Forum menu
What are you talking about ? Have you read something by a pro-war Blair fan ? What makes you think that Robin Cook's career was coming to a close when he resigned ?
The tiny amount I know about Cook comes from his book, Point of Departure which I read some years ago. What little recollection I have is of a man on a downward trajectory, increasingly marginalized, outside of Blair's (tiny) cohort of trustees and likely to be reshuffled at the next opportunity.
That recollection may well be wrong and, although I thought it was excellent, I won't be re-reading PoD to check my memory.
In other news I might also have to revise my original view of Heseltine's resignation. Rather than looking for an excuse to resign Wikipedia hints he may have simply had a spontaneous strop during a cabinet meeting after some pretty serious provocation from Brittan and Thatcher. Having said that I'm sure I heard a conflicting view on one of Peter Hennessy's Reflections shows from someone a bit closer to the facts than Wikipedia.
IIRC he agreed to tow the cabinet line but asked to be able to maintain his previous views - ie say he was going with the collective decsion rather than change his view this was declined
He is then rumoured to have walked out of cabinet saying he went to the loo and walked out of downing street and told the media he had resigned and left. Apparently cabinet had to watch the news to be told
I recall watching some mockumentary on this years ago for A level politics
A class I shared with the political collosus that is Tim Farron[ pre god but was a lib dem]
He was one of the main cheerleaders for illegal military intervention in Kosovo, again for military intervention in Sierra Leone.
I've just skim read the Sierra Leone bit of "Blair's Wars" by John Kampfner and it looks to me like Cook ran the Sierra Leone show largely without Blair's involvement. Same with subsequent action in Freetown which was largely at the behest of Cook and Hoon.
Looks to me like in Sierra Leone the UK was broadly in the right.
...increasingly marginalized, outside of Blair's (tiny) cohort of trustees and likely to be reshuffled at the next opportunity.
Well he certainly wasn't a natural blairite, I don't think many people would dispute that. Robin Cook probably represents the closest Blair ever got to having an inclusive cabinet beyond the clones that were 100% guaranteed to be yes men and women.
Even Thatcher for all her faults had very inclusive cabinets representing every wing and opinion of her party, something which eventually was to be instrumental to her downfall.
Blair on the hand was a cowardly control freak who held onto power with a Stalinist grip and demanded total personal loyalty.
That doesn't however equate that there were no possibility of political advances after Blair. Cook resigned because he knew that the attack on Iraq would be immoral, unjustified, and based on lies, not because he thought his career was coming to a close anyway.
Cook took a principled stand, I think he should be given credit for that, specially as it is fairly rare in modern UK politics. Usually politicians resign in disgrace, such as Peter Mandelson who excelled himself by resigning in disgrace not just once but twice.
Whatever his career trajectory - Cook showed real conviction and principle. Much better that free riding and sniping from the back benchies.
Tarzan, was not in the same league. His motivation was far more personal.
Corbyn's conviction has (as predicted) either evaporated, been spun or ended up in the farce that is deterrent. The Economist, which has gone Panto itself on the coverage of Corbyn, nevertheless ends the Bagshot article today with the sensible conclusion along the lines of - if wasn't for the fact that we need a genuinely strong opposition, the whole thing would be laughable.
Politics on both sides of the wall has descended to real lows. No wonder foreigners find it all so perplexing/entertaining. It matters less to them.
Corbyn's conviction has (as predicted) either evaporated, been spun or ended up in the farce that is deterrent.
You saying it so don't make it so. Corbyn has been on the receiving end of a tidal wave of criticism - mostly uninformed and misguided. When that subsides and policies get fleshed out the public will have a chance to make their minds up.
He has been in an unpleasant wave true - a lot from his own camp and team. But the spinners can spin that away in the new world of straight talking, honest politics. At least, the disagreements are only on minor topics such as defence, tax, Europe, infrastructure etc. nothing too serious!!
I am stunned to hear that Corbyn has not won over THM What next you still dislike the SNP ?
Lovely to see some more of that non biased politically commentary repeated above. Heartwarming as you might say.
Out of interest how many pages will we manage of the STW tories going nope I still dont like him or his policies?
Its barely even a discussion this.
