If Labour is to win an election there is only one way to do it: it has to be bold.
Let me cover some background issues first, before I go to solutions.
Fundamentals
Fundamentally the neoliberal paradigm, created in 1979, failed in 2008. That has to be said time and again. There is no solution to be found to our current economic and political problems that entirely existed before that time.
And austerity, which tried to take the country back to the pre-2008 era was not only wrong in trying to do so, it failed in practice and always will. That also has to be said.
Believing is essential
But this has also to be believed. My criticism of Corbyn and McDonnell has been that they have not done so: they really have not tried to build a world view based on these two facts as yet. So far they have only been willing to tinker rather mildly economically without offering a coherent vision for change. If they believe in change they have to stop tinkering and say what hey are really trying to do. If they don't stop tinkering they will fail, and rightly so.
Some background facts
To build an argument some background facts have to be stated. My core assumptions follow.
The UK is under-employed: people may be at work but productivity is very low. Millions of self employments are marginal.
There is no hope that the private sector is going to invest to create growth in the UK, or anywhere much else come to that. Modern capitalism us about wealth preservation for an elite and not investment for growth, let alone social purpose.
This does however mean that there is a mountain of cash in need of a home right now. This is why interest rates are low and will remain so.
Those low rates are, however, causing instability, not because the rates are low in themselves, but because low rates means very high asset prices as markets treat asset prices and low rates as the inverse of each other. This will result in an asset price crash at some time because, government bonds excepted, there is no fundamental reason why the price of the other assets with over-inflated prices (housing and shares in particular) should be as high as they are. Some day this will be realised and prices will fall. This could cause instability, but the risk of inflation (the neoliberal nightmare) is low.
The UK's tax capacity is constrained right now. The government is not spending enough and most people are not earning enough for it to grow significantly. Tax reclaims the impact of government spending on people's incomes: if that impact is declining because government spending is falling then tax revenue growth will also fall, and it is.
Monetary policy has failed. If interest rates are effectively nothing then there are no real options left for it.
QE has failed: it has not resulted in new spending in the real economy. It has increased inequality.
Inequality is rising. That's the result of near stagnant earnings for most people for a very long time.
The UK will leave the EU. It will probably be a hard Brexit. We will have the freedom to set our own economic rules as a result, including direct lending from the Bank of England to the government without the need for QE.
The question is how we want to use that freedom given these facts, as I see them.
Solution building
So, given these facts let's turn to the basis for solutions. There is only one option: it is to be radical. Playing around on the peripheries as the left has done for decades is not going to work. The problems the economy faces are fundamental. The solutions must be as well.
The first thing is to be clear about economic objectives. The left is about ensuring there is an economy where everyone can meet their basic needs and have the chance to fulfil their own goals. This is basic.
So too is the fact that the way we might do this has to change: we are not now living in a world where we think we can have unlimited 'stuff' without consequences. We know there are very real limits to material growth. But, that does not mean there is a limit on what we can do for each other. Caring, education, the arts, many services; all these are labour based activities. We have surplus labour and urgent need in all these areas. They are the foundation of a future economy. Services will not be secondary in this new world: providing services for each other, locally, is the future of work for many in the UK. We need to get our heads around that fact.
But we also need to ensure that we can live together: housing, transport, broadband, hospitals, schools and more are required to let us do that. Let's not pretend otherwise: we need more of all of these, and it is the job of government to ensure they are supplied.
So a left wing government has a very clear role: it will build the foundation for the more equal, sustainable and services orientated future we want and need.
But let's also be clear, a government will not meet all need. So a left wing government has to make clear it believes in a mixed economy and wants the private sector to flourish. The key thing is that the flourishing will be in the context of competition on a level playing field. That means a world in which regulations are enforced, tax is paid, people (including other businesses) are protected from cheats and those businesses that do well prosper solely because they supply what people really want, not because they can abuse tax and other systems or know people in the right places. This is a radical approach to supporting the majority of honest businesses in this country who have been failed by the politics of neoliberalism as badly have many ordinary people.
So we will have a mixed economy, that must be firmly regulated, fairly taxed and which has as its goal the creation of well paid and sustainable work for all who want it.
