Mazzucato, Weber, Galbraith, Milanovich, Stiglitz, Sen.... but you're right, 'high-profile'
leftist economists don't trip off the tongue.

Dearth of talent, economics a closed shop, something else?

Isn't this symptomatic? Mansion tax sticking plaster instead of addressing the rates system? Etc.

Instead of taking a step back to see what multiple changes are required to make a system work, they zoom right in so they can announce they did 'a thing'. They're just not officer material.

All true, but wasn't Labour prioritising 'short term management' over 'long term legacy' the pre-election faustian choice – ability to govern traded for guaranteed victory?

And if a furore over a budget was always extremely likely, are Labour culpable of paving the way for PM Farage?

Labour's cast iron promise to balance budgets without raising taxes and ending Tory cuts was never remotely realistic.

Whether breathtaking incompetence or lying to get elected, it's a crime that they've reinforced Reform's claim of 'they're all the same'.

Yes. The OBR is obliged to accept what the government tells them in good faith.

But even so, as OBR forecasts are only guesstimates they should be taken with a pinch of salt.

If forecasts project past data forward and the economy is going south, mathematically OBR forecasts will overshoot.

And as you say, what if grannies freeze, or Trump kick's off (or oil is found in Peckham)? Technocratic decision making can't factor in future empirical/ethical/political unknowns.

For people 'to save' more, money must come (be created) somewhere else. 🤔

Truly frightening times when 'centrists' casually come out with this stuff.

Is he suggesting Germany needs to address the 'stock' of immigrants. 😳

Their campaign (end Tory cuts, no tax rises and balanced budgets) was always undeliverable.

The crime is saying any old bollocks to get elected further undermines the legitimacy of liberal democracy and makes a Reform government more likely.

So ruffling their hair as 'boys will be boys'?

As all things to all men Ming vase strategy (balancing budget without tax hikes or more cuts) was always likely to fail, the ultimate question was always, who would be the human sacrifice? Can kicking to protect markets + electorate for now, stores more trouble for later? Only themselves to blame.

We have gone from get rid of the Tories because the economy is objectively awful, to if change means Reform, objectively, you've never had it so good?

Good call! Preferably accompanied by glühwein before I 'rest my eyes for a minute'.

Just to be contentious, never really got panettone.

Being half german stollen is the way to go, or even plain old tea brack is preferable. But each to their own. Enjoy!🙂

Whilst all true, didn't the Ming vase highlight the win at all costs game theory approach, *before* Labour were elected?

Apart from an occasional raised eyebrow, I remember most of these commentators (who've read their Rawls, Mill etc.) commending Starmer for his hardnosed savvy?

Ditto about economic pluralism.

What grates is those who purport to be interested in ideas (because incremantal change won't cut it?) who in the next breath mock others for departing from whatever TINA world view.

100%. But I notice that many who now say, 'hey man let's discuss ideas' are the ones who cry 'burn the heretic!' if anyone departs from orthoxy?

Which comes to your debate point. Are people open to different ideas and do they engage them in good faith?

No argument from me on the competance front.

But, for instance, those from an ethics or complex systems world view think there are big problems with econ 101.

My point is that the commentators who call for debating of ideas are invariably the first to shut down those who depart from orthodoxy?

True, but as disagreeing with mainstream economics is like the emperors new clothes, politicians go through the motions rather than risk derision.

Agree or disagree, Burnham and Polanki were pilloried for suggesting kowtowing to bond markets isn't the be all and end all. Can't have it both ways.