next labour leader

Just reading an article about China in the FT and it makes a point that is true well beyond China and the result of monetary policy the mainstream does advocate, the "good" kind of QE that directs money to banks (which then pay it out in bonuses or invest it into stocks, pushing up asset prices, but dont actually lend to SMEs): we have created a world where good news causes panic because it stokes fears that rates will rise and/or QE will end, and where bad news is shrugged off because there will always be more cheap money coming around the corner to keep everything going. China is just the most extreme example of it at the moment. It is worrying to think this picture we have of the global economy essentially returned to health following its near death experience is a big illusion. QE is financial crack and the whole world has become addicted to it.

I do sometimes wonder what would have happened if authorities had taken a completely different approach. If the same amount of money that has been spent saving the system to date had instead been handed out to people. If banks that were meant to collapse had been allowed to, and instead of saving the system authorities had spent more time worrying about the people within the system, the ones unable to make their mortgage repayments or feed their children. It would certainly have created different distortions and a new set of problems. But it would be fascinating to know how it would have played out.
 
Adebesi said:
Im not blindly advocating Corbynomics as you will see if you look at my posts in this thread but this doesnt really ring true for me.

We've had - what - 3 massive bouts of QE in the US, and I think 3 more in the UK, amounting to £375bn here alone. The BoE is buying up to 70% of all UK government debt. And there has never even been a flicker of inflation of the traditional kind, never even the remotest possibility that we would have to suddenly stop. On the contrary, here we are, 6 years after the first QE purchases in the UK, still waiting for inflation to rise to its target.

This business about where the money ends up - maybe that is relevant in the sense that it determines what form the inflation takes. I was worried about inflation when this ultra-loose monetary policy started, it never materialised... or not how I expected it. Instead we have asset bubbles inflated way beyond where they were in 2007: houses above those levels, equity markets way above those levels etc etc.... and as soon as there is a hint that Central Banks are going to "remove the punch bowl" as Greenspan once put it, the markets start crashing. We saw it in 2013 with the Taper Tantrum and now we see it again with all this talk about US rate rises in September.

None of this really refutes what you are saying, I guess, except that I reject the idea that what Corbyn is proposing is reckless in a different order of magnitude to what others are doing now. I dont see how pumping the banks full of money is right - morally or practically - when spending money on actual people is dangerous. And reading arguments along those lines kind of pushes me towards him a bit. There are legitimate criticisms of him, and there is probably a credible argument to make against what he proposes, but I dont think the one you gave is it. Because if what he is proposing is dangerous, it is because what we are already doing is also dangerous.
Click to expand...

Im not sure that the first points aren't already addressed in my original post. As I said, the reason that net inflation didnt occur is because the economy was deflationary at the time. See some more opinions here and here. (Edit: whoops, correct links now)

As for why its different - QE was short term, used during a crisis, when there was a high risk of negative inflation and it could be stopped at the first sign of trouble. PQE would make printing money the norm, would be used even when the economy was doing okay and we'd be committing to using it for as long as it took to finish our rail/house building programme, regardless of overall inflation during that time.

Ultimately there's no vast conceptual difference between QE and PQE. However its environment, its timing, its risk factors and their impact are all quite different, which makes looking at the outcomes from one and applying them to the other inappropriate.
 
I get that, given what happened at the election just gone, Labour is understandably worried about the right-wing media spin that will be applied to Labour policy, but I think there's a line between that and just outright dismissing ideas that economists have said aren't a bad idea simply because of what the Telegraph will say. And then of course there's a line between that and actually believing what the Telegraph will say.

On a different point, having read a lot recently, the scaremongering over a split in the party seems to be just that. Figures on the right like Alan Johnson have spoken against a potential split and the actions of the likes of Hunt and Umunna seems to be causing more disquiet in the PLP than the idea of Corbyn winning the leadership. Out of the people who matter, only Cooper is really suggesting there might be a split, and she's only doing that as a cynical bit of electioneering.

