ECONOMISTS have written to the Financial Times (FT) complaining that the newspaper published “misconceptions and inaccuracies” in criticising Labour’s economic proposals in its series The Corbyn Revolution.

More than 80 professors and civil society leaders co-signed a letter, published by the FT, in response to what the business newspaper described as its “in-depth analysis” of Corbynomics.

Earlier this week, the FT took aim at Labour’s plans, including a proposal to transfer of shares worth £300 billion to workers in 7,000 big companies and another to allow private tenants to buy their home from their landlord at below-market prices.

The economists’ letter says: “It is a category error to suggest a mechanism such as an inclusive ownership fund would ‘cost’ companies or that the state will ‘seize’ shares.

“The proposal neither reduces the book value of corporate entities nor requires them to pay cash out.

“By requiring firms to issue new shares and give them to a mutual fund — mirroring the accepted practice of issuing shares for executive compensation — it ensures instead that workers share in the wealth they create.

“Since 2008, the UK economy has again been failing, with today’s political crisis one of the consequences. This is precisely the time when bold ideas are needed from all political parties.”

In an editorial published on Thursday, the newspaper claimed that Labour’s agenda was “untried and radical” and would “destroy investor confidence and usher in economic disaster.”

Despite criticising many of Labour’s plans, the FT admitted that Margaret Thatcher’s policies were “often brutal,” led to increased inequality and that successive governments had been forced to reverse some of her privatisations.

The editorial continued: “[Labour’s] goal is to undo much of the Thatcherite revolution of the 1980s, which curbed the power of the unions and privatised many state assets, by means of its own revolutionary project.

“Margaret Thatcher’s policies, while often brutal, led to a necessary shift in the balance of power between labour and capital that helped deliver stronger economic growth and rescue Britain from relative decline.

“Outsourcing of vital state services has brought mixed results and sometimes scandal — Theresa May’s government was forced to renationalise the probation service this year.

“Many legitimate questions remain over how formerly state-owned utilities, especially the water companies, are regulated. Britain also experienced a sharp rise in inequality after the Thatcher-era reforms.

“Deindustrialisation and anger with growth that left many behind has helped fuel political alienation.”