The U.K. 2022

That’s Starmer’s plan I mean

I can’t find anything. Anyone got any pointers please?

Murphy

“the plan could work. I am not convinced by it all for reasons I will note below, but it has, given the objectives Starmer has set for it, a level of plausibility”

“However, the plan remains deeply flawed for many reasons. First of all, it's only for six months. I admit to being baffled as to Starmer's thinking on this. Is the energy price going to fall so dramatically in those six months that this problem will go away by then?”

(I think Starmer addressed this criticism)

“the plan is that it only addresses the issue for households. There is no mention of how schools, hospitals and care homes will pay their bills, or how many businesses will survive this winter.”

(Starmer recognises this but as quoted above, labour initially wants to get households through the winter, and they are working on other issues)

The rest of Murphy’s twitter can be seen on line, but it is basically disagreeing with Labour’s approach to debt and of course pushing MMT.

Interesting, and I would like to see other economists opinion.

growstuff

DaisyAnne

growstuff

You do realise that you're making a personal attack, I assume.

Murphy isn't the only economist criticising Starmer's plans. He makes a number of criticisms, if you read his tweets.

I have made it clear I was giving my thoughts on recent blogs and tweets. Your comment "if you read his tweets" makes me think you are not bothering to read my posts but just replying with your views. That's not discussion.

You don't have to read them. Nor have I suggested you have to agree. You, however, seem to think I must agree with you. My opinion has changed and may change again. That's what an open mind does.

No, I don't think you should agree with me at all. What I do think is that you're making an "ad hominem" attack on Richard Murphy for some reason - maybe he's blocked you from his blog, for all I know. Whatever the reason, maybe you'd care to explain why you think Murphy is wrong.

Apparently, Starmer is going to make a fuller statement today with more details. The plan which has been published so far has a number of flaws, but maybe he's going to address those. Firstly, those individuals with the highest energy bills (who tend to be those with the biggest houses and richer) will benefit most from freezing the current cap. Secondly, he has said nothing about small businesses and organisations such as schools and hospitals. They'll all face horrendous bills and many businesses will cease to trade. Schools and hospitals will have no choice but to make staff redundant.

That is not how I see it growstuff. Your posts to me seem to have become a "but daddy knows best" attack on me while holding me to account for a party I don't belong to but wish to hear what they are saying. Just as the far-right groomed people so they would believe the unbelievable so can others growstuff. I simply do not believe the present crisis is all Keir Starmer's fault any more than I believe that one person has all the answers.

I was reading the Labour Party offering yesterday when some of it was first released. It seems to have a lot of thought behind it. This is more than I ever feel about the Conservative Party and its "hand outs from your betters" attitude. Murphy will be pleased he got a mention on "Today", I am sure. However, much as I would have like to read an economist's analysis on the LP offering, I am not going to get it from him, am I?

I look forward to watching, listening and trying to understand what all the parties and all the economists have to say. I do not believe any one of them has been set, by God, above the others.

Sadly, I fee I cannot reply to any more of your posts on this. In-fighting in the Labour Party has always been what I was talking about. Including when it is wound up by those who do not belong to it or those who do but don't want the democratic outcome it has reach for the leadership. I don't reply to others who do this any more and you seem to have added yourself to the list.

Listening to R4 this morning and Keir Starmer where he addresses some of the criticism of Murphy. Unfortunately I missed most of it, so will first listen to Starmers podcast ( I think there is one?) then look at it in relation to Murphy’s criticism.

What Starmer did say is that this is a Labour emergency plan, and only addresses the winter in order to get households through the winter safely, it is not a long term plan, which is currently being worked on, so much of Murphy’s criticism is not yet addressed. I think Murphy recognises this in his latest tweet.

So it seems that bit by bit the U.K. has been sold off to the highest bidder. It started with Thatcher and the utilities, and look where that has got us, now the latest batch of Tory idiots are parcelling up whole areas of the U.K. ready to sell off the the highest bidder.

I would be very alarmed if I lived in one of these so called “charter cities”. Even if I’m not economically active, what does it mean for my democratic rights? What happens to everything currently run by the LA? What happens to the schools and hospitals?

This is yet another crises for the ordinary person, that will be tried to be soothed away with yet more weasel words.

I don't think he is getting "all the blame". People have pointed out some of the major flaws in his plan - and I think they're right. The government is beyond the pale in its complacency and I think some were hoping for more from Labour. Of course, Starmer is caught in a trap from both sides - from the Corbyn supporters, who want unrealistic solutions, and the Conservative supporters, who will undermine everything he says. He has to appeal to the "red wall" voters.

Why is Starmer now getting all the blame for all this? Is it because the government were hoping he would come up with a plan that they could then copy?

DaisyAnne

growstuff

You do realise that you're making a personal attack, I assume.

Murphy isn't the only economist criticising Starmer's plans. He makes a number of criticisms, if you read his tweets.

I have made it clear I was giving my thoughts on recent blogs and tweets. Your comment "if you read his tweets" makes me think you are not bothering to read my posts but just replying with your views. That's not discussion.

You don't have to read them. Nor have I suggested you have to agree. You, however, seem to think I must agree with you. My opinion has changed and may change again. That's what an open mind does.

No, I don't think you should agree with me at all. What I do think is that you're making an "ad hominem" attack on Richard Murphy for some reason - maybe he's blocked you from his blog, for all I know. Whatever the reason, maybe you'd care to explain why you think Murphy is wrong.

Apparently, Starmer is going to make a fuller statement today with more details. The plan which has been published so far has a number of flaws, but maybe he's going to address those. Firstly, those individuals with the highest energy bills (who tend to be those with the biggest houses and richer) will benefit most from freezing the current cap. Secondly, he has said nothing about small businesses and organisations such as schools and hospitals. They'll all face horrendous bills and many businesses will cease to trade. Schools and hospitals will have no choice but to make staff redundant.

