By chance, given the subject of today's video, I was on Radio 4's programme 'The World Tonight' at 10.30 yesterday evening discussing fiscal rules.
The clip can be found 31.40 into the programme, by following this link.
I was up against Labour MP Dan Tomlinson, who was just at infant school when the history of these things began in 1997 and is now the government's ' growth champion', having previously been at the Resolution Foundation as a senior economist.
I have to say that everything he said was entirely predictable and added nothing to the sum of human knowledge as a result, but I may be biased about the merits of our relative contributions. I did not hold back on my opinions.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
I heard the discussion (I listen to the radio most of the time while at home – Radios 4 and 3). I was really glad that you were finally interviewed*, and I did not notice any great insight from your co-interviewee. The ones who get interviewed most are either on-message politicians or Paul Johnson of the IFS. Quite disappointing (but maybe I share your bias by being a follower of this blog).
Interesting to note, though, that across Radio 4’s programmes there is an emergence of discussions of the ways of increasing the tax take. This had been quite weak until last night, and you were actually preceded by Polly Toynbee on ‘PM’ who put forward stopping the skewed tax relief of pension contributions that you also talk about.
Maybe the sands are starting to shift. I shan’t hold my breath.
*I’m going to write to the contact emails for ALL R4’s news programmes to encourage them to include you or others promoting this alternative to the status quo. I’m also going to point out that they don’t give these discussions enough time (there are items that they could readily drop in favour of proper topics).
Thanks
Appreciated
Done!
I put Today, World at One, PM, and QT on copy, and suggested that it’s a topic for the Today Debate. I chided PM especially on the grounds that their anchor – Evan Davis – has some training in Economics (well, a PPE degree) and was the BBC’s Economics Editor for a while. I would have included The Week in Westminster as well, but it does not have a contact email.
Not holding my breath, though.
Thanks
Paul Johnson is leaving the IFS this summer to become provost of Queen’s College Oxford. It will be interesting to see if he continues to be called on as a talking heads, or if his successor (current deputy) Helen Miller get the gig.
I heard you on the radio. The Labour MP repeated the expected tired on-message mantras. It seemed as though you got much less time to rebut him, and then he got to repeat himself without further contradiction. In this sort of format I think you only really get the chance to say one thing clearly. For me that must be that the Chancellor has made a political choice to stick slavishly to her self-imposed final rules and to continue with austerity that will hurt the poorest most. There are alternatives, many of which involve taxing people who have got increasing rich for the last four or five decades instead. There are many taxes that can be raised (eg cutting pensions relief) and there are savings that can be made (eg interest on central bank reserve accounts).
As an aside, the treatment of spending on overseas aid as current revenue expenditure (bad) but spending on defence as investment (good) shows how arbitrary the so-called fiscal rules are. They are built on rotten public accounting which for example does not properly spread costs (such as redemption premiums on index linked bonds) over the periods in which they accrue.
Noted
Paul Johnson is in the Independent today saying “no country in the world has ever successfully had a wealth tax”.
He may be right but lacks creative thinking IMHO
Economics can be like much theology-things are believed which cannot be challenged.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wealth-tax-paul-johnson-ifs-b2720682.html
We don’t need a wealth tax
We need to tax the income and gains from wealth more
He is partaking in a deliberate diversionary debate which he will stoke for as long as possible.
Just a thought Richard but if you are going to do more of these five minute talking head slots it may be worth considering some media training if you’ve not already done it. You may accept or reject what they say, and you’ll need to find a way that works for you, but there is a reason why politicians do it like they do, annoying as it is. They get their message over.
And you are saying I didn’t?
Really?
I think I most definitely did – and had worked out what it was.
@Ian Stevenson. Economics resembles theology because at its foundations it is repackaged philosophy of ‘the good’. Utility theory and mathematic models do a lot to hide what is going on.
Thomas Aquinas clearly knew more about economics than many economists of today’s age. I have to agree with Hayek that modern ‘economists’ are taught that economics began with Smith, Marshall or Keynes therefore have a very limited perspective about the history of ‘economics’. They do not know the boundary of their ignorance and this makes them dangerous.
Glad you got on R4, it tends to be dominated by Paul Johnson who I must admit is too orthodox and out of date! A pity you were not given more time to talk about the fiscal rules and wider issues but the BBC does go for rather short ‘discussions’. A pity that Mr Tomlinson probably knows as much about economics now as he did at nursery school!!!
When I write to R4s various news progs I shall suggest this as a topic for the ‘Today Programme Debate’, a panel discussion in front of an audience which runs to 45 mins or so. About once per month.