@thm
Whatever his career trajectory - Cook showed real conviction and principle. Much better that free riding and sniping from the back benchies.
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting it was in any way false. More that it's easier to resign on a genuine principle if you know you're not moving up the tree and probably will be reshuffled in a few months anyway.
@el
Cook took a principled stand, I think he should be given credit for that, specially as it is fairly rare in modern UK politics.
As of a few weeks back it's become incredibly common, 7-8 went a few weeks back purely over principle. They can't all have been sacked.
Watching HIGNFY and the STRONG MESSAGE HERE clip was still funny!!
As of a few weeks back it's become incredibly common, 7-8 went a few weeks back purely over principle. They can't all have been sacked.
I don't know what you're talking about, are you referring to the blairites who turned down jobs they weren't offered?
I can assure you that those who resigned from the shadow cabinet before Corbyn had even formed it were not motivated by "principles". Blairite and principles don't go hand in hand.
Besides the fact that most wouldn't have been offered a senior job by Corbyn (I mean Tristram Hunt? Liz Kendal? Seriously??) they made the threat before Corbyn had been elected in a futile attempt to stop him winning.
And you accuse Robin Cook of jumping before being pushed ? ffs
As of a few weeks back it's become incredibly common, 7-8 went a few weeks back purely over principle. They can't all have been sacked.
I don't know what you're talking about
Jamie Reed
Rachel Reeves
Liz Kendall
Yvette Cooper
Emma Reynolds
Chuka Umunna
Chris Leslie
Tristram Hunt
[quote=outofbreath said]
Jamie Reed
Rachel Reeves
Liz Kendall
Yvette Cooper
Emma Reynolds
Chuka Umunna
Chris Leslie
Tristram Hunt
"Your boys took a hell of a beating..."
See my previous reply.
Btw......Chris Leslie 😆
I can assure you that John McDonnell wasn't made Shadow Chancellor because Chris Leslie "resigned" from his job!
EDIT : And btw none of those were cabinet ministers when they "resigned" so there is little comparison with resigning from high office.
I find your comparison between those people and Robin Cook's famous and highly respected resignation from high office frankly quite insulting to the man. Still, you've already put a slur on his character by claiming that Cook only resigned because Blair was going to sack him, despite offering no evidence, so I guess this is no worse.
Tory party conference aiming for the low hanging fruit of Labour weakness. Of the three keywords the first one is SECURITY. The Labour Party and supporters on here are going to have their work cut out to pursued swing voters on this issue. Next up is STABILITY, plays to their "long term economic plan" tag line and finally OPPORTUNITY which is a traditional winning story for them focusing on aspiration which is a key weakness historically for Labour with their wealth redistribution message
scotroutes - Member
The Labour Party aren't allowed to use that word now.
Divide and conquer innit! Bloody ZM politicians! 🙄
edit: Newcastle was invaded by the Scots yesterday for the Rugby World Cup ... never seen so many Scots in one place before ... 😆
scotroutes - Member
'epicyclo » looks like he's falling flat in S******d though.'
The Labour Party aren't allowed to use that word now.
Let's think? How could Labour lose even more votes in the country whose name must not be said?
Do their strategists moonlight as England rugby coaches?
N.B. What a brilliant own goal. 🙂
Tory party conference aiming for the low hanging fruit of Labour weakness. [jambaworld fantasy deleted]
Meanwhile Tories desperately struggling to cover up 2bn hole in the NHS budget.
Meanwhile Tories desperately struggling to cover up 2bn hole in the NHS budget.
This is chump change on a £110B+ annual budget - not least when the most recent report reckoned that the staff are defrauding it to the tune of £1.5B a year via payroll fraud and the total cost of fraud is up to £6B a year.
Remember John McTernan's reaction when Zoe Williams talked of 'magic money tree'.
Here's her article on it:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/04/printing-money-jeremy-corbyn-quantitative-easing-peoples-qe?CMP=share_btn_tw
The end para is q good, but errors strewn elsewhere. Kind of proves her own conclusion though 😉
It is amazing how the whole 'printing money' thing gets repeated though in relation to JC, when 'printing money' is going on the whole time.
It's what you invest that money into that is the key.