With that in mind, I have a bit more hope for 2020 than many on here seem to. In the (unlikely) event that the Tories wipe out the debt in this parliament, the economy wont be as big an issue as it was at the election just gone - after 10 years of austerity the agenda will likely be on living standards which is something the Tories don't do well on and which has always been a Labour strongpoint. The electorate isn't known for patting politicians on the back for past triumphs, it's known for going for the option they think will benefit them the most. The other eventuality is that in 10 years of Cameron's government the debt which he said would be halved by 2015 is still there, at which point the Tories' claims to economic credibility may start to run thin, especially combined with dissatisfaction over the state of the country. If they try and steer the agenda back to the economy in order to exploit what they see as being a Labour 'weak point' they open themselves up to the valid point that they've had 10 years to fix it and they've failed.
 
Adebesi said:
Ending the independence of the BoE would be a really daft move imo, in anything other than the most dire emergency ie something worse than 2008. Even if PQE was just a straight up winner in every other respect I'd still be wary. But given the other risks its not worth it imo.
Click to expand...
I couldnt agree more - though without doing exactly that I cant see how they could facilitate this peoples QE
 
jeff_goldblum said:
With that in mind, I have a bit more hope for 2020 than many on here seem to. In the (unlikely) event that the Tories wipe out the debt in this parliament, the economy wont be as big an issue as it was at the election just gone - after 10 years of austerity the agenda will likely be on living standards which is something the Tories don't do well on and which has always been a Labour strongpoint. The electorate isn't known for patting politicians on the back for past triumphs, it's known for going for the option they think will benefit them the most. The other eventuality is that in 10 years of Cameron's government the debt which he said would be halved by 2015 is still there, at which point the Tories' claims to economic credibility may start to run thin, especially combined with dissatisfaction over the state of the country. If they try and steer the agenda back to the economy in order to exploit what they see as being a Labour 'weak point' they open themselves up to the valid point that they've had 10 years to fix it and they've failed.
Click to expand...

I agree that the Tories won't have a clean run all the way to a 2020 win, politics isnt like that. Who knows we may have another outbreak of foot and mouth or a terrorist attack or some banking scandal or whatever. Statistically speaking we're due a recession I believe. Events, dear boy. Its very hard to say what the issues of the 2020 election will be.

However Labour still have to show they're better than what's there, and they're starting from a low ebb. The ComRes poll from last week shows where Corbyn is now and how far he has to go.

t2.jpg
 
Jesus, he can't even win the 'public trust in politicians' one.
 
bishblaize said:
I agree that the Tories won't have a clean run all the way to a 2020 win, politics isnt like that. Who knows we may have another outbreak of foot and mouth or a terrorist attack or some banking scandal or whatever. Statistically speaking we're due a recession I believe. Events, dear boy. Its very hard to say what the issues of the 2020 election will be.

However Labour still have to show they're better than what's there, and they're starting from a low ebb. The ComRes poll from last week shows where Corbyn is now and how far he has to go.
Click to expand...

All very true, which is why I think that completely writing off Labour's chances under any of the candidates is premature and somewhat disingenuous.

With respect to that poll (I've seen others which are slightly more upbeat), I'd argue that a degree of uncertainly about Corbyn is unsurprising given that the majority of the media, and some high-profile figures in the party, have been trashing him since day one. Also, you have to factor in that a proportion of the people voting him down will be the Tory vote who would never consider voting Labour regardless, as well as people who are backing his rivals in the leadership election whose antimony will probably cool after the leadership race is over and they remember who the real enemy is. I'm also assuming that the polling was undertaken before the economists' letter which has somewhat undermined the attacks on his economic credibility, which may or have not have an effect on things. In any case those polls show that around 50% of the respondents haven't formed a strong opinion on him yet, which is something he can work on. For the sake of interest are thier similar polls concerning Cooper and Burnham?
 
bishblaize said:
I think there's an appreciable difference between what China's doing and what Corbyn's proposing, but in publicity terms its going to be difficult for him and Murphy.

