In case you missed it, I’m organising, with Paul Levine at Surrey, a letter to express the anti-Corbyn view, to counter the misleading impression given by the ‘letter of 41’ published in the Guardian. If you are a practising economist and think you might want to sign, contact Paul or I and we will show you a draft. We have 43 so far. Notice that Paul already wrote a letter on the topic, pointing out how misleading the letter of 41 was on the matter of Corbyn’s anti-austerity being ‘mainstream’. The letter was ignored by the Guardian, but I reproduced it in an earlier post.
Recent Comments
Simon Price on Should Mervyn recuse himself f… gardinerams on New piece in Prospect on vacci… Dipper on How a Brexit transition end an… theuxbridgegraduate on Fiscal rules have been rightly… Christine Mcconnell on New Statesman Post on that Cum…
Tony does this mean Pommy economists are Labouring a point!
Unfortunately don’t qualify, but best of luck with this!
The letter seems a little unfair. For one, it’s still hard to know exactly where “Corbynomics” is on that scale you mention. Second, the letter you’re responding to was, I think, making a more general point on austerity anti-austerity. This was in the context of a public debate that has to be on simple terms, and where the main argument against Corbyn is along the lines of, “we must cut the deficit now because the economy is like a household”, so it doesn’t seem an unreasonable point to make.
A fairer letter might say that being “anti-austerity” isn’t crazy economics but that you disagree with what you understand Corbyn’s specific policies to be, although these are not entirely clear yet.
Tony,
I’d be happy to participate. It’s really difficult to get in touch with you, so if you can pop me an email it would be appreciated.
Best
hi, sorry… sent you an email with the letter.
Tony,
you will probably agree that all these professors would have failed an exam asking to discuss benefits and drawbacks of the Corbyn proposals, set out alternatives, and discuss their potential political acceptability, if your letter is all what they had written.
Also, if you start entering the debate, please do so professionally.
That is what we pay you guys for, from the public purse, to be “experts”, So let us have some detailed analysis, which can stand up to scrutiny, based on theories or experience.
So if you have a view, a DETAILED view, let us hear it. Please write a dissertation each on the subject and publish it.
If you just want to tell us you do not agree with some policies and you do not consider these policies mainstream, we are not really that interested, as the general public.
In fact, worse than that, you all come across as a bunch of over-privileged moaning minnies making a minor point what should be a serious debate WITH ACADEMIC RIGOUR about the feasability of some of the ideas discussed by a potential leader of the opposition.
Hi Tony
Would he interested to see, but would need to sign in a personal capacity – the organisation I work for won’t be taking a public position
Hugh
Hi did you mean to respond to the Brexit post ? If so what’s your email?