Whilst I am on the whole tired of memes to do with innovation, it’s time ‘to do things differently’, or time ‘to crack a few eggs to make an omelette.’
Chris Leslie MP’s most recent intervention into why ‘Corbynomics’ wouldn’t work flies in the face of experienced veterans in economics theory and practice. But more worryingly for the Shadow Chancellor of HM’s official position, many members of Labour are now looking for a new leadership to oppose their current one.
Andy Burnham MP’s abstaining against the Welfare Reform Bill looked rather anaemic under the badge of ‘collective responsibility’. Harriet Harman MP is indeed correct to say that opposition cannot be for its own sake, but Jeremy Corbyn MP offers one major big deal in the opposition to current neoliberal policies.
That is the opposition to austerity. With the deficit still a massive problem and in no way ‘fixed’ by the current Government (like the way debt is not fixed), it is easy to argue correctly that austerity has become an important ideological tool to ‘shrink the state’. This shrinking of the state can be seen in all manner of aspects of life, whether this be in outsourcing of justice, or the relentless social care funding cuts (as they are not officially integrated with the NHS budget which is ‘ringfenced’ in a manner of speaking).
Liz Kendall MP’s big selling point is that you can only be electable if you don’t look economically competent and responsible. My overall suspicion is that Kendall is not as right-wing as people say, in that Corbyn is not in fact as left wing as people say. Kendall has done a monumentally awful job in pitching a vision for the future.
But take a second look at Andy Burnham MP. Burnham can successfully argue his way out of any awkward situation – when asked whether he is Blairite or Brownite, he says triumphantly that he is Labour – loyal to all leaders. This also includes being loyal to Corbyn, crucially.
Quite early in the last parliament, Burnham identified correctly the fiasco in social care spending, and how this would impact on the NHS in an adverse way (for example in A&E crises or delayed discharges). I previously have not heard Burnham campaign on the unique offerings that social care can offer, other than ‘to bail out’ the NHS. I hope this can change, if Burnham is determined to bring in a National Health and Care Service.
Burnham is of course ‘fudging’ it when he says that a Commission might look at the funding of this – it’s common knowledge that many conceive as this as being funded through a mandatory social insurance system. And the Barker Commission from the King’s Fund has already produced suggestions.
But this would indeed be a ‘vision’ which people could get around, provided that the vision were communicated well. What is not so clear is Burnham’s ‘vision’ on future salaries of nurses, the way in which ISPS of TTIP will be negotiated in future, or how to recalibrate.
We do know that these are all issues dear to the heart of Corbyn, being a ‘solid union man’ – but it is hard as yet to know what the future of a Corbynworld would be here. A high return means a high level of risk for a certain investment; the possibility is that Corbyn is worse than Foot or Miliband and so on, but on the other hand he could be just the tonic to reach out to UKIP, SNP or Green voters.
Also, Corbyn has something sensible to say on most things, whether it’s selling off RBS shares at an undervalue, or the travesty of new builds in London going to foreign investors who need to be providing ‘clean money’.
I suspect Yvette Cooper MP won’t be the one. I see her as the Ed Balls candidate. She might win by doing the least badly, but this is not a win.
And I don’t think anyone gives too-hoots about how Jeremy Corbyn MP eats a bacon butty.