Andy Burnham says he wants to break with the failed neoliberal economics that have damaged Britain for decades. He talks about public ownership, reindustrialisation, regional investment and rebuilding public services. But does his programme actually deliver any of those things?
In this video, I look in detail at what Burnham is really proposing, and whether it amounts to genuine economic change or simply a softer version of the same failed system.
I argue that Burnham's model of “public ownership” often looks remarkably similar to the regulatory framework that already failed in the water industry. Thames Water, sewage dumping, dividend extraction and infrastructure collapse all happened under systems of public regulation combined with private ownership.
At the same time, Burnham says he would still obey Rachel Reeves' fiscal rules. That means accepting the same Treasury constraints that have blocked serious public investment for decades.
So can you really challenge neoliberalism while reassuring the bond markets, protecting fiscal rules and refusing to confront the power of finance?
This video examines the contradictions at the heart of Burnham's programme and asks whether Labour still has any real alternative to the economic model that created Britain's current crisis.
This is the audio version:
The Debate Ammunition for this video is in a PDF here.
This is the transcript:
Andy Burnham is making a serious bid to reframe Labour's economic direction as part of his leadership campaign. Now, that leadership campaign might fail because Reform might well beat him in his bid to return to parliament, but we do need to look at what he is saying nonetheless.
He is promoting public ownership, reindustrialisation and regional devolution. The pitch is deliberately placed between Corbynism and Rachel Reeves-style austerity-light neoliberalism, and he presents this as a challenge to the neoliberal model that has failed Britain.
This challenge deserves to be examined seriously. So let's look at what he's actually proposing and whether his economics stack up.
The core argument that Andy Burnham is making is that privatised water, energy, and transport have failed the public. Thames Water, sewage in rivers and unaffordable bills are his evidence for making that claim, and of course, he's right. Those things have happened. Thames Water has failed. So he says, bringing services under public control would change all that.
The diagnosis of failure is correct. The privatisation model has demonstrably failed. But the question is not whether privatisation has not worked because it hasn't. The question is whether what Andy Burnham is proposing is genuinely different. This is where I have my problems.
Burnham uses the term ‘public ownership' as a broad umbrella term covering very many different arrangements.
In some sectors, he means direct state ownership of assets.
In others, he means franchising, which is what is happening with regard to Greater Manchester buses.
In other areas, he means a regulated private operation under public planning frameworks, which is exactly what is happening in water now.
Owning assets, controlling prices, operating services, and bearing financial risks are not, however, all the same thing, and he routinely collapses these distinctions, and that is not an accident on his part. It is a deliberate political choice that he is creating to leave the public confused as to what he really means.
The important point to note is that the water industry has operated under exactly the model that Andy Burnham is describing, and it has done so for decades.
Ofwat set prices, it monitored investment, and was supposed to protect the public interest. Companies retained private ownership, but operated under public regulatory control, and that regulatory framework is the template that Andy Burnham is now holding up as an alternative to privatisation, even though it was precisely this model that produced Thames Water, sewage discharges, and billions of extracted dividends in the private water companies. The model he is promoting has already been comprehensively tested, and it has failed.
The water sector proved that regulatory oversight cannot substitute for genuine public control. Shareholders still extracted value. Investment was deferred, and regulators could not stop it. Ofwat had formal powers, but lacked the structural authority to prevent asset stripping, and when the model collapsed, as it has, the public has been left bearing the cost, as Thames Water now very clearly shows.
Franchising and licensing create the appearance of public control without the substance to deliver. Burnham's spectrum of ownership models reproduces this exactly, and it incorporates all the structural weaknesses that we've already seen happening.
And even more catastrophically, despite all of this, Andy Burnham is explicitly saying he would observe Rachel Reeves' fiscal rules. He's publicly said so now, and they created the failed outcome he says he wants to address. Those rules tightly limit what the government can borrow and invest. Accepting them as he says he will means accepting the Treasury's definition of what is economically permissible. This is not a break from neoliberalism, then. It is neoliberalism with a regional planning layer added, at best.
