The Guardian carries a letter this morning from a range of economists, many of whom I have crossed swords with, supporting Labour's economic policy.
That Simon Wren-Lewis, Joe Stiglitz and Tony Yates, plus former deputy governor of the Bank of England Charlie Bean, might do so is no surprise. They are establishment economists supporting a party offering decidedly establishment policy, with which I am in significant disagreement. They might wish to cooperate with a potential government with a significant majority simply because it will have power. I am not.
I was much more surprised to find Marianna Mazzucato on the list. Labour's policies appear far from those that she has proposed.
And why Danny Blanchflower is there, I do not know. I tweeted this in response to that:
I will not be compromising on my belief that Labour is offering a disaster to this country.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Yes, I am very surprised and disappointed to see DB and Mazzucato there.
I suspect most of them believe/hope that Labour will abandon the substance of the fiscal rules nonsense once they gain power. It will be interesting to see if Labour has the political sense to do that. Abandoning those rules is almost a condition of a second term in office. Starmer will desperately want that 2nd term. We could have interesting times ahead.
I agree with you, and I don’t understand why they are taking this route.
It is a surprise – especially Mazzucato and Blanchflower . I suppose they might be thinking there are still enough gaps in what Labour says its committed to – but why didnt they say even if Labour might offer more hope than the Tories – but only if they…. do more – and refer to some of your TW points..
Only Greens and Reform have had the temerity to say what level of investment in NHS etc is needed –
I wonder who organised this group letter.
Why contact David Blanchflower on a public forum like twitter? Why not call him privately for a proper chat? Or are you just courting publicity?
I am making my disagreement clear given we have been publicly associated and co-authored
Are you sure that Jonathan Portes signed that letter? It’s a bit of a slur to call him an establishment economist supporting establishment policy for something he didn’t say.
That’s just my opinion.
Wrong Portes
Post corrected
But he is most definitely Labour establishment, along with Simon Wren-Lewis
The letter is positioning – sucking up to LINO – to get a comfy advisory job…using the vernacular “gizz a job”.
It reflects very badly on the economists that signed the letter and erodes their credibility.
What the letter says is “I’m available for use”.
Regular readers of SImon Wren-Lewis’s blog might well come to that conclusion.
Are there any economists coming out in support of the Conservatives?
That would be ‘interesting’.
I think you are being niave, RM, probably for emotional reasons. LINO is a big boat sailing under false colours, but to paraphrase the immortal Eric Cantona, there will always be those that chase in the wake hoping for mackerel to be thrown overboard. Equally, not all those one sees as allies turn out to be when it gets to ‘ey lads, ‘ey (as we northerners say).
Just thinking about this again – maybe we should be really clear about why we may or may not prefer and Labour Government to what we have now.
Im sure that Mazzucato and Blanchflower – would agree with Richard and most of the commentators here – that Labours offical economic thinking makes no sense. It is colluding with the media-imposed narrative that ‘there is no money’ – as with this morning’s Today programme garbling on yet again about debt being’ 90% of GDP ‘ with a ban on asking who the hell this is owed to (ourselves?) and when , or indeed whether it will need to be repaid.
If Labour is in government this will be dealing with a pretty immediate crisis – but we need to be clear , that although Labour seem to go along with neoliberal economics as do most parties contesting this election – getting rid of the Tories is an essential first step. I wish the letter had said they would prefer to wrestle with Labours economics than the Tories – rather saying Labour have a ‘credible’ econoimc plan.
I don’t sign statements I don’t agree with
It’s a useful rule in life
It is indeed a useful rule – but if the Guardian is to be believed https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/21/labour-drafts-options-for-wealth-taxes-to-unlock-funds-for-public-services there maybe already some movement – in Labour’s ‘there is no money’ stance.
They will have no option but to find money.
Have hey been reading the Taxing Wealth Report?
I too was disappointed at first, but we do also need some people trying to steer labour in the right direction who have some potential of getting inside the tent.
Though I appreciate your approach as well. Both are likely needed.