of industry that was “outsourced”. EU idealogues will never admit it, but the EU is reversing globalisation in a wide range of industries.
Ever wondered where most electrical looms for cars come from?……….Ukraine. That worked out well didn’t it?
PV panels? China (who cornered the market using low cost money from the Chinese central bank).
Moving to the UK: Who owns the electrical distribution company that powers London… the ultimate owner is … the Chinese politburo. Clever.
etc etc.
I am not suggesting that autarky is the way to go, but the EU & the UK did many stupid things between 1990 all driven by globalisation ideology.
The EU, though not perfect, did not go nearly so far down the outsourcing and off shoring route as the U.K. Which is partly why countries like Germany and France still have aerospace, automotive and other industries. That and the UK’s financialisation driven by the excessive power of the City.
It’s a point that the Lexit Brigade, in their ideologically obsessive dislike of the EU/NATO, totally failed to understand. The EU acted as a brake on the U.K., and England in in particular, and its neo-liberal, deregulatory tendencies. Which is why the Brexit brigade includes so many of the shifty end of the City, looking for more opportunities for tax evasion and money laundering. Seems weird that their fellow travellers were from the further Left.
Absolutely agree. I wish there could be a movement towards devolved power to County Councils and a focus on stimulating small and medium sized manufacturing and food production businesses – perhaps involving crowd funding, co-operatives, grants etc – empowering and keeping money in communities. I wish people would stop hoping for great leaders, be willing to take an interest in politics in their own areas and push for a more bottom up approach to decision making.
And I wish that all the opposition parties would combine to condemn recent democracy damaging legislation. The personalities of leaders – ie Starmer – are less important than opposition working together to get this government out.
I really hope that this comes about – Corbyn’s economic policies were (on the whole) pretty damned decent (the GND was impressive) but to say that he (and his staff) lacked the ability to coherently and concisely put them forward in public discourse is an entirely fair criticism. Starmer and his team on the other hand lacks both the ability to form a successful economic narrative and seemingly, to have any real policy ideas to effect any of the positive change necessary – got to have something to say in the first place other than rowing back on pledges.
I will be challenging….
At the very least this will be published here, but I hope it might go further
“But we need vision. That is my point”
I agree, and I wish I knew why Labour isn’t delivering!
This is ‘open goal’ territory, being squandered.
Thanks for clarifying.
I think the fact that we know now – after the fact – that the Labour Party internally were sabotaging Corbyn’s political campaign – is more of a problem than the staff being unable to effectively communicate the policies. Instead of promoting them staff were being uncooperative, and sowing seeds of internal division. Whilst Jo Swinson IMO was the main saboteur, such a travesty. Whilst far from perfect, I read the manifesto with a heavy heart now.. oh how much better things could be now.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf
The max pay ratio of 20:1 for outsourced project was superb and key policy IMHO. Not only in terms of public expenditure but in attracting the right sort of private companies to deliver publicly funded works – motivated by doing a job well, instead of by profit, greed or avarice as they are currently.
From the manifesto :
When services are procured from
the private sector, companies will be
assessed against best practice public
service criteria, including provisions
for collective bargaining, fair wage
clauses, adherence to environmental
standards, effective equalities policies,
full tax compliance and application of
pay ratios. In the public sector, we will
enforce maximum pay ratios of 20:1.
Sorry, but max pay ratios are really not visionary. They’re detail
And John McDonnell did nothing to challenge the status quo. He believed he had a maxed out credit card – and said so
I will happily to defer to you on this.. but I’d be curious for an explanation. I’ll put forward my thoughts can you explain to me please why this is mere detail? To my may of thinking a 20:1 ratio does away with “perverse incentives”..
By as an example in 2016* G4S CEO Ashley Almanza received £4.8m.
That is approx 200:1 ratio. At the time the company was mired in scandals and disastrous performance.
Seems to me any company tendering for public contracts doesn’t need a CEO earning 200x it’s base salary to attract a suitably driven candidate. £300k should be enough for anyone surely? If anything I think it’s well established that CEOs are infiltrated by a sociopathic element who seek this kind of financial gain (generalising, not insinuating anything about Almanza).
So the 20:1 formula appears to have combined benefits of:
Discourages companies that are driven by perverse incentives
Discourages socipaths from being involved in the public contractual work
Encourages formation of companies that attract people driven primarily by goals
Reduces public expenditure
I’m not arguing.. I’m genuinely curious why this isn’t as significant as I thought. 🙂
* Yes old data.. I’m dashing out first thing that came up I’m there are similar current examples.
That’s not a principle
This is a policy
Nothing wrong with policy
But we need vision. That is my point
PS Agree on McDonnell there.. that was very disappointing
Great!
That will be well worth waiting for.