We are long way from this goal right now. That means investment is needed. The investment needed is in infrastructure, skills, regulatory enforcement, businesses that are willing to work in the new ways that society will demand and a new understanding of the economy.
Of all these things the new understanding is most important. There are several parts to it. First, it has to be understood that an economy that pays people enough for the work they really do will collect enough tax to cover the current costs of running a government: in saying this I am simply offering a variation on Keynes' old maxim that look after unemployment and the budget will look after itself, albeit in a new and different environment.
Second, there has to be an understanding that a service based economy is a basis for prosperity: our obsession with material goods is in any event unsustainable and has to be discouraged. This strategy will happen to support a more sustainable approach to the balance of trade.
Third, the fact that tax is just a fiscal tool has to be understood. I explain this in The Joy of Tax. It does not pay for government services: it reclaims the spend on them that the government makes using its power to create money.
Fourth, borrowing has then to be understood in the same light: this is something that the government can do if it wants to supply markets with the savings media they need. But it need not borrow: as QE has proved, and as will be easier post-Brexit. money printing is always an alternative and unless the economy is at full employment will not produce inflation.
Putting these needs and building blocks together is the foundation of a new economy.
Skills and regulatory spending are current government spending: in the long run it would be reasonable to expect them to be covered by revenues. But there is no reason for that in the short term. And there is never a reason for investment in both state spending and the private sector (if need be, via a state investment bank) to be covered by current revenues: indeed, it is foolhardy to think they should be. And a balanced budget is anyway wholly unnecessary and often impossible to achieve. The argument for running deficits (and surpluses) has to be made if we are to have the economy we need and can enjoy.
If that argument is won the freedom to build this new economy is established. And once it is all the rest of policy falls into place. But the foundation of a firm economic analysis built on earnings growth, investment lead job creation, private sector regulation alongside government backed investment funds and and emphasis on skills that deliver opportunity in every constituency - as a Green New Deal might - has to be a way forward.
Of course there is more to say than is mentioned here. But unless Labour really thinks big, builds new narratives and promises to deliver radical change I question what any of its recent agony has been for. But will it do these things? Time alone will tell.
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:
Good stuff and good luck educating delegates on ‘the joy [or not] of tax’. Good to sprinkle in some Green guarantees [1] so we have a future, the greenies might not form a Government soon, its policies will be studied and copied by many an ambitious politician.
[1] https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2016/09/24/our-green-guarantee-—-from-the-party-for-the-future/
I thought you asserted that only Owen Smith could deliver when you were attacking Corbyn and McDonnell. If you’re as principled as you claimed you would be working with Owen Smith in the background. But because you’re self-serving you’re now trying to crawl back into the Corbyn limelight. John McDonnell will not be fooled.
I do not do partisan
I will work with competent politicians who are not racist from wherever they come
You seem to have forgotten that
You can be pettily tribal if you wish: I am not
Good reply to someone who is more interested in attacking you than putting forward ideas for the type of society we all want and need now.Anyway as your probably aware it was recently announced the crisis in the NHS would again lead to cuts in services.As someone who works and uses the NHS I believe there must be a better way of financing the NHS after all when there’s an increase in demand for products in the business world it’s seen as an opportunity not a crisis.For example if a company had an increase in demand for its products it would take on more staff and perhaps open more premises,this it would pay for by raising prices,selling shares and borrowing.Likewise the NHS should automatically increase its budget when demand increases just like benefits are increased when inflation increases.Every year each health trust would draw up plans for extra staff excetra and make a case for why it needed extra funding.I believe the NHS should setup an organisation that seeks out best practices in the way it uses resources so as to avoid the wasteful use of resources like the hiring of agency staff for example.I know I haven’t addressed your comment but I feel that new ways of running the NHS just like the economy need to be found which is the jist of your comment.
The solution to most of the MHS’s problems is to abolish the internal market that is a massively costly farce of no benefit to anyone but those wanting to privatise it
Let me be among the first to thank you for outlining the basics of a comprehensive, profound and worthwhile economic strategy for Britain. It is not as great a compliment as it should be to say that it beats almost everything we hear from political leaders and commentators.