The shadow chancellor has said that it's for infrastructure - designed to promote growth. That's the part that needs explaining - how this investment in infrastructure will create growth.
Instead everyone focusses on the 'printing money' angle and we never even get a proper debate about the strategy.
In reality there is very little difference between the two types of QE - that is true.
We have a government running a highly unorthodox monetary policy and a relatively loose fiscal policy (albeit not as loose as before). So they are stealing off savers, intervening in so-called free markets (no really) to deliberately misprice risk and encourage otherwise poor risk decision making while increasing the level of debt.
And this is so-called austerity economics???? They will be deemed "responsible" next 😉
Yes. People bleating on about printing money going to turn us into Zimbabwe.
Except we already printed a shitload of money, and inflation is at a record, even damaging low. That just goes to show that you can do it without wrecking inflation.
All Corbyn said was that IF this happens again, it'd be better to give the money to people (via infrastructure projects and jobs*), so that they can spend it, pay off their personal debt and the money would end up back in the banks anyway, rather than just give it straight to the banks.
* although they could have just handed it out.. that would have been interesting, and a hell of a party. And a vote winner...
EDIT just worked it out.. £14k for every household in the UK... blimey..
The shadow chancellor has said that it's for infrastructure - designed to promote growth. That's the part that needs explaining - how this investment in infrastructure will create growth.
Over the years, I wonder how often this type of investment has actually paid back for itself?
Given how we almost continually run a deficit, one has to wonder...
Over the years, I wonder how often this type of investment has actually paid back for itself?
In the past it hasn't had to pay back for itself.
If you've got food/agriculture, roads, rail, hospitals, social housing, etc, what more do you need?
It's just that we're in this capitalist frame of mind, where unless we can prove that we've all got more money in our pockets we're not interested.
The Telegraph did a good analysis on the printing money thing a while ago. The issue they noted was that for a one off project it may work, but the problem is politicians being politicians will start using it every time they need to get out of a hole, and the end result is not good.
The QE money wasn't given to the banks to promote growth it was to stop total collapse of the system.
Over the years, I wonder how often this type of investment has actually paid back for itself?
Well if its things like the Olympic stadium it probably doesn't and that's the problem isn't it. Right now the government are spending huge money on 'investment infrastructure' ie. HS2 and yet many people are opposed to it.
@DrJ unless Labour find a way of countering these attacks they are going to spend a very long time in opposition. You are starting to sound like the other STWers who kept telling me 2 years ago I was wrong to say immigration would be a major issue at the GE and that UKIP would be a threat to Labour too.
Tories doing more today to take the centre ground being vacated by Labour, appoint a Labour Lord to run the infrastructure review project (blatantly knicking a Labour idea too) and messaging that they are the party for workers.
Yobs yesterday showing classic protest behaviour, throwing eggs, aggressive behaviour, intimidation, chants of "Tory Scum". All plays perfectly to Tory messaging about Labour under Corbyn and his associations with groups like Stop the War.
That's the part that needs explaining - how this investment in infrastructure will create growth.
Fairly standard, isn't it?
You pay people to work on the projects, that money ends up in their pockets then they either pay back debts or spend money in local business and so on.
Then you also get the benefit of whatever it is you've built. For example, build a new railway and you've improved transport links between cities, which helps business; you've also created (hopefully) homegrown railway engineering talent, which helps UK firms bid for contracts.
indeed. But I don't need convincing.Fairly standard, isn't it?
Currently we have supply/demand of these services or infra judged by the 'market'. Many people really trust this judgement-making process.
What Labour have to do is convince voters that 'they know best' which isn't as easy task and you can't take anything for granted.
@DrJ unless Labour find a way of countering these attacks they are going to spend a very long time in opposition
You could be right. Tory propaganda is very effective. It is a master stroke that they consistently persuade people to vote for them, even those exact same people actually derive no benefit from Tory policies. A case in point is "austerity" - the great unwashed are accepting the big lie that we need to keep our household budgets in order, mend the roof while the sun shines and all the rest of the BS, and go without benefits, doctors etc., just so that Gideon can hand out champagne to the Old Etonians.