Byline Times gets to the parts most of our MSM can’t be bothered to reach, generally for their own ideological reasons. I certainly find my paper an digital subscription great value.
I have refrained from commenting on almost all things during this half-term week, but I have to say that Labour must be mad to be tying themselves up in Fiscal Credibility nonsense, and Pat McFadden’s resort to invoking the OBR over Sunak’s meagre aid for people on low incomes surely means that the financially and economically challenged cannot look to Labour with any hope.
Your 1,000 words could not come at a better time, but first, make the most of, and enjoy the long weekend. You have surely earned it.
Reading Juke’s post does not fill me with hope – New Labour’s riding on the coat tails of some rather destructive forces leaves me worried that when Jukes sees your 1000 words he’ll have a dickie-fit and say goodbye.
Well, you’ve got his interest Richard – I just hope that he is not too orthodox to have an open mind.
All the best with it.
It’s over 2,000 words right now
And it is only economics
that was kind of you… who do you think is listening? And when you say narrative for the left do you mean labour party or potentially a breakaway party?
Anyone who wants to take ideas from it
Anyone who reads or watches Byline Times or Byline TV for a start will be interested. I note that they are now producing their own magazine online with really good artwork. I know people who read the local byline news, but not the national one.
Byline Times is mentioned quite regularly on The Peace and Justice blog, set up to support Corbyn. Byline Times was number one on twitter earlier in the week. There’s enough concern about their investigative journalism for them to be threatened with court action over the PPE scandal. I take that as a good sign.
I think Richard’s narrative will be read with interest by many thousands of people.
I think I have mentioned before, DDN (Double Down News) is another fertile independent and diverse news outlet which would be a great platform to work with.
They have no vested financial interests I’m aware of. Unless I’m mistaken, it’s all funded by public donations.
I’d love to see George Monbiot and Richard in discussion.
A new party of the left!! Really? Splitting the opposition to the Tories at the very time we should be trying to unite it, it’ almost as if you want the Tories to retain power.
I look forward to reading it!
Been away sailing for a while….. but back now.
Here is my stab at an intro……
The purpose of the Labour Party is to govern; either with a parliamentary majority or in coalition with other progressive parties. It will govern honestly, fairly and with respect..
Its aim is to allow everyone to live the fullest life they can consistent with the rights of others and responsibilities to others both in our country and beyond.
A full life requires a sustainable environment with access to healthcare, education and justice along with sufficient economic resources to play a full part in society.
We understand that the limit on what we can do is not money but real resources; people, material and our environment. If it should be done and if it can be done then we will do it without excessive regard to narrow interests of finance. We will govern for all our citizens.
Thanks
Simon Wren-Lewis ( “Mainly Macro” blog) is not an advocate of MMT but his latest post did acknowledge ( though I am not entirely clear about what he is saying ) that it could contribute to the debate. He talked about the limits on government spending. Perhaps the consensus is shifting and this is the time for different ideas to get a hearing.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/
I have to say that is SWL at his most delusional
His claim that the identity he notes has been taught forever is nonsense: if it ever was it was always immediately ignored
His belief in independent central banks to reinforce returns to capital remains intact
And he does not argue with MMT because he clearly can’t fund a real world argument to raise, so like a good economist he makes up scenarios that don’t exist and sys MMT does not deal with them
Worst, he says MMT need not exist as it is all 8n mainstream thinking. Why is he so heated about it then, and why dies he still refer to borrowing?
He really badly missed the mark with that one
The Corbyn/ Starmer thing is a distraction. The 2017 Labour Party Manifesto, combining multiple contributers, is a fair place to start. The central premise was a new economy based upon sustainability in all its forms. This was more popular with voters than we were allowed to appreciate at the time. A new economic programme must be attractive and easily understandable to everyone. A key issue is repurposing the vast UK armaments/defence industry. Technically formidable, the time has come to turn those skills toward green energy and re greening our precious planet. The profits and long term scope are greater and the need more imperative.
2017 was better but there really was no vision because John McDonnell was wedded to neoliberalism and a belief that he was in hock to money markets – like every other Labour chancellor / shadow for decades. I know. He wanted me to work for him and I would not.
Apropos of Clive Parry’ last sentence, get Starmer, Reeves, McFadden and Co. to understand they need to define the battleground rather than pathetically being just one more faction fighting on ‘the governing party”s own chosen ground.
Obsessing about fiscal rules, calling for Johnson’s resignation , windfall tax etc, they are already being outflanked (Tory windfall tax etc ).
They seem terrified to challenge the inevitable BBC question – ‘but where will the money come from?’, ‘which taxes will you raise?’.
The focal core of the ‘Narrative’ could confidently quote Keyes ‘Anything we can actually do, we can afford.’ or Parry – the limit is not money,, but real resources – people, material and our environment etc’. ‘ money is part of the plan – its not only about not only about taxes and borrowing’;
They are so timid, cant see them even daring to contemplate something like that.