What this needs is a lot more discussion among those who are sympathetic but not uncritical. That should strengthen the good parts of the ideas and eliminate some of those that prove to be weaker.
It seems to me that if this could be described as the basics of an economic strategy it would need to be turned into an economic programme ( a series of steps a Government might take) and a political strategy to gain sufficient support to win an election and sustain a government through the inevitable difficulties.
May I also say that I do not accept that a hard Brexit (for which the Brexiteers have no mandate from the referendum) is unavoidable. In any case your economic strategy seems to me to be one which would be very difficult to carry through without any form of economic cooperation with our neighbours.
The reality is hard Brexit or not we will cooperate with Europe
Interesting read. As an ‘amateur’ in politics and economics, I can’t disagree with any of it. You’d certainly get my vote!
BUT – and it’s a big BUT – people need to be persuaded that society matters. We’ve had decades of being persuaded to look out for ourselves and that state spending is wasted on ‘scroungers’ and ‘skivers’. When people feel under pressure themselves, they’re less likely to think of the big picture, because getting through each day is a struggle. That’s why Ukip’s simple soundbites and scapegoating works.
People need to be convinced that a bit extra (or a lot extra for those who can afford it) in income tax will go to the NHS or council tax will go towards better social care, etc, not just disappear into the coffers of a Machiavellian government. They need to know that big infrastructure spending really will reap benefits for all, not just a few entrepreneurs. Given the right-wing bias of the media, that probably needs to be done online.
I agree with you Sue
If the short form of neoliberalism is that it’s the politics of selfishness then we need to create a different attitude
Populism would seem to be opposed to that, but may not be if it has real momentum (pun intended)
I agree entirely with the view expressed by Sue, and your response. I live in the North-West, and get to London several times per annum. For years, I have found myself visiting a city that seems to be in perpetual turmoil, with big infrastructure projects, seemingly, always on the go. In recent times these have been the Olympics, Crossrail, London Bridge Station, etc, and they have all been regularly updated in the main stream media, in the face of the rest of the country. Not only does Labour need to have a ready-made infrastructure plan for every region of the country, but I would suggest that it has to be highly conspicuous as well The interminable time it takes to get things done outside London is a national scandal. At the moment, all we have on offer is HS2, and looking at its timescale, which is a joke, the fact that its chief executive has – or is about to just jump ship, and other issues, all cry out “White elephant!” And I am a rail enthusiast.
HS2 is the wrong project
There are very large numbers of smaller right ones
Your tenacity and energy is admirable, but I fear it’s a labour in vain at this point. So far as may be established Jeremy Corbyn is seeking to have his 10 point policy plan to be endorsed by the NEC today and subsequently ratified by conference as the basis of Labour’s election manifesto. It’s a lovely list of admirable policy objectives, aspirations and slogans and I’m sure a majority of voters would say “Wouldn’t it be loverly”, and then vote with their heads and their wallets/purses. The disingenuous reason being advanced by the Corbynistas is that the PM may call a snap election – even though the ony way she can secure this is to secure the support of two-thirds of the Commons for a dissolution or to engineer a vote of no confience in her government.
What is really interesting – and frightening – is how closely the main elements of the Corbyn plan match the headings and objectives of Labour’s 1983 manifesto (the longest suicide note in history). The language and the thinking haven’t really changed, but, oh, how the world has moved on since then. (Ironically, the 1983 manifesto had a section on a managed withdrawal from the then Common Market, but the blessed Jeremy apparently hasn’t yet landed on a slogan to cover Brexit.)
When this is combined with the form of Marxist-Leninist democratic centralism that is currently being applied in the Labour party the outcome is inevitable electoral annihilation at the next election.
So in some respects it might make sense for the majority of the 172 MPs who voted no confidence in Mr. Corbyn’s leadership to try to get this outcome out of the way sooner when the carnage may be less severe. The longer the inevitable is delayed the more severe the carnage – as the number of Commons seats will be reduced and the Tories’ gerrymandering will eat even more in to Labour’s total. And they can do this by offering to support a Tory motion to dissolve the Commons.
The Tories would be likely to secure a significant majority in the ensuing general election but it should strengthen the PM’s hand to secure a soft, rather than a hard, Brexit – which would be in everyone’s interest.