If only it were that simple Molgrips, but what happens if that new item is a complete white elephant, so you've built something essentially useless at big cost and now it is loss making due to ongoing running costs. Then as political party you have to start sacking people to try to reduce costs with all the negative PR. Heck you are in Spain I shouldn't need to explain the dangers as well as the upsides.
but what happens if that new item is a complete white elephant, so you've built something essentially useless at big cost and now it is loss making due to ongoing running costs
Any project can be screwed up. That doesn't mean no project is worth the effort though. Like everything else in life, you have to do it right, and that's the challenge.
Heck you are in Spain
Not me, someone else...
molgrips - Member
Yes. People bleating on about printing money going to turn us into Zimbabwe.Except we already printed a shitload of money, and inflation is at a record, even damaging low
For those higher up the chain yes. For those at the bottom end. Nup, inflation still continues unabated.
This is what annoys me about the whole discussion of finances, it's always taken as a whole.
It's like austerity, I agree with THM if you take it as a whole, yip, it's not happening, but if you look a specific ranges of the economy and how it affects different people. I'm willing to bet you could make a case for austerity economics. Or class war as it should be known.
It is a master stroke that they consistently persuade people to vote for them, even those exact same people actually derive no benefit from Tory policies.
Not that masterful, they tell people what they want to hear, massage their vanity, and exploits their dreams. I was listening to Gideon today and if you didn't know who he was you'd never have guessed that he was a tory. The massive problem for Corbyn and Labour is that where Osborne talks about people owning their own homes and being shareholders, they talk about council houses, unions and strikes. Who wants to live in a council house? Even those for whom it would be a massive improvement on private renting would probably admit that they don't want one. This is the major problem. Labour are in the business of telling people how poor they are, rather than telling them how much better off they could be with a bit of collective action.
they tell people what they want to hear, massage their vanity,
Tried and test technique that's worked through time and will continue to do so.
Still like you say the Tories speak of aspiration (in America it would be the 'dream') which is amazingly powerful and Labour about tax hikes.
Tax hikes to the rich whilst the tories dont mention it but do tax hikes to the poor
I have never understood why folk care so much about tax changes that will not affect them except to make them better off.
Ditto America where many of those least likely to achieve the American dream still support it
the problem with capitalism is that it has to have millions of losers for every massive winner and the losers still vote for it.
Labour are in the business of telling people how poor they are
Lolz. People know when they're poor, ffs. In fact, a lot of people think they're poor when they're not.
Labour are (now) in the business of telling poor and vulnerable people how they can help. Whether or not these people are listening, and if there are enough of them, is another issue.
Still like you say the Tories speak of aspiration (in America it would be the 'dream') which is amazingly powerful and Labour about tax hikes.
And labour could quite easily too. They could talk a very good game about the power of collective and cooperative action, and how everyone would be better off because of it. Also social mobility, most people's primary concern and worry is that their kids do as well or much better than they do. With a few well placed policies (free higher education being one of them), labour could own the social mobility issue where all the tories can offer is lower inheritance tax. I'm all for straight talking and honesty but it doesn't take a PR genius to think of ways of countering the tories message without coming across like an 19th century revolutionary.
without coming across like an 19th century revolutionary.
You think that's what Corbyn sounds like? Something wrong with your ears, they're Tory ears...
People know when they're poor, ffs.
Do they? Why then do they go and get massive loans to by crap they don't need? I know people at work who are quite sensible and intelligent in their jobs, but complete basket cases when it comes to money. I reckon many people think they are far richer than they actually are, and a labour party telling them they're wrong isn't going to win them many new votes, unless they can persuade people that it was the tories (and new labour, to be fair) who fooled them into thinking this.
You think that's what Corbyn sounds like?
Do you actually read these threads? A tiny flick back will show you I'm a Corbyn supporter. I'm simply commenting on how labour can still talk about 'aspiration' without sounding like lefty trots or watering down their policies. It's about showing that these crazy 'extreme' policies the press talk about are rather just sensible middle of the road things. Some may call it spin, I'd call it common sense.
Edit: To answer your question directly, yes I think he does sound a bit too much like that. Also he's in danger of coming across as too academic. All this stuff about discussions and conversations is all very well, but it sounds the same as Milband did when he won, except back then it was all about 'developing narratives' and 'telling a story'.