So far the Telegraph/Mail have been saying that PQE could cause Zimbabwe/Venezuela style hyperinflation, but those countries are so different to the UK that the claims are hard to take seriously. However the line "Too much QE pushed the world's second largest economy into a financial crash" will resonate far more strongly and will be a simple line of attack for the Tories. Regardless of any actual differences.
Click to expand...

I know the tories like to spin things but even they're not stupid enough to attack based on such a ridiculous line.

The Telegraph will but that's the issue isn't it, Labour are shackled by the Mail/Telegraph and will only get in power if they can steer people away from the nonsense of those papers or the tories mess up. One things for certain trying to change the party to fit in with the MailGraph won't work as they'll still be hounded down for simply being Labour and they'll lost core voters .
 
jeff_goldblum said:
All very true, which is why I think that completely writing off Labour's chances under any of the candidates is premature and somewhat disingenuous.

With respect to that poll (I've seen others which are slightly more upbeat), I'd argue that a degree of uncertainly about Corbyn is unsurprising given that the majority of the media, and some high-profile figures in the party, have been trashing him since day one. Also, you have to factor in that a proportion of the people voting him down will be the Tory vote who would never consider voting Labour regardless, as well as people who are backing his rivals in the leadership election whose antimony will probably cool after the leadership race is over and they remember who the real enemy is. I'm also assuming that the polling was undertaken before the economists' letter which has somewhat undermined the attacks on his economic credibility, which may or have not have an effect on things. In any case those polls show that around 50% of the respondents haven't formed a strong opinion on him yet, which is something he can work on. For the sake of interest are thier similar polls concerning Cooper and Burnham?
Click to expand...

There's some more info in the original link about the other candidates, but there's only a full breakdown for Corbyn (afaik).

On your point about Tories, in that poll 50% of people who voted Tory in 2015 think that he'd make Labour worse. Worth reminding ourselves that as things stand, 4 out of 5 of the votes we need to win the next election are people who voted Tory in 2015. Also, people who voted UKIP were twice as likely to say he'd make all of those factors above worse not better. They even thought he'd make the trains worse.

It doesnt do a full breakdown of just Labour voters, but does make the point that Corbyn has both the most people saying he would make the party better and worse, which highlights the divide in the party (33% better to 21% worse). Burnham has the best ratio there (27% better 10% worse).

Andy Burnham probably does best, but really they're all crap. Its telling that David Milliband is still by far the most popular Labour figure, and he hasn't been seen since 2010. The party, whoever leads it, is going to have to radically change public opinion about the party on a huge number of issues before it can think about winning 2020.

Smores said:
I know the tories like to spin things but even they're not stupid enough to attack based on such a ridiculous line.
Click to expand...

Do you not think so? The Tories still wheel out the old 'household budget' and the public keep lapping it up, so I dont think this is so far fetched. Just label QE as a tool of last resort and point to China to see what happens if its used too much.
 
bishblaize said:
However the line "Too much QE pushed the world's second largest economy into a financial crash" will resonate far more strongly and will be a simple line of attack for the Tories. Regardless of any actual differences.
Click to expand...

I'd hope a Corbyn led Labour would actually challenge rather than try to meekly sidle around such attacks in the manner the previous campaign did.
 
I just had an email from the Burnham campaign.

I wanted to make you aware of an exciting event we are holding at Old Trafford football ground this Friday evening from 7pm.

The event is a fundraising dinner, hosted by Andy and ex-Sports Minister, Richard Caborn, and there will be sports stars such as Jamie Carragher also in attendance. Plenty of prizes are there to be won and there will also be an auction at the end of the night.
Click to expand...