The risks are enormous for these Labour MPs, but they have been boxed – and painted themselves – in to such a corner that they really don’t have a choice.
For an alternative take on the 1983 Labour Party manifesto, read this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/10/labour.margaretthatcher
You can read the whole thing here:
https://cabinetroom.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/the-longest-suicide-note-in-history-what-did-labours-1983-manifesto-actually-say/
If only we hadn’t sold off our assets and squandered all the oil revenues in the meantime we might be in a lot better position now.
Gerald Kaufman was wrong – the suicide notes were the Tory and SDP manifestos.
Bravo Richard! A great message with which to start the week. You have articulated what needs to be done in simple, straight-forward language. This is an agenda the Green Party – and other progressives – could get behind. It’s the only sane way ahead. As you say, there’s more work to be done but you have offered a framework around which a positive programme for sustainable change can be built. I pray the Labour Party economists can get their heads around it and shape it into a manifesto for the next GE. And I hope they appreciate your contribution. Have a brilliant week.
Thank you
John McDonnell, on the Today Programme this morning, mentioned a discussion with Mariana Mazzucato .
This is more promising. http://marianamazzucato.com/
I think, Richard, your strategy is absolutely right.
He referred to Marianna
I have no idea when they last spoke
@Richard, it would help if you stopped the sniping and sneering. You don’t know when John (who has been running Corbyn’s re-election campaign you did your best to sabotage) last spoke to Marianna so why bring it up? Makes you look petty and jealous to the honest.
I did not sabotage anything
I made honest comments that John and Jeremy were poor managers who were not delivering on policy development
They have agreed with the first point
The second I stand by – what policy there has been has been vague and fa Dom justifying the political claims
And as a matter of fact all the economic advisers stood down – Marianna included. Nor did he sy he had talked to her recently – as I was pointing out
So I made fair comment as a person who has not n the Labour Party and who has nothing to be jealous or petty about – I turned down the chance to work for John McDonnell and have not regretted it for a moment
In that case I suggest the plank ha in your eye. How about thinking I may be demanding something more radical than these two have been offering? They really need to and you really need to realise that right now the lack of credibility (we were back in a £100bn and not £500bn national bank thus morning) is crippling
@Chris, that’s a bit harsh.
@Richard, the EAG did not resign as you claimed during the election. They suspended activity pending the leadership election. Stiglitz has since declared his intention to continue if asked. Pettifor said the same this morning on Radio 4. Wren-Lewis, who was critical of Corbyn in his blog, has been re-positioning himself for a return. So, I will predict that apart from Blanchflower (who was never ‘in’ to start with) and Piketty (who said he is too busy to continue and has publicly declared his support for Corbyn) the EAG will be reconstituted. In my opinion your failure to take the circumstances in which Corbyn and MacDonnell has had to work into account in assessing their performance is quite wrong. When your own side has joined the rest of the world to attack you, there is only so much you can achieve in one year.
Sorry – unlike those you name I saw the reality on the ground
It was chaotic and there was no k e to blame but those in charge
Stiglitz also never appeared
I can’t see Simon returning
Nor Anastasia
That’s not many left
One, I think
And do you think the anti Corbyn brigade will even begin to consider much less support such a radical agenda? I really wish three was some indication that they were even recognising this need and their objections to Corbyn was because he is not delivering it, but as far as I can see they seem to have accepted the austerity message completely and just want to deliver it slightly differently. They appear to consider not supporting this line makes Labour unelectable, having totally swallowed the meme that Milliband lost the election because he was too far to the left.
Good stuff Richard
A good agenda. It is easy to get disheartened on the left.
“Caring, education, the arts, many services; all these are labour based activities.” To that I would add software which would keep the more technically minded of us happy.
The public however had 35 years of dumbing down in terms of economic theory – most people, I think, believe in the coronership of family budget analogy. There is little understanding of macroeconomics. I think it would be a very interesting idea to create a survey to test just how poor/good the general understanding of macroeconomics is. If such a survey has been done I would be very interested to see the results. Neoliberalism and monetarism seems to have zombified the public aided by the right wing press and even the Guardian and BBC these days.