Point of information :
....... without coming across like an 19th century revolutionary.I'm simply commenting on how labour can still talk about 'aspiration' without sounding like lefty trots ....
There were no 'lefty trots' in the 19th century. Trots are a 20th century phenomenon.
Carry on.....
Yeah ok, probably not fair to associate, however loosely, the likes of Bakhunin and Kropotkin (only a little 19th, but mostly 20th century) with Trotsky and his acolytes, especially given Trotsky's betrayal of the Kronstadt sailors. I stand corrected 🙂
the problem with capitalism is that it has to have millions of losers for every massive winner and the losers still vote for it.
Well its working so well in Europe there are millions of people desperate to be part of that system. The truth is Capitalism has proven to be the most effective system for benefitting the whole population, that's why people vote for it to continue.
Labour knew they had a problem with not being an "aspirational" party before Corbyn, this has now got even harder.
The American dream is interesting as it's a country founded on mainly economic migrants desperate to start a new life, far from trying to create a socialist society as you might imagine they want the opportunity to work and to keep more of the money they earn via low taxes and to buy the services they need.
Taxes on the "the rich" are far higher than they where 10 years ago, extra 2% on NI with no cap, extra 5% top rate band, no personal allowance (cost £4k+ pa) plus the 5% VAT rise (although it was only down to 15% in 2008/9). Far higher taxes on property purchase.
Peoples QE is a gimmick - the government has the instruments of policy it needs whatever Richard Murphy would like us to believe. Futhermore, in practice there is v little difference between peoples' QE and Osborne's version (other than the technical issue of whether the bought bonds are cancelled or not)
Mol, QE did not involve giving money to banks, that is a fallacy. QE was designed to support asset prices (tick) and depress LT interest rates (tick) - it has actually made it harder for banks to make money. The winners from QE were the asset holders - and yes that does include the top 5% of the pop - so GO can be criticised, but only in the correct grounds. Of course, indirectly, many more benefitted from QE but that's a different story.
With interest rates low, investment in infrastructure can be made relatively easily. No gimmicks required.
Well its working so well in Europe there are millions of people desperate to be part of that system.
Even for you that's daft claim, they want to come here because they don't face being bombed or shot. Funny I didn't see the millions wanting to come in before the middle east and Africa were taken over by religious nutjobs largely due to the foreign policy of the capitalist countries.
The truth is Capitalism has proven to be the most effective system for benefitting the whole population, that's why people vote for it to continue.
People voted for it? When were they ever given an alternative?
Where is the evidence that the poorest have got poorer?
Late 1970s through to 2012 (haven't got latest figs to hand) REAL wages of the poorest 20% of the population rose by 93%.
Futhermore, in practice there is v little difference between peoples' QE and Osborne's version
Except for the infrastructure and jobs...?
People voted for it? When were they ever given an alternative?
Of course, alternatives to capitalism have been tried abroad.
PS: Good point about council housing. I know people desperate to get out of renting. I don't know anybody who dreams of renting on a more beneficial basis.
teamhurtmore - MemberPeoples QE is a gimmick - the government has the instruments of policy it needs whatever Richard Murphy would like us to believe.
I appreciate that due to your own personal partisan political views you might not support peoples quantitative easing but why dismiss it as a "gimmick" ?
Why do you think economist Steve Keen who coined the term 'peoples quantitative easing' needs a gimmick ?
Why do you think that the 19 economists who back in April (long before most people knew who Jeremy Corbyn was) signed a letter to the Financial Times calling for the European Central Bank to instead of injecting money into the financial markets adopt 'quantitative easing for the people' needed a "gimmick" ?
Why do you think Nobel Prize Winning economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz and who support people's quantitative easing need a "gimmick" ?
I can understand how as a supporter of this government you don't agree with people's quantitative easing but I can't understand why you expect people to dismiss it as a "gimmick".
Because QE isn't the basis of an economy. It's a temporary emergency measure.
So temporary emergency measures are by definition "gimmicks" ? The propping up of UK financial institutions such as RBS was just a "gimmick"? ffs
Because QE isn't the basis of an economy. It's a temporary emergency measure.
For a temporary emergency measure it's been going on for an awfully long time.
I think governments have found that they rather like just printing money and letting the future worry about the fallout.
