The anti-austerity protest which is getting under way on 20th June, is not just a politically motivated objection to a policy of the governing Party. It is a protest with deep foundations in both theory and common sense.
For successive governments GDP growth has been the holy-grail. Despite misgivings over its validity (https://gordonpearson.co.uk/2015/02/19/the-great-gdp-deception/#more-1278), it is accepted that balancing a budget with a growing GDP is a whole lot easier than doing so in recession. But imposing austerity on the economy only stifles GDP growth. So why do governments of both main Parties – assuming Labour takes the suicidal Blairite route – accept austerity as the necessary medicine for our economic ills?
The economy is a complex of many different sectors, public and private, that relate to each other in all sorts of different ways, and it is continually on the move with some sectors growing and some shrinking, some dying off altogether and new ones emerging. That dynamic is the result of millions of people striving to make progress. Politicians don’t control the economy; the best they can aim for is to do the people no harm.
Continue reading The Common Sense of Austerity and GDP growth
The dominant political, financial and media establishment seems close to resolving the outstanding Labour leadership problem to its satisfaction. There will be no serious challenge from Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper, or, of course, Liz Kendal. Nor would there have been from Mary Creagh who pulled out of the leadership race, blaming Miliband’s lack of business friendliness as the reason Labour lost the election. The only difficulty might lie with Jeremy Corbyn, should he achieve the necessary nominations to stand for the leadership.
Corbyn could be dangerous to the established Tory/ New Labour Westminster consensus simply because he does not go along with it. His candidacy would challenge that Osborne-Cameron clique in a way the other candidates would fear to tread.
Continue reading Corbyn-led coalition government
Why would the Economist publish an article commending Labour to vote its ‘Blairite candidate’ to the Party leadership? Why would that rather formulaic libertarian publication be concerned?
The Bagehot article purports to be about Liz Kendal, Labour Party MP for Leicester West. But in reality it is just another salvo in the mainstream media’s attempt to ensure Labour poses no threat to the established Osborne-Cameron clique. The main message is the suggestion that Labour lost the election because, under Miliband’s leadership, it moved too far to the left. If it is to have any chance of future election success, it must recover its Blairite centre ground by voting Kendal. That was the suggestion.
Acknowledging Labour lost all but one of its seats in Scotland to the SNP, the article pretends that Scottish failure was all about independence. The establishment is clearly nervous that Labour might follow the SNP example offering policies focused on fairness and social justice, financed by the fruits of economic stimulus rather than being strangled by austerity.
What would happen to Labour support if it were to go against all privatisation of public services in health, education and social welfare, against the fire sale of UK publicly owned assets to foreign investors, and focus on the eradication of poverty, the building of affordable social housing, government subsidized higher education, and serious investment in renewable energy as well as progressive taxation of income and wealth. Such a social democratic programme is currently only advocated in England by the Green Party. But if Labour was persuaded to that position based more on human values than Old Labour class war loyalties, there might be a genuine threat of Labour revival.
With its miniscule majority, the Osborne-Cameron offering of privatisation and surrender to corporate monopolists, might then find the Labour / SNP opposition more than just challenging. If, on the other hand, Labour could be misled into appointing its ‘Blairite candidate’, the challenge would be easily repelled. That is why the mainstream media, including The Economist, is concerned.