The right are very good at consistently pushing an agenda and producing simplistic solutions that “Joe public” would understand. As part of the survey above one of the questions relating to what I call the Big Lie:
Was the 2008 crash was caused by Labour overspending and economic mismanagement?
with a simple yes or no answer would be interesting (or depressing). I’m not the one to create such a survey but think the results would be fascinating.
I agree
“The 2008 crash was caused by Labour overspending and economic mismanagement?”
The answer “No” was a specific point Jeremy Corbyn made to Andrew Marr yesterday. Even though Marr hinted he agreed, his response was that most of the electorate believed the answer should be “Yes”. Unfortunately he wasn’t challenged on who might be responsible for promulgating this myth.
Start with Marr?
Sorry hadn’t seen the Andrew Marr show – normally busy with my 12 year old at weekends, this time sailing. The answer is of course NO. Other questions could be about macroeconomic competencies in terms of GDP growth rate, borrowing and pay down of the national debt. I had always thought that this would be much better under Labour than the Tories and when Richard did the analysis last year (might even have been earlier this year) this proved to be the case.
Great Post. Thank you.
Thank you for this, you’ve articulated some of my thoughts perfectly.
I’ve recently battled my way through ‘Debunking economics’ by Steve Keen. Two points that stuck out were;
1)The impact of private debt. Could (should) a labour government enact a debt jubilee and would this lead to a more secure banking system.
2) The housing ponzi. Should mortgages be restricted to a multiple of rental income rather earning potential of the purchaser(s).
In relation to point 2 I’ve often wondered if an empty property tax would help bring house prices back to a sane level in relationship to salaries (i.e. 3-4 times salary)
Final point; in a political context I automatically replace the word neo with the word feudal wherever I see it.
I address some ideas in property tax in The Joy of Tax
Tax free private housing has now backfired
Absolutely agree with this. What I don’t understand is why you turned on Corbyn-McDonnell when they took steps towards all this. You turned and bashed them, so increasing their firefighting load. Public opinion has to be carried along too and there’s a chasm to leap against MSM.
I’m not a Corbynista, I’m a a Green, and support the first post here from Tony_B. We’ have to take on board that can only achieve change by encouraging the broad sweep of policy that’s running in the same direction. Not a small part has been contributed by you but it was disappointing when you seemed to go off into a bywater of criticism. Hope you’re permanently back. X
I turned John McDnnell down when despite my advice he said he would adopt Osborne’s fiscal charter
Yes, he realised it was a mistake but anyone who could do that was, I decided, not near where I was or much open to reason.
He may have improved a bit – but I had to make a choice at the time – and did
I would make the Sam choice now. Corbyn’s ten point plan is hollow and without any economic logic.
Good stuff Richard. Hard to disagree with anything you’ve outlined.
And you are spot on: Labour does need to be bold, but also innovative and genuinely progressive. Retreads of circa 1983 policy, or from 1997 will simply not do. The party desperately needs new thinking in virtually all areas of its policy platform.
I am not hopeful though
Am I just hopefully interpreting intentions that aren’t really there when I see/hear John McDonnell making fairly much the same points you have raised in your very clear article? Over the last days, he seems to me to have covered most of them in a convincing enough way. Some of this has come through the Labour Party rather than the media, so might not have got to you as a non-member. And yes,saying he would adopt Osborne’s fiscal charter was a blunder but, as you said referring to Owen Smith’s work for Pfizer, anyone can make a mistake and learn from it.
I’m optimistic that there are policies here I can knock on people’s door and talk about – a first for me at 74.
And just by the way, how tax works is also pretty new to me, so many thanks for all I have learned from you.
I wish I heard things the way you do
Maybe I will in time
I could say “All this is moot if the Parliamentary Labour Party’s strategy for Jeremy Corbyn’s re-election is ‘Burn the house down’, or to snipe and plot and undermine him into electoral oblivion, or just sit back and let him lose the next election”.
Tha fallacy in such negativity is that your points are clearly true, and your argument is clearly right.
This was the way forward in 2008, in 2010, and in 2015; and it is clearly the way forward now.
I have no expectation that the PLP will see it now, nor even after electoral disaster and oblivion in 2020.
Scotland’s example awaits both fools and the farsighted.