They are coming here to be safe [ and better off financially - is it not our generous benefits system or do you only say that when it suits your argument?- rather than because they love capitalism.Well its working so well in Europe there are millions of people desperate to be part of that system.
The truth is Capitalism has proven to be the most effective system for benefitting the whole population, that's why people vote for it to continue.
Aye those dark satanic mills really benefited the whole population and all the changes since to moderate it and control it have been a result not of state intervention and the people revolting but due to the beneficence of capitalism benefiting all. An excellent point supported by reality.
BTW you completely forgot to even attempt to negate my point that in order for there to be a few exceptional winners there have to be millions of losers and we can easily make it better by simply redistributing the wealth/income of the very wealthiest more equally to those less fortunate.
REAL wages of the poorest 20% of the population rose by 93%.
Source please
How did the top 0.1 % do and can you tell us that in actual money and not percentages?
I suspect the top 0.1% made more and are worth more now than the bottom 20 % were then- oe the differential has increased
That is my point remains in order to have winners you have to have losers
its not even a debatable point
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme and all but a very few are worse off under it than with a fairer distribution of the income/wealth.
For a temporary emergency measure it's been going on for an awfully long time.
I think governments have found that they rather like just printing money and letting the future worry about the fallout.
I hope its not the modern equivalent of PFI. A desperately broke Major govt does it and Labour picks it up and runs with it. 20 years later its the norm.
Gimmick?
Because the required instruments of policy already exist. Ergo, its a gimmick.
Krugman and Stiglitz's policies can be delivered without gimmicks as they know.
Osbourne's QE is also a gimmick - no surprise that they argue that low interest rates are a sign of the confidence in the UK (yeh, right). Poppycock, they are because the BoE has been buying UK debt. Its a totally artificial market and also a gimmick.
we can easily make it better by simply redistributing the wealth/income of the very wealthiest more equally to those less fortunate.
We can certainly chase the wealthy and their wealth abroad, but I'm not sure uncompetitive tax regemes really bring in more revenue.
Gimmick?Because the required instruments of policy already exist. Ergo, its a gimmick.
Why wouldn't "the required instruments of policy already exist" ? Who's claimed that they don't exist ?
What an odd question. If the instruments of policy already exist why create an unnecessary construct to deliver the same thing??? Oh, of course, it's politics and politicians need gimmicks that are easy to fall for. Job done, well done Jezza. And Murphy gets his advisory fee, I imagine?!?
Are the noble prize winning economists who support this politicians now?
Those who wrote and signed the letter?
What an odd thing to say??? I mean to ignore economist better qualified than you and just turn on "jezza"
Its clearly not a politically motivated gimmick on your part now is it and just "economics".
I can see how they earn the A* with this sort of level headed well argued points.
What an odd question. If the instruments of policy already exist why create an unnecessary construct to deliver the same thing???
Well people's quantitative easing isn't government policy at the present, or are you claiming that it is ?
And are you seriously suggesting that Nobel Prize Winning economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz are talking out of their arses and that it's just a "gimmick" when they express support for people's quantitative easing ?
No but the two types are essentially the same thing (despite the gimmickry title). But that is not the point, you do not need QE of any sort to deliver the results that PQE is claiming - ergo it's a gimmick.
Murphy of course misunderstands current QE so no surprise that he tries to pretend his version is fundamentally different when it isn't
Ah, the Nobel-winning cliche. How about the Nobel winning economists who oppose the idea???.
(Don't forget two economists in the same room lead to three answers!!!)
Ah, the Nobel-winning cliche. How about the Nobel winning economists who oppose the idea???.(Don't forget two economists in the same room lead to three answers!!!)
Not really a problem. I'm not claiming that any economist is correct. I'm just puzzled how you can dismiss the suggestions that 19 economists have made to the Financial Times and what two Nobel Prize Winning economist are saying as a "gimmick".
Although I can see from your comment : [i]"you do not need QE of any sort"[/i] that the real problem is that you don't agree with them. Which is fair enough of course - there's no reason why you should. I don't think dismissing it as a "gimmick" is fair though.
In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature.
There is nothing unique nor special about PQE, the supposed "feature" is of little relevance*, hence the special feature is simple for the sake of itself. Ergo, it's a gimmick.