The second core could be about liberating the people – decent incomes, more equal society, freedom to travel to Europe, getting rid of trade restrictions , removing dictatorial powers on Judges, on investigative Journalists (‘freedom to know’) , on peoples, right to vote , on autocratic control of institutions – cultural, health and media etc
The third core could be investing for growth, Green New Deal, jobs, housing, climate-related renewables,, health etc.
Agreed
I have to admit I struggled to understand Wren-Lewis’s post. He usually, IMHO, expresses himself clearly. He has written on his opposition to austerity and Brexit plus the shifting political alliances, most of which I would support.
As a counsellor I met a number of people who were reluctant to change their views, many of whom were very intelligent. The key to the resistance is often emotional -not intellectual. I can’t judge Wren-Lewis’s motivations from his writings but I wonder if a very human failing applies here? When people have worked hard to master a a complex body of thought , it can become a part of who one is and one becomes emotionally attached to it. It is true of most of us to a degree but that degree is important. Keynes famously said ‘when facts change, I change my mind’. Great thinkers can doubt themselves. Lesser minds doubt others.
In the physical sciences it is easier to disprove a theory. Economics and theology derive from foundation beliefs which are only partly capable of empirical validation. Both have a moral dimension that is not so apparent in say, the measurement of supernovae but protagonists of different views can squabble, at times, like teenagers. Thomas Kuhn, in his 1962 Book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, observed that paradigms usually change when the Old Guard, retire -or die!
Kuhn was probably right
A very fine post. Picking up on this “The key to the resistance is often emotional -not intellectual” I can recommend this amusing but very true vignette on humans and belief:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
As for this: ” Great thinkers can doubt themselves. Lesser minds doubt others.” thank you for the bullet – I will use it in my war against those in the electricity industry that think current market structures are perfect.
🙂
I’ve been very impressed with the isolation on this blog of the party political systems as one of the major weaknesses of governance in this country.
If we are to have a ‘new deal’ between the state and society, then my view is that such a new deal must be binding on the operation of government in this country irrespective of what party is in power.
The new deal has to be imposed on the State and those voted in must be obliged to operate to those outcomes whatever their political complexion. Whatever politicians come and go ,the obligation of the State to all its people endures.
I think that the central role of the State is to protect and uphold the welfare of all its people – much in line I believe with what Richard advocates as the ‘courageous state’ (I am not speaking for Richard, just trying to synthesise ideas, interpret etc).
The best book I have ever read on this issue is Professor Paul Spicker’s ‘The Welfare State: a general theory’ (Sage, 2000).
If I was designing a set of revised principles to take the country forward, push back on Fascism and pull us out of the Tory doom machine I would use this book to design such a system that puts a value on the welfare of its people.
By using this method we can teach these bloody thick politicians how to rule again since most them these days come from wealthy backgrounds.
Spicker does this by making a set propositions and then expands on them;
‘People live in a society and and have obligations to one another’:
‘People are defined by their social relationships – the personal is the social’.
‘People in society are interdependent’.
‘Social relationships generate obligations’.
‘Welfare is obtained and maintained through social action’:
‘People have needs which require a social response’.
‘People have economic and social rights’
‘Social protection is necessary to secure welfare’
‘Welfare implies redistribution’.
‘The Welfare State is a means of promoting and maintaining welfare in society’:
‘Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants’.
‘The welfare states provide social protection’.
‘Welfare is promoted and maintained through social policy’.
‘Welfare states have a wide range of options through which social policies can be pursued, but they can be assessed by common criteria’.
No doubt the Thatcher bully boy hyper-individualists will see red when they read this – knock yourself out I say.
But when most modern Labour MPs read stuff like this I think that most of it will just go right over their heads.
Which is even worse in my book.
But we can but try I suppose.
I should try to read that
It is now freely available for Paul Spicker’s web site in pdf format:-
http://www.spicker.uk/open-access/Paul%20Spicker%20-%20The%20welfare%20state_%20a%20general%20theory.pdf
I hope you enjoy your volunteered task, though it seems odd for a self-proclaimed non-political to take on constructing what needs to be part of a Labour manifesto. For what it is worth my take is that if Labour* is to capture the public’s imagination (as opposed to being “not-Johnson” which is a role also open to Tories) it needs to focus on what it will do that will make a difference, and how this will benefit the country and its economy, rather than the dry topic of macro-economics. It just needs the fairly self-evident explanation that benefit to the country won’t happen in an environment of austerity and taxation of the lower two-thirds of earners whose spending largely drives the economy, and that government will take action if necessary to stop inflation.