Nevertheless, the way forward is visible for those who choose to see: the question is how long before it is seen by all, and how much damage will be done before the right road is taken.
There is, of course, the possibility of ‘business as usual’ neoliberalism, all the way to rising seas and failing crops and inequality that overwhelms the state’s ability to maintain social order. I’ll be in another country long before that – quite possibly Scotland – and enjoying the benefits of a society which made the right decisions.
I will campaign for these ideas here, while it is sustainable for me to do so: but the lesson of the latter-day Labour party is that all of us should ‘man the pumps’ – but if the Captain and the bridge crew are opening the seacocks, and we are powerless to stop them, passengers and stowaways and wiser members of the crew should man the lifeboats: and to hell with the inevitable insults that ‘the rats desert a sinking ship’.
As I say, and you well know: better to be a campaigner than a party politician.
Indeed
Excellent clearly thought out article which needs to penetrate the brains of Corbyn and McDonnell but you burnt your bridges somewhat in supporting Owen Smith. Time to mend some fences if you’ll excuse the mixed metaphors.
I echo the plaudits offered for your prospectus by other commenters, and for my part largely share your core assumptions.
Neoliberalism’s bogeyman was “collectivism”, as exemplified in its then most terrifying form in the between-the-wars Soviet Union. Accordingly, if neoliberalism can be said to have a hallmark it is the demand that the state remove itself from (what the theory sees as) the rightful province of the private sector. Hence privatisation and de-regulation after 1979 on a massive scale.
But neoliberalism has, as we have seen, fostered a dystopia of its own, aptly characterised by a prominent critic, Prof. Michael Hudson, as “neo-feudalism”. The new (financial) overlords monopolise for the identical purpose as their (landed) mediaeval predecessors – ie to exact tribute from the populace – the principal source of wealth in our own times:- ownership of non-productive global capital. The originals paid no tax (and their contemporary counterparts also pay little or none) – that was then and is now strictly for peasants and merchants. Magna Carta’s purpose was removal of regulation – of the barons by the king. Today’s deregulated “barons” of global financial capital rule the world, the wealth they command dwarfing in scale the GDP of many “kings” (states), able to bend elected governments to their will (see, Greece) to ensure that they never have to take losses while the powerless always pay. For them mere physical productive assets are like lego-bricks, able to be shifted about and reassembled as needed for maximising rent-extraction.
Iceland demonstrated that their power can successfully be defied, but so far only Iceland’s people have dared to follow that path (Argentina is falteringly attempting to emulate Iceland – though largely out of desperation). The core policy-issue for a left-leaning political movement is, to my mind, whether or not to attempt to take back into our own government’s hands the power to determine how our own society is to be governed which previous British governments have effectively ceded to global capital. Iceland perhaps shows us too the way, but (without minimising their achievement) it was easier for such a small, mono-cultural, highly-educated and well-informed, community to achieve unity than it can ever be for a country like Britain with so many diverse interest-groups competing with one another and lacking any sense of common purpose.
First and foremost banks operating in our jurisdiction would need to be compelled to scale-down significantly (from 97% to something nearer, say, 50%) their share in the creation of our money – through the imposition of very much enlarged reserve requirements compared with other countries, as well as by stricter regulation – and the state’s share in money-creation would need to be commensurately enlarged. The complete segregation of retail banking from investment banking would need to be implemented immediately. Given London’s pivotal importance for the whole economy as an international financial centre, the UK were it to take-on global capitalism alone would be much more critically susceptible to counter-attack than was tiny Iceland. A government embarking upon such a course would therefore have to be prepared-for, and would have to be confident of being able to muster sufficient support in the country to enable it to sustain, the introduction if necessary of a seige economy including at the very least exchange-controls – for a time at any rate. There would undoubtedly be a high price to be paid, but one that would be more likely to be accepted if it were seen to be being borne by all alike in proportion to their ability to pay.
This would be such a formidable, perhaps insuperable, undertaking that I doubt it could or would be contemplated short of imminent, palpable, crisis. But so long as the financial interests are allowed to continue to wield the wholely unaccountable power which they do now through their control over one of the principle levers of the economy (and the vice-like hold which this gives them on our jugular vein) no UK government would be in a position to implement any genuinely radical policy-departures in my opinion. Conversely this one piece of radical policy-making would alone, if undertaken and driven through, alter the context of the debate from then on making other radical innovations more feasible.
