Labour Leadership watch

Richard Murphy has just written this, whitewave.

"So, all the legal and structural arguments for People’s Quantitative Easing fall away: it is already authorised and legal.

So now the question is, why not do it? We still have no effective monetary policy in the UK and no chance of it in the foreseeable future: what might be considered ‘normal interest rates’ are likely to be a very long way off. In that case what is the reason for not doing QE assuming, as is true that we have a) unemployment b) low productivity and so c) under-usage of capacity which only needs the availability of credit (which is, note, the reason for QE) to bring it into use?

And why not also do it when a) we have increased market uncertainty b) a threat to export growth as a result of the China crash and c) a significant new risk of deflation which we need to do at all costs?

And finally, right across the country – in every constituency – I guarantee projects that are ‘shovel ready’ can be found. If I put out the appeal to local authorities and health authorities I think we can be sure they could line up with:

Extensions that are needed
Repairs needing doing
Insulation projects
Small road schemes
Local transport infrastructure improvements
Bandwidth improvements
Houses needing building
PFI projects they would love to drop
New schools
GP surgeries

And then ask universities and you’d get:

Capital for research projects and joint ventures
New applied research e.g. on renewables

And if you want to be really broad minded:

Create a small business venture capital fund.

Why not do all that now, when it is legal, authorised and could be managed by a new Nation al Investment Bank under existing BoE authority from the Treasury right now.

I really want to know why not."

Sometimes I wish he'd just shut up and not give Osborne ideas.

Just for you, soon.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/08/25/10-billion-of-peoples-style-quantitative-easing-was-authorised-by-george-osborne-in-2012/

See, Osborne thought it was a good idea in the last parliament. He just did not understand what he was doing. Nothing new there, of course.

See that Corbyn's QE isn't looking quite so silly now.

Not very good at googling are you soon.
I have just googled George Osborne and QE and got pages of the stuff.

Bags, I did not say my grandson thinks Obama should be a dictator.
Obama cannot be given a third term, or a fourth term because that is US democracy. He cannot be voted in any more because two terms is as much as any president can have in the US.
Please read properly before you accuse.

I too think him an awful man

Oh, I like the turnip name for Trump. he seems an awful man from all I have read.

"apologia" in inverted commas, it should be.

I've done the washing-up now so I can carry on where I left off in my apologia. President Obama is a good example of a politician with many good intentions but who has been prevented from carrying out all the reforms he would like to have achieved by political complications outwith his control, such as the kind of effective opposition that Tricia is talking about. Whether one agrees with Obama's aims or with the "effective opposition" is not the issue in the discussion I was having which, clearly I had hoped (mistakenly it would seem), was about the inherent messiness of human endeavours.

I don't think Donald Turnip is too dangerous. From what I've heard of his exploits in Scotland his sole aim in life is to turn the whole world into a golf course.

As I think I've written before, I don't support Corbyn because I think he would make a good PM, but because he would provide a platform for an effective OPPOSITION (sorry to shout.)
The present LP group in the Commons is so feeble and compliant that the Tories are getting away with murder. They have to be stopped.
The Tories have rebels within their own party, and could be brought to a situation as in 1995 when John Major was forced to resign, if there was a strong opposition from the left.
I think that the only way Labour is going to win the next GE isn't because the electorate change their views, but because the Tory party collapses internally.

In answer to your question, elo, no, and I'm still not. I'm discussing things that arise in this thread, trying to cover all angles (failing no doubt, but trying).

So the name of the gig wasn't ironic then?

Donald Trumpis not really mystifying.
He is saying what a lot of American people are thinking.

Now there is a politican who tackles difficult issues head on.

He has apprently given 68 media interviews in the last two months.
Hillary Clinton? 2

thatbags Have you always been an apologist for "tricky" politicians who try and wriggle their way out of difficult questions? It seems that a large number of people are turned off politics because they are sick of lies and prevarication and of MPs of all colours who do nothing but parrot "the party line". Andy Burnham has boasted that he has never defied the party whip. I don't think that is something to be proud of - particularly in the case of the Iraq war and the Conservatives' austerity programme.

The prospect of Donald Trump becoming US President is mystifying and terrifying in equal measure. How can the American people find anything in this obnoxious man to trust or admire? Having said that, only the rich (or those backed by the very richest) will ever have a chance of being elected, although it's good to see that Bernie Saunders is, against all the odds, certainly making some waves.

rosesarered You seem to be rather preoccupied with Moscow. Perhaps it is you that is stuck back in 1962.

If one's talking about the politician's ideals, then yes, ab, but not so easily if one's talking about practical solutions to problems in society.

That's a good example of a politician's response...

Many questions put to a politician can be given a straight answer surely

What has JC to say, in his straighforward way, about faith schools? Anyone?

I also echo what Thatbags has just written about straight answers.

Eloethan, I do have problems with the name of the gig you attended though, or was it ironic? The People's Assembly Comedy Benefit Gig, sounds like something that took place in Moscow in 1962.

eloethan, I think it's actually quite hard for a politician to answer with what I think you mean by 'honest' answers. There often isn't a 'straight' or simple enough answer to be able to do that. Politics is quite complicated. Ideals are great but it's rare that idealism works in the real world, if at all.

dj, making someone a president forever is essentially making a dictatorship. Think Mugabe and some others. Do you really think that's a good idea?

Countries who can't vote out their leaders haven't got democracy.

ww, like your post about Paine. I think what puts me off JC is that I find his policies too simplistic.

cant see that he is. Have looked on google.

I dare you to google it, soon. I could put links up but you will not read them.