Don't think I'll bother. :D
 
bishblaize said:
Do you not think so? The Tories still wheel out the old 'household budget' and the public keep lapping it up, so I dont think this is so far fetched. Just label QE as a tool of last resort and point to China to see what happens if its used too much.
Click to expand...

The household budget is an easy lie though as it's a simple analogy of income/outcome and only falls to pieces when you consider economics is more complex than that.

With what you're suggesting they'd firstly need to explain quantitative easing and even if they did its easy to twist it as the tories saying it's okay to give money to bankers but not the public. Of course the fact that QE has nothing to do with China's problems is irrelevant which says a lot about the state of politics.

They did try to gain political advantage by using a ridiculous Greece comparison though so you never know with them tbf!
 
http://www.cityam.com/222952/no-lea...gendapporting-jeremy-corbyn-s-far-left-agenda

Jeremy Corbyn wins economists’ backing for radical plan” thundered the Observer’s front page on Sunday. As I meandered around the supermarket, I did a double-take. Would distinguished economists really back printing money to fund government investment, rent controls, widespread renationalisation (in some cases without compensation), a “maximum wage”, huge tax hikes and greater powers for Trade Unions?

Read more: David Blanchflower - "Austerity is simply bad economics"

Surely not. I soon realised the newspaper was reporting a letter written by economists published in the Observer itself. Forty left-leaning economists can easily be rustled up to express support for a left-wing agenda in a left-wing newspaper with left-wing readers: hardly “Nixon goes to China” stuff. I should know – I’ve signed letters calling for lower taxes in more free-market rags. Readers discount views according to the source, so perhaps this wasn’t an interesting story after all.


Yet other news outlets, from Sky News to the Independent to the Times, repeated the story. Some used the term “leading economists” to describe the signatories. Had economists I’ve read and learnt from had damascene conversions to the Corbyn cause?

Two things struck me when I read the letter. First, contrary to the impression given by the Observer, it did not endorse Jeremy Corbyn’s broad policy platform. There was no call for publicly-owned railways or 70 per cent income tax rates on high earners. No, this was a wail about “austerity” – government spending cuts. One gets the impression that these guys have never seen an economic “stimulus” they disliked. For the most prominent signatory, former Bank of England ratesetter Danny Blanchflower, this is pretty accurate. Many others have also been calling for higher government spending since the 1970s.

While we can debate the details and timing of the government’s attempts to reduce the deficit, however, the mainstream position is now far away from that of the signatories. In 2011, when the economy was flatlining and interest rates looked stuck at the zero lower bound, heavyweights lined up to argue about whether further borrowing was necessary and desirable. Now, with reasonable growth and interest rates more likely to rise, that ship has sailed. Big-beast critics of the last government’s macro policy, like Jonathan Portes, now suggest deficit reduction over the next five years is appropriate. Even Paul Krugman implies the case for fiscal stimulus to try to boost growth is weak.

Second, this was not a group of “leading economists” by any stretch of the imagination. Nor am I, of course, but it’s reasonable to note that none of the signatories is currently employed at Russell Group universities. Some aren’t even trained in economics, and others are retired left-wing activists. For several, the only hit that comes up when googling their name is this letter. One, John Weeks, is someone I debated with recently. He concluded his speech by declaring that capitalism leads to fascism. Even recognisable names, such as Mariana Mazzucato and Steve Keen, are usually introduced as “heterodox”– i.e. at variance with established opinion.

So the idea this letter represents mainstream economics must be challenged. When Sky is reporting it without an alternative viewpoint, it can mislead the public. But this also shows something interesting about the political left. People across the political spectrum like to appeal to the authority of “experts” to improve credibility. But for the left, this is crucial. Unlike supporters of markets, left-wing interventionists believe experts can direct economic activity for us. Building up the idea that “experts” support these interventions and believe they work is therefore of critical importance to obtaining public acceptance.