It might also, incidentally, put Britain into a far better posture than now to cope successfully with a post-hard-Brexit world.
The core of your arguments are sound and I agree with them. My only exception is your take on the financial problems facing Argentina. A government that is being held hostage by a hedge fund owner of the lowest kind. Who has decided that he is all-powerful and finds it fitting that he can raze an entire country. He is an ass and cares nothing for people who will suffer despite the fact they had both no say in this debt arrangement or any means of affecting its dealings.
whereas Iceland had straight bank loans with Britain and Germany, both of which blinked at being told for the first time, to take a powder and be satisfied with deleveraging and payments made…..when agreed to…
Richard,
I completely agree with your analysis and your proposed solutions. What I don’t get is why you repeatedly refer to them as being “left wing”. They’re not. They’re just sensible. I accept that they may not be the rentiers’ first choice for a political agenda but that doesn’t make them left wing.
I suggest that with a few subtle changes to phraseology (but not meaning) this could be an entirely uncontentious editorial in the FT or the Economist. I also suggest that every political party in Westminster could present these proposals as being consistent with it’s culture, traditions and purpose.
Yes the rentiers have there 5th columnists in Westminster but they have penetrated all the parties (I think the single word “Blair” proves this. I do not believe however that they have completely captured any of them.
Now that the Labour Party has decided by a clear majority that it has no intention of being electable, I encourage to refocus your insightful and sensible contributions on other parties.
I have made clear this morning I will still talk to Labour
And anyone else who want to do so
I don;t do tribalism
I do ideas
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2016/09/what-blairites.html
I love what you have written but how badly Labour needs someone who can articulate this story in their midst!! They’ve already given ground to Osbourne on this and turning their back on it now makes them inconsistent. This is where Owen Smith might come in if he were interested.
I do have one thing to add however, and that is what do we say to the rampant BREXIT brigade? Those who want a stop to immigration or fell hook line and sinker for Leave?
These people need to be reached out to as well with an alternative.
Lots to do but we haven’t been so divided as a nation for a long time.
Richard, a few days ago, YouGov polled people who voted Labour in 2015 but who don’t intend to vote Labour anymore.
35% say they’ve left because Labour is too left-wing. Only 9% say they’ve left because Labour isn’t radical enough.
This fact, combined with the fact that the Conservatives are also beating Labour among 2015 non-voters, how on earth do you think a bold, radical strategy for Labour does anything other than take it even further from power?
If power means doing the wrong thing it is not worth having
And neoliberalism is emphatically the wrong thing
So it is better for the Conservative party to be in power than the Labour Party? Labour and Conservatives were both ‘neoliberal’ in 97,01,05 & 10, but the complete lack of colour your blanket description gives means that you ignore the fact that Labour were objectively more progressive economically than the Consevatives.
If accepting neoliberalism (though a kind, of course, which redistributes on an ex-post basis) is what it takes to get a Labour Party elected, you’d rather have a neoliberal Conservative party in government. Madness.
Neoliberalism is destroying our lives, our planet, our freedoms and democracy
You seriously expect me to have truck with it?
I don’t sup with the devil
You do realise that not having a neoliberal, redistributive Labour government means we have a neoliberal, non-redistributive Conservatice government?
No
I do not place very high odds on a Conservative win next time – because they will, I suspect, be a disaster by then
I do not know what precisely will replace them
In this country, the biggest party wins.
The Tories can be in a poor state and still win.
You seriously think some party other than Labour will win the next GE?
Come on Richard, be serious. Wishful thinking isn’t often conducive to good prediction-making.
Governments lose elections
There is no reason why this shambolic government cannot do what John Major did so well
Governments lose elections when there’s something better or more appealing on offer.
What is that thing?
Oh, that’s right. As you said, you don’t know.
Not true
They lose when they’re a shambles
…and if the alternative is less of a shambles
John Appleseed says:
235% say they’ve left because Labour is too left-wing. Only 9% say they’ve left because Labour isn’t radical enough”
But they didn’t ask how money was created did they?