You cannot build a serious public investment programme inside these constraints. The fiscal framework he accepts makes much or most of his agenda very difficult to deliver. He's not serious in that case, or he is revealing a serious lack of economic comprehension, and either of those situations is deeply politically dangerous for a man who wants to lead the Labour Party and the country.
And all the while, Andy Burnham is careful to reassure financial markets that there will be no fiscal rupture between him and Rachel Reeves. They can carry on believing that the world will continue as they want, and that reassurance is not a minor qualification; it is structurally central to his whole pitch.
It means private capital retains the power to set the limits of what the government can do. Investment plans will always be ultimately shaped by what the bond markets say they will tolerate. And this is precisely the constraint that has blocked transformative policy since the 1970s in this country.
Calling this programme a challenge to neoliberalism is, as a result, a serious overstatement of the economic truth. Reindustrialisation, mass social housing, and infrastructure investment of the sort that Andy Burnham talks about require serious money. But borrowing for investment or higher taxes are not mentioned by Burnham. We must assume the fiscal rules will constrain his spending then.
And most especially with regard to taxation, there is no proposal for serious tax reform. Wealth taxation is not mentioned. There is no discussion of closing corporate tax abuses and the enormous amount not paid by smaller companies in this country. And there is no discussion of the issues I raised in my Taxing Wealth Report; we'll put a link in down below.
The revenue base he works from is the same austerity-era settlement he claims to oppose. A productive state cannot be built on a fiscal framework designed to limit state activity, which is what we have given that he still believes that tax funds government spending, even though we know it doesn't. The funding gap at the heart of his programme is then left entirely unaddressed, and that will act as a constraint even though we know that tax need not impose such limitations on any government's plans.
Despite the talk of a foundational economy, then, in what Burnham has to say, implying real social purpose to his programme, growth remains its central organising goal. Reindustrialisation, productivity and regional development are all growth-framed devices. Social needs, such as tackling poverty, inequality, care, and the adequacy of public services, are all largely absent from anything he has to say. Reducing household costs appears on his agenda, but as an economic efficiency argument and not as a social one.
A genuinely transformative programme starts from needs and asks how the economy can serve them. Burnham's programme starts from growth and hopes social benefit will follow from it. We're back to trickle-down yet again, then, and that has failed for decades.
He cannot beat Reform like this because he will not challenge any of the reasonable grievances that people who are voting for that party now have. He is instead entirely ignoring them, and that is no basis for him getting back to Parliament. Unless he talks about what the people of his new constituency want, he cannot win there, and he won't be the leader of the Labour Party, and all these grand plans that he currently possesses will come to nothing. And that's because he is accepting neoliberalism's core claim that growth is the measure of economic success.
Burnham is not questioning that. He is simply arguing for a different route to the same destination. He does not ask what we are growing, for whom, or at what social and environmental cost. A post-neoliberal economics should challenge that growth imperative, but he is not doing that; he's just arguing that he will manage it better. And on this, the deepest question and challenge that he faces, Burnham's programme is silent. That silence is not incidental. It defines the limits of what he's actually proposing.
So the contradictions at the heart of his programme are that he diagnoses privatisation correctly, but proposes a variant of the same regulatory model as his solution.
He calls for public investment, but accepts the fiscal rules that prevent it at scale.
And he reassures the city while claiming to challenge the power of finance.
At the same time, he uses the language of social purpose, but ignores everything but economic growth.
Each element of this programme undermines at least one other element in that case. This is not a coherent exercise in political economy, then; it's a series of positions that cannot all be held at once, but that is what Andy Burnham is trying to do.
In conclusion, then, Andy Burnham's rhetoric is more progressive than that of Rachel Reeves, but that is now a very low bar indeed.
His public ownership model has already been tried in the water industry, and it has comprehensively failed.
