With every prospect of a Labour government in Britain in 2024 – and if the Tories have the nous to play the long game, a whole lot sooner – let me begin with the two quotes which ended my post yesterday, Two ways Hunt can “balance the books”.
The first was from the World Socialist Website …
Truss’s replacement will be expected to restore confidence in the UK economy by savaging the working class. And if the Tories cannot fix their mess to the satisfaction of the financial oligarchy, the Labour Party promises to step in …
… the second is from a BTL comment by bevin on this site:
The natural political division in the UK right now is between Blairism and Socialism. Truss is not the first Tory PM to dissolve on contact, she is the fourth in less than a decade. The Tory ‘brand’ is no longer fit for purpose – Blairism serves the ruling class far better. And when it is opposed by Toryism it is unbeatable because the only alternative is a clumsier version of itself.
Now let me replicate yet another post from Richard Murphy. It appeared on his Tax Research UK site yesterday. While the professor never goes far enough in his critiques of a rotten status quo – not to my satisfaction he doesn’t; nor to that of WSWS and bevin – the ground he does cover usually gets my vote. Indeed, I’ve said in the past, only half jokingly, that this Quaker who eschews revolution – as do I, though for reasons more pragmatic than principled – sometimes advances demands of which Leon Trotsky would approve.
Here’s Professor Murphy yesterday, on Labour’s toxic love affair with voodoo economics:
We can do much better than this
I posted this on Twitter this morning, in response to the usual supposedly left-of-centre anti-MMT crowd who think it their job to point out that the left must be beholden to markets by whom Labour seems to have been captured. Their attacks have been aimed at both me and [BBC financial journalist] Andy Verity.
Supposedly left-of-centre economists are queueing up to prove their pro-City credentials on Twitter right now, making implicitly clear that they have no idea how to tackle the crises we face and must instead bow to the City and accept austerity and homelessness.
Nothing surprises me about this. If you accept that bond markets must be obeyed, as they do, of course they think they must jump to the City’s tune.
They accept the rule of the bond market because they refuse to accept QE cancels government debt, when it undoubtedly does, and that this puts government money creation in the economic driving seat.
Instead, they buy the Treasury line that QE is just temporary bond holding by the state, which is nonsense, the world over. As a result, these people will blow in the wind the markets generate, even if that means austerity.
My fear is that these people have the ear of Labour, who seem to already share these views. Their lack of willing to think outside the conventions of neoliberal economics, to which they subscribe, will as surely condemn us to austerity as the Tories do.
If anyone thinks I am going to live with this madness any more than I was willing to live with the madness of Tufton Street, then they are seriously mistaken. Austerity from Labour will be no better than Tory austerity.
If austerity is what these people will deliver (even if they say that’s not their aim) I will oppose it because we do not need it. The left has to do much better than this, as does Labour. If they don’t millions will suffer.
And I promise, we can do much better than this.