I too did a lot of reading about these cities - I think calling them Freeport’s gives quite the wrong impression. I read that if you fall foul of the administration you can be asked/made to leave. I have seen nothing about what happens if you own your own house etc - has anybody else knowledge about that?
Let’s face it - if they were a proven good idea they would be bragging about wanting to have more - and we saw how Sunak cares nothing for people who are struggling etc from the speech he gave to people he hopes will support him.

growstuff

You do realise that you're making a personal attack, I assume.

Murphy isn't the only economist criticising Starmer's plans. He makes a number of criticisms, if you read his tweets.

I have made it clear I was giving my thoughts on recent blogs and tweets. Your comment "if you read his tweets" makes me think you are not bothering to read my posts but just replying with your views. That's not discussion.

You don't have to read them. Nor have I suggested you have to agree. You, however, seem to think I must agree with you. My opinion has changed and may change again. That's what an open mind does.

Grace Blakey attacking Starmers plans

m.facebook.com/watch/?v=588523799571245¬if_t=watch_follower_video¬if_id=1660417811593521&ref=m_notif

growstuff

You do realise that you're making a personal attack, I assume.

Murphy isn't the only economist criticising Starmer's plans. He makes a number of criticisms, if you read his tweets.

Where?

You do realise that you're making a personal attack, I assume.

Murphy isn't the only economist criticising Starmer's plans. He makes a number of criticisms, if you read his tweets.

growstuff

No, disliking a person personally doesn't affect my view of his/her opinions or reasoning.

Have you read the well-argued reasons why Murphy thinks Starmer is wrong? Do you have any counter arguments?

If Starmer is doing something wrong, then the Labour Party is doing something wrong; it is not all about one person. Murphy's attitude is the same as only blaming Johnson when the Conservative Party gave him power and voted through everything he wanted.

There is no point in replying to Murphy's Starmer rants. He will not allow it. I am not asking you to let what are, after all, my opinions not yours, affect your view of his economic theories. I have started threads quoting Murphy quite often in the past. As far as I'm aware, I still have the right to express my views on GN. I think it is right to do so when I have brought them to others with a positive state of mind previously.

Starmer may be wrong, but he has his own advisers. Murphy is a Chartered accountant who has done work on Tax and how it works internationally. Others have built up their reputation sufficiently for a University in Australia to agree to run a degree covering MMT. He also works, with others, spreading the word on MMT.

He is not a politician. He is not, therefore, the person I would turn to for a political opinion. I'll make my mind up about that with the help of those I believe to be more knowledgeable about politics when they rehearse their political view.

m.facebook.com/watch/?v=588523799571245¬if_t=watch_follower_video¬if_id=1660417811593521&ref=m_notif

Labour are so scared of having any Corbyn polices and saying government finances like household budget. Factionalism gone mad. Grace Blakey explains

Whitewavemark2

Charter Cities are beginning to look like the East India Company, only this time it will be regions of the U.K. governed by foreign companies.

Good comparison. And look how people lived under their control.

I can’t see where he has attacked him personally on Twitter? Can you enlighten pls?

I can see the point of someone with his views challenging others' views on economic theory and tax. However, he seems to feel he has to attack Starmer personally while saying little about what the government is doing (or not doing).

Have you only read one of Murphy's blogs?

He has been continuously criticising the government for the past six years...

No, disliking a person personally doesn't affect my view of his/her opinions or reasoning.

Have you read the well-argued reasons why Murphy thinks Starmer is wrong? Do you have any counter arguments?

DaisyAnne

Referring back to the OP, I notice Murphy is having another go at Starmer on Twitter.

Isn't it arrogant to expect to be lauded when it comes to what you say in the area where your strengths lie but then attack someone personally whose strengths are in a different area; that of the world of politics? Politics could be an area where Starmer may know a little more than he does.

I can see the point of someone with his views challenging others' views on economic theory and tax. However, he seems to feel he has to attack Starmer personally while saying little about what the government is doing (or not doing).

It does leave me feeling we may be wrong to believe in his view of the economy, although luckily, it is not just him who is putting forward the thinking on MMT.

I do agree with this comment.

Joseanne

I'm not sure what the problem is with politicians taking family holidays over the summer. They need a break at some point. We could live in the hope that a summer holiday might revitalise them?
I think Macron is down south somewhere and he has a lot on his plate politically. (Admittedly he sorted some stuff before he shot off.) And isn't the Italian President sunning himself in the Med despite his PM walking out a week or so ago?

I think it is only the UK politicians that are having angry responses Joseanne for taking a Summer holiday.If they are French or Italian then they are forgiven it does seem.

it does not need Parliament to be recalled.Early September is not far away and the new PM will want to do things his or her way then.

This is Sunak’s baby so those thinking he was the lesser of two evils for PM think again.

I find it not worrying, but horrifying that it can even be considered. This neo liberal on speed idea, of “Charter Cities” has come from, you guessed it, the States. The model for charter cities is I understand for privately owned and operated cities where everything from health, education, police to the legislature and judicial system are not controlled by the state but by a private corporation accountable only to itself.

There are a fair few supporters in government for this model I believe, and it paints a dystopian picture of the future to me where the rich get richer and democracy is out of the window.

I’m hoping someone will now post that I am completely wrong in my view.

There are so many worries I think.

I’m from the West Country so have an interest in the Plymouth one. The area goes almost the whole of Dartmoor. Why on Earth would a company want to own that?

How can a private entity own a National Park?

I was just reeling at the potential complications. Presumably there must be some benefits. They're to be called 'green free ports' up here. Not sure what the implications are for those.