* Stiglitz and Krugmans policies can be achieved by traditional means that you favour. QE and PQE merely seek to hide the reality of what is happening, hence their popularity among politicians
Dont forget that 41 practicing economist (many from Russell Grouo unis plus one old colleague of mine) also wrote a letter criticising the policy. So S&K do not have a monopoly (sorry economist's joke) on what is correct (or even incorrect)
Haven't listened myself, so don't know if it's 'more of the same' or not, but here is the full rally from last night.
Corbyn speaks at 28mins and 47mins
Ok so can we summarise this whole QE 'gimmick' debate into this....
After the 2008 crash a temporary measure to prop up western economies was needed (aka a 'QE gimmick') there were 2 approaches offered
1) Give money to the banks, QE, who would then lend it to the SME's that needed it (or not)
2) Give money to the people, PQE, who would then either spend it (giving money to SME's) or save it (in the banks)
Apparently the corporate investors and right-wing papers & government advisors thought option 2 was madness but option 1) was called Austerity but has been profitable to coprporations & the top 1%
[quote=DaRC_L said]
1) Give money to the banks, QE, who would then lend it to the SME's that needed it (or not)
QE doesn't give money to the banks as far as I'm aware.
Well its high on old school rhetoric and due to it being at a CWU meeting the video is primarily about the Royal Mail. But I think he's rather missed the boat on privatisation of the Royal Mail. He should stick to the simple defence of universal service obligation and I think he'd get a lot of support for that.
I also think he is making a rather large mistake attacking the private sector, he needs to remember a lot of his potential voters are in the private sector.
Ok so can we summarise this whole QE 'gimmick' debate into this....
That's my understanding of it!
Not correct
QE did not give money to banks
QE does not = austerity.
QE relates to monetary policy, austerity to fiscal policy. Different things.
Income inequality narrowed since then crisis and then has been broadly unchanged over past 12 months
QE is simply creating money as a liability of the central bank and using it to buy bonds (assets) - either existing bonds (QE)or bonds from a national investment banks (PQE). There is no magic here and other instruments already exist.
It sounds a lot more complicated and novel than it is. Perfect for politicians!
QE did not give money to banks
Can someone explain this to an idiot - fully?
This money that was created - surely it ended up with banks?
QE did not give money to banks
Ok lets keep it[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15198789 ] simpl[/url]e
QE = [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/04/printing-money-jeremy-corbyn-quantitative-easing-peoples-qe ]Central Bank prints money & buys bonds[/url] from Financials Institutions (to keep it simple lets call them banks) who then have the cash (via the bonds) to lend money to business' (aimed at Small/Medium Enterprises) so they can employ people which boosts the economic recovery.
This money that was created - surely it ended up with banks?
Sort of. It ended up with the banks and funded their ability to lend which in turn enabled investment which in turn enabled the strong economic growth we've seen compared to the rest of Europe. Although lending levels were lower than prior to the crash this partly reflected uncertainty in businesses and a delay in committing to investments rather than lack of available funding from banks.
No the money created by QE was used to buy up outstanding government debt
The recapitalisation of the banks using taxpayers money was funded out of normal policy ie, borrowing
The extent to which banks and the rest of us benefited from QE is a matter of debate. At the moment the depression of interest rates makes it very hard for them to generate top line growth.
To quote the B o England
QE does not, as is sometimes suggested, involve printing more banknotes. [b] And QE is not about giving money to banks.[/b] Rather, the policy was designed to help businesses raise finance without needing to borrow from banks. And also to lower interest rates for all households and businesses.
If you are really interested page 24 in this deals with the issue
reflected uncertainty in businesses and a delay in committing to investments rather than lack of available funding from banks.
or banks became risk averse and refused to lend it to business' depending upon which political narrative you read.
or they are struggling to come to terms with higher capital adequacy requirements?
lending has continues to shrink in the Uk albeit at a slower rate
Late 1970s through to 2012 (haven't got latest figs to hand) REAL wages of the poorest 20%
What does that 'REAL' mean THM? Adjusted for price inflation of the goods and services the poorest have to purchase?
Good question 😉 - in this case, simply deflated by CPI......yes, but..... 😉
3600!