Unfortunately for Corbyn, this collection of names neither endorses his programme nor represents a significant or meaningful strand of economic opinion, despite the Observer splash.
Click to expand...
 
Calling out the Observer's sensationalist headline is fair enough, but that piece is no less biased than any of the reporting it critiques. You have to consider the source, the IEA was Thatcher's playground and paved the way for the free-market, pro-City, pro-Bank government policy. (edit - it's also shady as hell in terms of getting money from big business to push an agenda.) It's dismissal of Blanchflower's opinion of austerity (to which the editor has linked in that piece) is particularly transparent in that regard. And frankly, in Britain's current media climate, it's a little laughable for a figure on the right to complain about coverage being biased towards the left.
 
I think that's all it's really saying though, Blanchflower even had to clarify later that he wasn't backing Corbyn, just opposing further austerity. It was hardly newsworthy at all as a letter.
 
He does completely gloss over that most economists genuinely are anti-austerity even if they don't support all of Corbyn's positions, which is significant. That wasn't really the point of the article though. But yeah, my irony-o-meter was going going haywire when reading this bit

So the idea this letter represents mainstream economics must be challenged. When Sky is reporting it without an alternative viewpoint, it can mislead the public.
Click to expand...
 
I'm really hoping the headline is just taking something out of context here, otherwise good grief.

CNSMpdgWEAA3aeD.jpg
 
Ubik said:
I'm really hoping the headline is just taking something out of context here, otherwise good grief.

CNSMpdgWEAA3aeD.jpg
Click to expand...

I've heard this suggested before, normally in regard to the Tube late at night. Whilst i can understand some of the reasoning it also sounds a bit like a solution on the cheap. It is likely that those carriages will themselves become sparsely populated, putting its passengers in an even more vulnerable position i'd have thought. Nor does threat of assault (for either sex) end when you alight from the train, what of the poorly lit station platform? This latter danger could just as well apply to people waiting of course.
 
I see nothing at all wrong with that idea on late night tubes. I've known lasses who've been groped or subjected to other harassment on public transport when they were as young as 14 and I've known women who've rebuffed the advances of men on tubes and then been followed off the carriage almost to their front doors by those same men. It's a harmless idea to keep women safe and to make them feel safer travelling in their own city and men who've never had to fear sexual assault calling it 'sexist' is childish and reductive. Not to mention deeply ignorant.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
I see nothing at all wrong with that idea on late night tubes. I've known lasses who've been groped or subjected to other harassment on public transport when they were as young as 14 and I've known women who've rebuffed the advances of men on tubes and then been followed off the carriage almost to their front doors by those same men. It's a harmless idea to keep women safe and to make them feel safer travelling in their own city and men who've never had to fear sexual assault calling it 'sexist' is childish and reductive. Not to mention deeply ignorant.
Click to expand...
It's segregation and it's patronising. As my mum remarked this morning, why not bring back chaperones too and make it official. And it's primarily women that I've seen taking the piss out of it.
 
I get the good intention behind it, but it amounts to segregation and goes in the face of everything the suffragettes and other various civil rights movements fought for: inclusion.
 
Tories take biggest poll lead over Labour since 2010 general election
(The Independent)

The Conservatives are enjoying their highest lead in the opinion polls since before the 2010 general election, according to a new survey released today.

ComRes research conducted for the Daily Mail newspaper found the Conservatives with 42 per cent of the vote, a 14-point lead over Labour, who are on 28 per cent.

Ukip were on a long-term low of eight per cent, the Liberal Democrats, eight per cent, and the Green Party six per cent.

The Tories’ lead represents a five-point rise on their May 2015 general election result, and a two-point fall for Labour.
Click to expand...

The full article here. (The same poll I linked earlier).