I did follow that link to Professor Wren-Lewis and found his opening paragraphs clear and sensible, but what followed muddled. But it provoked a question to ask Richard: it seems from what I have read there is no inflationary problem in money creation that grows the economy – but is that also true of money creation that stops the economy contracting as much as it otherwise would? (I am thinking of things like Covid furlough payments stopping a large number of businesses going bust).
[*Equally true of Libdems, or Greens].
Jonathan
I advised clients without joining their company. I can imagine a vision fir Labour without joining it. I could do the same for other parties. They would be similar in many ways, but not the same. I recognise their different interests. I do not need to sign up to do that, and won’t be doing so.
As for MMT, your question simply comes down to the question can a government stimulate an economy. The answer is yes. And the answer is that is most effective when stimulus is most needed.
Richard
Spicker’s book is available as a pdf:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256574291
Thanks
I find it remarkable that so few people on this blog or in the MSM seem either aware of, or ever discuss the once in a lifetime opportunity for change in which we currently find ourselves.
Johnson’s arrogance, lies and venality lays bare the soul of the Tory party and it is despised by most of the country.
The hoopla that passes for the office of Head of State has been exposed in all its inadequacy and will struggle to survive the death of the present incumbent.
Neo-liberal economics has failed root and branch with the greatest danger now faced by the people of this planet coming from the members of this phoney cult who have shown time and time again that there is no depth they will not plumb to defend their ill-gotten wealth.
In the UK the power of a handful of right-wing billionaire newspaper owners to control the information that the public receive is slipping away.
So yes we need to discuss what needs to be done and how we must do it but let us be aware that this is a unique moment in British history and may never come again.
Mike Parr,
Thank you for the oatmeal link; I enjoyed that.
It proves my conviction that we are all doomed.
If you don’t agree with that, it just indicates, scientifically proven, that you are quite incapable of recognising my truth!
Have a good weekend.
Very interesting thread .
Not academic by any means but I do recommend Jasón Hickel “Less is More “ .
I read this hoping that 50 years after the publication of ‘Limits to Growth’ we’d moved on. The absurd economic growth model is alive and well, even among so called visionaries. Most disappointing if this is the starting point. The politicians we had since 1970 have led us to a the point that 68% of species have disappeared and climate change is accelerating. These parties have done so much damage to our life support system they should be given no encouragement to continue.
That is in other elements of what I am writing
No one has mentioned Mazzucato.
What I take from her is that impetus has got to come from the state.
Governments have been playing too much off the back foot, allowing too much power to the multinationals and Banks.
Blair and Brown went wrong in thinking that the UK would benefit from this ; whereas the truth was the UK was a victim.
The Blairites are unreconstructed and still believe in globalisation, neo -liberalism , and the minimum state. And they are alive and well in the Labour Party today. No wonder they sound so weak and defensive; and incoherent and empty of ideas.
On globalisation : The job is not to exploit the earth as quickly and efficiently as possible but to employ and develop resources to further sustainability and justice across the globe. Starting at home but projecting the message across the world with allies.
On neo-liberalism the job is to disavow its main tenets. Private citizens cannot be allowed to run the world in their individual interests.
On the state: It needs to stand up for itself . Half the time it seems apologetic that it exists. It cannot and should not do everything but it should do and can do more.
The trick is to prioritise and to control its activities within international market and resource constraints.
At the moment Energy and Food are priorities .
On Energy the Green New Deal still covers most of it , but more working from better insulated homes supported by better internet and Wi-Fi would support it.
On Food we have to reverse the trend toward industrialised agriculture and return to mixed more labour intensive farming at higher prices to return to more local production of better quality food.
etc.etc.
Its not difficult …
Noted
Mazzacuto is right, but so was Ha-Joon Chang in ’23 Things They Don’t Tell You about Capitalism’ (2010) and no one listened then.
The thing is that now States themselves are the impetus for more private ownership resulting in individual benefits – States have been increasingly captured by vested interests through arcane party political funding methods.
Capital has been probing these weaknesses in democracy for years along with ensuring that legal protection is granted to investors first, and that corporations are seen as a person in law.
We are living now in an age of exploitation and realisation of its aims. It already has its hands on the treasuries of most States and is now getting its hands increasingly on the machinery of society itself where it will further exploit people.
But the issue is simple but sounds implausible: we have to re-democratise Government again and repurpose itself away from capital. That’s right: re-democratise Government. Of all things.
As if there already wasn’t already enough to do!!
What we supposedly learnt in 2008 has already been forgotten and it is this: How much is enough?
Answer: There is never enough.
We are dealing with greed – Tolkein’s ‘Dragon sickness’ – because we thought (stupidly it turns out) that if we let capital off the hook with taxes they’d be happy and content and maybe even start some new businesses up here and there.
Wrong! It turns out that they like the taste of money and even more the power it gives them and that they did indeed want more, and more and more.
This is the tragedy of out times, believe you me.