I was on the Politics Joe podcast yesterday:
This was an enjoyable exchange. If you do not want to listen to the whole thing, my part starts about 30 minutes in.
I was also on the Jeremey Vine show yesterday, which involved an exchange with one of the usual mad right-wingers who hates everything about government that they always seem able to find. That is available here soon after the start of the programme.
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!
Mad right wingers. Brilliant. And apt.
I’m glad you mentioned Torsten Bell as a possible future Chancellor. As I did.
I’m not sure I agree that he is deeply neoliberal. I recently read his book and didn’t get that impression. Nor, for that matter from his previous writing.
Miatta Fahnbulleh would be the best choice and she is already an Under-Secretary of State. She undoubtedly understands the capacity enjoyed by a state that issues its own currency and does not borrow in others.
I like Miatta
I base my comments on Torsetn on a)meeting him b) reading some of the dire economics from the RF
Well, you move in more rarified circles than I do! I don’t exactly run into the likes of Torsten Bell every day. Agree about the RF.
Nor me, every day
But we have met over the years
Why do the BBC confront Richard with the Right of politics? Why not have on a Lib Dem or Green? There would be some measure of agreement I expect and the audience could see that economic policy is not a binary choice.
I was struck by Lance Forman’s recitation of slogans most of which have little evidence to support them. Giving them air time gives their nonsense a credibility it doesn’t deserve. That sort of politics is the reason we are in the present situation.
Agreed
I did complain yesterday
I was gobsmacked that you were allowed to speak, uninterrupted, for so long. It was refreshing, highly unusual and is certainly not the norm here in Scotland where interviewees can be challenged every few seconds, especially if they are members of the SNP Government, to disrupt their train of thought. It’s deliberate and makes for a very poor experience for listeners/watchers as well as the person being interviewed.
But then we have BBC Scotland – enough said if you have ever experienced it!
They are politically in agreement
Looking at the Politics Joe, & ref Starmers comments – “no money, black hole etc etc” it struck me, given that LINO are going hog-wild on PFI, the “no money left” narrative provides the cover needed for LINO to rev-up PFI. I watched for a minute or three Reeves on Sky News – 2 to 3 minute minutes of unchallenged blather – all ponting to “by ‘eck there’s no money in ‘tbank and we need to go to the nice PFI people”. They never allow themselves to be challenged – on live TV – by somebody that knows what they are talking about. Such is UK non-democracy.
Can you explain why Torsten Bell’s is neo-liberal?
I’m not an economist but from my understanding his two main priorities are a) reducing inequality and b) increasing GDP growth. In his book he advocates for measures to reduce inequality and poverty, for example better rights for low-paid workers and ending the two-child benefit cap. He has written about the possibility of a wealth tax.
Am I right in thinking his so called ‘radical incrementilism’ would tinker here and there with benefits/worker policies whilst fundementaly supporting the status quo? He seems less cruel that Rachel Reeves but ultimately a little uninspiring.
What do you think a Torsten Bell chancellorship would look like?
Simple: the Resolution Foundation that he was CEO of put out neoliberal reports, time after time
If he was not a neoliberal why would he do that?
And he voted for the two child cap. Do you need to know more?
Makes sense. Thanks Richard!