jc brighton 2

As over 6000 people flock to Corbyn’s Leeds meeting and Brighton saw a full house yesterday, we reflect on a message from a Hall Green reader, who writes: David Blanchflower is now turning on Corbyn. Murphy did earlier.

Blanchflower: bow to the markets, “the bond and equity markets would eat JC for lunch”.

David Blanchflower was never really ‘on board’. He writes: “I was not a Corbynista. the new Labour leaders are not economists and are going to have to learn fast: and in cororate=pleasing vein: “They will have to accept the realities of capitalism and modern markets, like it or not.”

Ethics? Principles? Election is the only thing that matters

He continued saying that three-quarters of Corbyn’s MPs, who doubt his leadership qualities, rightly passed an overwhelming vote of no confidence against him: “He should have quit. He doesn’t have enough MPs who support him to be able to form a complete shadow cabinet. Incidentally, if there were even the slightest prospect that he could become prime minister, the bond and equity markets would eat him for lunch”.

Is the lobbyist for Pfizer and Amgen (clouded reputations) a better candidate?

Blanchflower, with the markets’ blessing, thinks so: “This is why I am supporting Owen Smith as the only leader who can prevent a disaster. He has the support of enough MPs to form a credible opposition”.

Richard Murphy: leaving with grace and truthno obeisance to market forces here

“Whatever Labour’s pragmatic need might be it must be infused with a new sense of idealism. If not it is wasting its time and those fighting its internal wars will end up with the prize of perpetual irrelevance . . .

“In whatever the roles that I have, as economist, tax campaigner, chartered accountant or dad, it was clear that Labour offered “austerity light” at that 2015 election . . .

“And no wonder so many who were seeking real difference rallied to support Corbyn and his distinctly different approach to politics. It’s not clause IV socialism. But nor is it the pro-market fundamentalism coupled to the myth of choice that had dominated the offerings of both parties for decades. Corbyn seemed like a breath of fresh air to many.

“Labour has to be an opposition. It must have a substantially different approach to the Conservatives. It must embrace the counter-cyclical investment that is so desperately needed at present . . .

“In the process it would put finance and big business in its proper place, where it is treated as very significant, but not the real power in the land.

“It must say that it welcomes migration if those who come are willing to embrace the UK as their home. Learning English, offering a skill and being willing to work where work is needed can be and should be the conditions of seeking to live in this country. Migration would be a contract, not a right, refugees and asylum status apart. Norway has done this; so should we.

“The party also has to say that outside the EU it would have the ability to create a long-term vision for a sustainable future, using (if necessary) the power of the Bank of England to create money to invest for the long term at a time when interest rates are (and are likely to remain) exceptionally low – invest in housing, business, sustainable energy and (perhaps most of all) people, who should have a right to debt-free education”.

Advertisements