Monday, August 24, 2015

Eric Lonergan — How Labour should respond to Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to prominence is revealing. It shows a Labour party bereft of intellectual leadership. Politics is crying out for inspiring policies – ambitious, radical policies, which positively address economic challenges. It seems that the best Labour can come up with is “back to the 1980s”. To this extent, Yvette Cooper is spot on:
“the truth is that Jeremy [Corbyn] is offering old solutions to old problems, not new answers to the problems of today. We have to look the 21st century in the eye, face up to the future. That’s where we will find the new radicalism, the answers in the modern fight for social justice, equality and solidarity. Not the old answers of the past.
… And I want to show today that there is an alternative that is both radical and credible, true to our values, but serious enough to win.”

The problem is, she has no “radical and credible” ideas. Corbyn is radical and wrong, Cooper wants to be radical and has … “sure start” and “clean coal”. Both are good ideas, but neither are radical nor inspiring.

What’s most damning is the fact that radical, innovative and credible policies are available – Labour’s leadership needs to get out more. Here are four examples:…
Sample of One
How Labour should respond to Corbyn
Eric Lonergan

3 comments:

Neil Wilson said...

Eric Lonergan is becoming part of the problem rather than the solution.

(1) "The UK should create a sovereign wealth fund, financed by issuing gilts, which would then invest in global businesses, through international equity markets. " No. It would be much easier for government to issue a retirement annuity account at National Savings that paid a good pension. Pension funds would then sell assets to state in return for that pension. No gilts required. Pension annuities sorted. 'Wealth fund' created - although quite what that is going to do to pension saving is another matter.

(2) "The Bank of England should be given the power to make equal payments direct to households, ". No. The Bank of England should be put back in its box and parliament decides what gets paid and what doesn't. Paying millionaires money is not going to be on the agenda.

(3) Innovation should be funded directly by government with the resulting IP made available to all across the world. But you can't do that if you limit your Central Bank to the 'capital' budget for no sensible reason other than Keynes said it once in a context you don't really understand or appreciate.

(4) Again Education and Infrastructure should just be funded. There is no need to issue Gilts at all.

Ralph Musgrave said...

I left a long comment at Lonergan's site which is awaiting moderation at the time of writing.

Neil: re No.2, like you, I'm not in favor of central bank handouts to households, however No.2 wouldn't actually involve a windfall for millionaires as you suggest. There's obviously any number of ways of varying the handout according to household income etc, but I suspect most people would favor a simple "equal number of dollars for each person" arrangement.

Isembard said...

"The UK should create a sovereign wealth fund, financed by issuing gilts, which would then invest in global businesses, through international equity markets"

Let me work this out - the UK government should borrow its own money from private banks at interest, and then give that money away to 'global businesses', right?
Then these global businesses will 'make' more UK money, and give it back to us, so we can spend it on stuff.
But global businesses can't actually 'make' UK money, they just shift money around that was already created by UK private banks and the government.

Also, do I need to mention the current stock market conditions?

"New policies need to be smart."
They do. This is ridiculous.