By way of comparison, at this point in the leadership election in 2010, ComRes gave the Tories 38%, Labour 34% and the Lib Dems 18%. My gut feeling is that the general shambles around the leadership election is showing the party in a bad light, but who knows. On the plus side, straight after the last leadership election the party's opinion poll rating went up by a fair chunk and stayed there for a while. On the downside, it turned out pollsters were systematically underepresenting the Tory vote. Either way, it feels like a harder job than 5 years ago.
 
bishblaize said:
The full article here. (The same poll I linked earlier).

By way of comparison, at this point in the leadership election in 2010, ComRes gave the Tories 38%, Labour 34% and the Lib Dems 18%. My gut feeling is that the general shambles around the leadership election is showing the party in a bad light, but who knows. On the plus side, straight after the last leadership election the party's opinion poll rating went up by a fair chunk and stayed there for a while. On the downside, it turned out pollsters were systematically underepresenting the Tory vote. Either way, it feels like a harder job than 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

Tories take biggest poll lead over Labour since 2010 general election
(The Independent)

The Conservatives are enjoying their highest lead in the opinion polls since before the 2010 general election, according to a new survey released today.

ComRes research conducted for the Daily Mail newspaper found the Conservatives with 42 per cent of the vote, a 14-point lead over Labour, who are on 28 per cent.

Ukip were on a long-term low of eight per cent, the Liberal Democrats, eight per cent, and the Green Party six per cent.

The Tories’ lead represents a five-point rise on their May 2015 general election result, and a two-point fall for Labour.
Click to expand...

So when Corbyns policies win them back all the support which defected to the greens they will be only 8% behind the conservatives (presuming they lose none of their own moderate votes - which of course they will)... this is why its such a bad decision to do anything but plant the red flag firmly towards the centre ground and let the tories rip themselves apart over Europe and UKIP... oh well perhaps after a mauling in the 2016 local elections they will learn?
 
sun_tzu said:
So when Corbyns policies win them back all the support which defected to the greens they will be only 8% behind the conservatives (presuming they lose none of their own moderate votes - which of course they will)... this is why its such a bad decision to do anything but plant the red flag firmly towards the centre ground and let the tories rip themselves apart over Europe and UKIP... oh well perhaps after a mauling in the 2016 local elections they will learn?
Click to expand...

As a rule of thumb, the opposition does better than the Government in the elections between the big ones (local, MEP and by-elections). Only once since the 1980s has a Government done better than the opposition in year after the general election (1998, when the Tories were still staggering after the 97 knockout). So its not really a question of whether they'll do well, its by what degree.

With the benefit of hindsight the Tories relatively stable result in 2011 may have been the canary in the cage for Labour.
 
bishblaize said:
As a rule of thumb, the opposition does better than the Government in the elections between the big ones (local, MEP and by-elections). Only once since the 1980s has a Government done better than the opposition in year after the general election (1998, when the Tories were still staggering after the 97 knockout). So its not really a question of whether they'll do well, its by what degree.

With the benefit of hindsight the Tories relatively stable result in 2011 may have been the canary in the cage for Labour.
Click to expand...
well I think Corbyn will be that bad for Labour - and whilst there will be some flight from the Conservatives to other parties I expect there will also be flight from Labour with the Libs, UKIP and Greens to be the beneficiaries and for the conservatives to outperform Labour. Which may be the disaster they need to realise they are heading for an even bigger disaster if they stay on this course
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I get the good intention behind it, but it amounts to segregation and goes in the face of everything the suffragettes and other various civil rights movements fought for: inclusion.
Click to expand...

I think common sense should prevail over such far fetched nonsense, it's hardly a civil rights violation anymore than women only gyms.
I'm pretty sure they already do women only night buses at certain universities. I know a lot of female friends who have been put in uncomfortable situations with creepy men on public transport.

Now I don't think it's practical which is my opposition but to argue on ideological grounds here is nonsense. Women having the option to avoid such issues is not a violation of any rights.

It's also worth noting that he only said it had been raised to him by women and is something he'd explore with women's group and possibly pilot If there was interest. That's his approach in general, to push policy discussion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.