Concern within the Labour Party that Jeremy Corbyn is doing well

The man who wrote it also signed this.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/06/12/80-economists-say-osbornes-economics-make-no-sense-in-the-guardian/

He doesn't think much of Osborne's ideas either.

Interesting *Grannyknot", and thank you for the link, but rather than being an explanation of "why having Corbyn as leader of the Labour party would be wrong" it reads to me as an opinion of why one blogger thinks it could be the wrong thing to do - just another opinion not a fact. I have equally seen an article, in the Economist, which explains why Corbynomics is a reasonable suggestion. Unfortunately the Economist online is subscription only but you can see an article about the article (if you see what I mean) www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/03/economist-defends-corbynomics-criticism-richard-murphy-jeremy-corbyn-qe

This is a quote from it:
“This programme is about creating jobs in every single constituency in the UK. It is not costless, there will be a small rise in inflation, but we need it. It would have to be used responsibly, but of course Jeremy Corbyn understands that.”

Sure GG there's a lot of different opinions out there, and that's just one of them. I'll have a look at the Economist article.

Dj thank you but I'm really currently only interested in what people are saying about Corbyn.

This has been an interesting read. I can't look five years ahead to the next election, and I am not certain of the impact on the Labour Party if Jeremy Corbyn does get elected as party leader, but what I most certainly do want is a strong effective opposition in The House of Commons when they go back after summer recess. I am not certain who is the best candidate for this, but we do need someone to stop the excesses of the Tory government who appear to be running amok with ever more headline grabbing ideas and breaking election promises without any consideration for the people who voted for them, let alone for the majority who didnt. This is a point of democracy I feel, rather then party political. Sorry if off track with point of thread, but five years is a long time, we need strong opposition now before the NHS housing and all public services are completely wrecked beyond repair.

And if you want to read even more about Green or the People's QE, just go on www.taxresearch.org.uk

Just listened to that link about M&S, Gracesgran. It's appalling treatment of the workers. In fact, I listened to the whole programme. We need Corbyn in to make sure that people do not get away with such exploitation.
It comes to something when even the unions cannot understand the contract.
Anyone who thinks M&S are honest, listen to Graces Link.

Believe it or not, soon, when I put a link on, I do not have anyone in mind to read it. It's there for anyone who wants, so there's no need to keep telling me that you do not read my links, or only read little bits of them - though how you manage to sort out which bit to read is beyond me.
In fact I do not care if you do not read or respond to any of my posts either.

The reason Corbyn is getting such support in my opinion, GillT, is because he was the only one to stand up to the welfare bill.
In five years time we could all be dead, but in the meantime, Corbyn's the only hope for Labour.

How weird, GK; the same man criticised Osborne's economic plans but that does not matter?

Not to me, now. If that's weird, so be it!

So you haven't read the link, then.
is the only reason I wrote what I wrote because you seemed surprised that gillybob or whoever hadnt read it.

GillT57. That is a point I have been getting at as well.

Eloethan. My reason for posting about JC is because I dont like to see posts which I consider to be ill thought out, or "wrong" in my opinion. It doesnt much matter what or who the post is about.

I think you are likely correct DJ regarding the reason for support for Jeremy Corbyn. I just want someone strong to stand up to the bullying and roughshod disregard for the electorate,; if JC or any of the other candidates get that right then they can be considered suitable for government in five years time. It is going to be hard, the current government have got most of the popular press in their pocket and are trying their best to silence the BBC. I dont know whether I have become more politically aware lately, or whether there is more information ( and I like links ), but I am honestly appalled at what could be ahead for me and my family if this lot are allowed to get away with half of what they want. The talk of sympathies with terrorist organisations is a red herring; there are still many people who think that we should not have talked to the IRA and that Gerry Adams for one, has blood on his hands; yet sometimes awful people have to be talked to for the sake of peace. Bombing them to buggery oblivion hasnt exactly been a success where Islamic terror groups are concerned, and Ms Thatcher and her government had a shameful attitude to apartheid as we all know.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/17/the-political-economy-of-peoples-quantitative-easing/

The reasons why People's QE will be needed in 2020, and why Corbyn should be leader to see it through.

The problem for me with the link to Richard Murphy /Tax Research UK is the site and Murphy.

Isn't Murphy Murphy known to be 'one of the favoured ' economists by the left. Obviously he finds his core reader and listener from the left of politics such as The Guardian, Toynbee, Maguire etc. If I am not mistaken his work has been connected to :-

Joseph Rowntree Trust
TUC
UNITE
PCS Union
EU Parliament (Socialist, Democrats and Greens)
Others

I am not agreeing or disagreeing his points it is too complicated but I don't think others should read the report without understanding a little background history of the report author. For my mind someone who was according to his site voted the 7th most influential 'left wing thinker' by a left leaning organisation will perhaps a totally different view to another. Or am I mistaken in my understanding of Murphy and Tax Research UK.? Have I got the wrong man, I apologise if I have.

Economists are a group of people who don't agree with each other , he could be bang on the money but ecomics is shown to be one area where you see so many get egg on their faces such as those who spouted in 2010 unemployment would grow and the deficit get bigger, hell in a handcart time. To another economist Corbyn will be the bloke pushing the handcart.

You forgot to mention the Financial Times.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/06/the-ft-says-corbyns-peoples-qe-could-actually-be-a-decent-idea/

He's not an economist, by the way, he's an accountant.

I am not quite sure of your point pogs . obviously if his economics chime with left wing thinking then to that extent his can be said to be favoured by the left.
Economists are not a group of people who disagree with one another. In fact to a very large extent they agree,. However there are particular areas on which they diverge to an extent. Classical economics was followed - there was none other worth following - up until the 30's when it was clearly not working for the situation the world found itself in. Keynsianism was introduced and there was a general consensus with governments of all colour post war until Thatcher who became beguiled by economists like Friedman and laissez faire theory. Unfortunately we all suffered as a result, and she quietly dropped this in order to get the economy working again and reduce the level of unemployment.
All people like Corbyn are saying is that the Keynsianism model should be used in order to introduce growth to the economy - something that other countries have followed and one which we began to pursue after the banking crises, with success until the Tories clobbered it pursuing the goal of a reduced state.
Of course if GO is correct and we are in surplus (not a desirable goal) then Keynsianism will allow a shuttling back of government investment as it will not be needed until the next crises, and make no mistake there will be one.

By the way, he's also a Quaker.

And what on earth has that got to do with anything?

Quakers do tend to be socialists in my experience, and I know a few.

DJ

Why do you say he is not an economist?

'Quakers do tend to be socialists in my experience...'

Give me strength...

I suppose that, as part of the Quaker religion is a belief that war is against God's wishes and that makes them dedicated to pacifism and non-violence, it would not be surprising to find most of them would tend towards socialist views Jen. Many of our great philanthropists who were particularly interested in the housing, work conditions, education and health of workers were Quakers and also many of the great prison reformers. I think this would tend to make they more left-wing than right.

I was always wryly amused that my brother, in the Army at the time, sent his girls to a Quaker school near to us. I'm sure it gave them a wide view.

Getting tired. Them not they.

POGS, because he says he is.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/RichardMurphycvJuly2006.pdf