Thanks
Oh dear, another “speak-your-weight-machine” that has escaped from a seaside pier. It was as if he had a USB stick stuffed inside his brain with Reeves’ greatest mumblings on it & then repeats this paplable nonesense.
Stupid point ref Germany – does not control its own central bank. Also grossly unfair – the LINO apparatchick was given far far too much time to warble on – & RM given far too little time. The topic is worthy of a 30 min debate – that it did not get that is indicative of a desire by the BBC to supress debate and offer tokenism (in fairness – that is its primary role)..
He got opening and last shot – a clear breach of bbc rules.
Just listened to it Richard. I draw some small degree of eer from the fact that at long last you’ve been allowed some time on R4, albeit far too short for a full explanation of your ideas, and I was bloody annoyed how you were cut off at the end there.
But still, you waded straight in and said fiscal rules are a political construct not some iron law of economics, and they should be abolished. You also said we are paying interest on the debt that we don’t need to, in contrast to the clueless Muppet from labour who could only repeatedly repeat the ‘credibility with the markets’ rubbish that labour are addicted to.
Thanks
There’s a good letter citing you in the Guardian today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/24/what-rachel-reeves-can-do-to-raise-money-instead-of-cutting-public-services
Slowly, slowly, people are realising there are alternatives.
I, for one, wouldn’t have known without your work….thank you!
Thanks
I was unaware of that letter.
Thanks for that – but I recommend one reads the last letter (It starts “I read John Harris’ …) – normal people will grind their teeth and react with fury.
Reeves proposing to provide gov money for Manure’s new stadium – whilst reducing provision for personal care.
Reeves is not just stupid, she is vile, a vile person utterly detached from the live reality of Uk citizens.
LINO deserve to be electorally destroyed.
Good for you – you did your bit.
WELL DONE!
1. You were clear and easy to understand.
2. The presenter repeated your main point (as do much MSM currently) – that the rules are self-imposed.
3. Dan Tomlinson’s “rebuttal” slot – he was floundering, stumbling, obviously didn’t have a script at that point.
For me, the most encouraging thing is – not hearing YOU say these things, but when I read/hear OTHER prominent commentators, formerly parrotting the status quo, now repeating YOUR lines. The “fallibility of made-up fiscal rules” is dish-of-the-day in Cafe Fleet Street right now. You should be encouraged.
KUTGW!
Thanks
Richard
Many thanks for your contribution, I’m just sorry it was curtailed.
This was the first time I have actually heard those sort of views aired on any radio or TV broadcast. A breath of fresh air.
It would be great to have a longer (30-45min) programme on the topic. I wonder if the BBC would dare …..
I doubt it….
Surely you must have been offered to appear on Question Time?
No
When they had a person operate the QT Twitter account as a guest commentator I was once offered that, but I have never been asked to do QT. I would do it if asked.
I have done the Scottish version, Debate Night.
@ Bill Williams
I am told few economic students are taught about Marshall, John Stuart Mill and Keynes.
It would be good if they were. A challenge to TINA -There Is No Alternative.
The IFS and Paul Johnson seems to part of that restricted thinking.
Very , very few are.
All economics is about solving maths now. Ideas really do not feature any more.
At least they invited you on, and you got your point across. Thats progress.
On the BBC World Tonight – getting rid of fiscal rules altogether and dumping the OBR might sound extreme to some of their usual listeners..
I think you have put it another way in the past – that your ‘fiscal’ rules would be to eliminate poverty, and get the NHS functioning again by employing doctors and nurses for which there are thousands of vacancies, and arranging finances accordingly. ‘Anything we can actually do we can afford’.
Hope they get you on again, but agree with your commentators – they should organise a Today Debate, or a ‘Briefing Room’ – type programme.
It could be titled ‘Is there really no money?’
Thanks
Apparently someone on on Radio 4 Friday Any Questions’ phone in on Saturday asked ‘why BBC don’t ask Richard Murphy?!’
Also Radio 4 ‘More or Less’ this morning had a lengthy item about wealth taxes – more or less completely rubbishing them (Dan Neidle and someone from ‘the wealth tax commission’ (Advani?).
It was only at the end that someone hinted that ‘you could ‘tidy up” some existing taxes – ie taxing the proceeds of wealth – but didn’t actually say so. I will message them asking why on earth not mention your Taxing Wealth report .
And why do these dumb Labour ‘left’ MP’s keep touting a 2% wealth tax when its so easily rubbished? Cant they read?
Advani is a pure academic with no real tax experience.
Neidle has only acted for the wealthy.
Not a good panel.