That is the key to radical change!
They also didn’t ask who they thought should win Strictly.
Neither are important.
And with the current communications shambles that is the Labour Party, you can bet they won’t be changing any debate.
Sorry the “cameOut as 2! (wrond shift) So just 35%.
Now that REALLY would be a conspiracy by the pollsters!
Good first draft attempt but there are a few facts-realities coming that may be barriers to your plans for building a localized domestic economy. First the plans corporations have will no permit any nation’s state domestic economy to grow but will through trade agreement procurement clauses force small to medium sized businesses to capitulate or automatically lose on government contracts for services…This is much like US foreign policy works to curtail any say Latin American country from independently nationalizing and thus profiting more than the corporations–who demand control and their hefty half of all revenue. See bilaterals.org for details on the content of all global trade agreements such as NAFTA—CETA—TPP—TTIP—FIPA—-and the worst of all the TISA –Trade in Services Agreement which aims to privatize all government programs and services much like what has happened to your UK train service.
Second, you referred to banks being overseen by government so no more QE would be initiated in the future…All federal officials in Western governments have for the most part inserted (and have been) bank bailout/bail-in clauses in their yearly budgets…This is done to ensure that when (not if) the 823 trillion derivatives now in all shadow banks and other more investment banks are covered by first all depositors assets then by taxpayers…..As this is written far too many banks (even the ones which are trying to gut the country of Greece) are in deep derivative debts…and are whining for the German government to bail them out with taxpayers money…..So, the chances of the 1% or 65 head without hearts will allow any country to do what your plans have as feasible —Won’t be allowed to institute any restructuring….
Third, so far the 1% have caused 7 wars for control over the bank of Libya, take over and control of any oil pipeline now under Russian control in distributing oil to the EU market….There are also discussions of allowing Israel to have security control over all Arab countries invaded….
Fourth, within 5 years, the digital and robotic technologies are ready to distribute their new robotic and computer learning language to take over 50% of North American service and delivery jobs….This should include legal aid, technical writers, scientific and medical journal writers…All clerk and servicing communication job classifications…..and so it all goes…
These then, are all the factors being forced on each and every taxpayer–rather grim. Precarious occupations, emptied out bank accounts, reduction in asset values, such as homes. Its as though corporate welfare became more and more like the taste for the main course and we working to support all their costs and profits too is exactly what they and the 1% think we are only good for…..Talk to any Greek, person from Cyprus, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and people of Ukraine….
We are now hearing the reclassification of any that can be sold or used to gain profit as having a brand. That includes politicians and us—lies are a-okay as long as one wins or gains the goal of profiting outright..
This may be why many wish to simply pick up their tools and to withdraw to work and play with others.
One caveat—naturally the banks and corporations are afraid of any loss of control say, over cash or their ISDS clauses in every trade deal which they are using to sue via a 3 corporate lawyer-tribunal to force taxpayers to pay for all their costs in doing business….That does not in anyway mean they will ever give value or any of their profits..in exchange or taxes if they can avoid both.
Look forward to reading more ideas and plans…thank you so much for all your efforts and time…take care….Marg
But we have not signed most of the deals and TTIP is dead
Sorry for the odd error–correction –“the plan corporations have will not permit any nation-state domestic …
to clarify..the 823 trillion dollars of o/s derivative contracts–initiated by hedge fund owners who have ‘preferred creditor status’
Or the 65 heads without hearts will NOT allow any country to do what you plan….
You are hoist by your own petard, Richard. It’s a bold economic plan, but as much as you need that you equally need people to stand up and say that the well-being of the country depends on continued open borders and migration. The flat lie that immigrants are a burden on the country needs to be stopped in its tracks, because without that your economics will ultimately be compromised.
Have a said immigrants are a burden?
I have said the rate of assimilation needs to be managed as too rapid a rate of change is hard for many people to manage
I have never said immigrants are a burden
In my view only UBS would be the most appropriate tool for dealing with the effects of immigration. If incomes could be sustained in some way, a lot of the hurt driven emnity would go.
I would also say that the rate of immigration is as yet not properly managed because that is how British business likes it.
“The age of greed is dead.” I do so hope you are correct!