His fiscal commitments constrain his investment ambitions before they can even begin, and social need is subordinated to growth in a way that cannot be genuinely transformative, and that is what we require.
And meanwhile, the City remains the silent but decisive constraint on everything he proposes.
Until he breaks with those structural limits, this is a rebranding of the existing settlement and not an alternative to it, and Labour itself is not addressing any of the failures on which Reform is building its foundations in that case.
No wonder people doubt whether Burnham can win. I do have that doubt.
But that's my opinion. What is yours? There's a poll down below. Share your comments, and we will try to read as many of them as we can. Share this video; we'd appreciate it if you do. Like it, if you want to, because that helps us with YouTube, and if you would like to support our channel, please do by making a donation. They do make these videos possible.
Poll
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
When I read that Burnham would stick to Reeves fiscal rules, this morning, it just underlined that he would be delivering more of the same, as you said. Neoliberal.
Just wearing different clothes.
He’s a good man is Andy. Productivity growth in Greater Manchester since he became regional mayor has surged ahead. Chris Boardman has made it a great place to cycle for a large conurbation. Burnham has not surrounded himself with cronies living in lanyard class at the public expense. Contrast that with the massive rise in Deputy Mayors in London, and the influence of the lawyered-up class in Sir Keir Starmer’s team.
The people of Makerfield are not asking for perfect, they’ll just be voting for less bad and they’ve got a good choice on the ballot.
I’m not saying he is bad.
I am just saying he is neoliberal.
Oh, hang on a minute….
“they’ll just be voting for less bad”…….and thus it comes to this.. voting for an apologist for neo-libtardism, to join all the other imbecilic apologists in the HoC – waiting for their pay-off from the neo-libtards (a nice position here or there). What Burnham proposes is a bit more regulation – not public ownership. A bit more regulation has not worked for 36 years – given Burnham thinks it will – this makes him an imbecile.
But let’s see what the markets think. You can currently buy Thames Water bonds – a £100 bond is currently selling for £7 – that’s what the market thinks of Thames Water. But hey – bit more regulation according to Andy. It is beyond pathetic. I would not employ Bunrham as a door opener. He made a couple of minor improvements in Manchester – that’s all. & if he was so good – what happened in the recent by-election when LINO came 3rd?
I am sick and tired of these LINO ciphers with their “there there it will be all right – steady as she goes – the good ship UK-Neo-Libtard” with the moron Reeves @ the helm.
I see no evidence that he appreciates that running the UK, a sovereign state with a fiat currency and a central bank, is fundamentally different from running a large metropolitan area with a finite set budget from Westminster. The UK is NOT a large version of Manchester metro area.
If a potential PM (of ANY party) doesn’t get THAT, then I’m not interested.
You are right
They are not fundamentally different.
The real constraints are on resources, access to human capital, minerals, energy, under-employed labour, the ability to liberalise to allow those things to come together and generate network effects etc
Being able to print money does not change that. This is basic MMT and you are fundamentally wrong, sorry.
Don’t be daft.
Robert is right.
Manchester is a money user, nut a money creator.
Burnham is obviously signalling over our heads to those who really rule us – the establishment (finance, rentiers, handmaidens selling our assets to U.S. /EU investors) – that he won’t be threat to the status quo whilst hoping to get some sort of traction with the voter. It is a strange game, not very convincing and begins with a corrupted politics anyway. We might have some incrementalism out of it, a bit quicker than Sir Stymied but fundamentally it will still be a lot less than we need is my view.
What we need is what you allude to strongly above – a complete overhaul of our politics.
He obviously thinks we’re all imbeciles. Some people will fall for it, and some will vote for him, settling for the less bad option, which just shows how low we’ve sunk in terms of expectations.
Definitely agree he’s signalling over our heads to those that matter to these people.
I hear what you are saying, but under our electoral system Labour are in power and understanding their constitutional rules there is nobody within the PLP who doesn’t support neoliberalism who stands a chance of becoming leader. Andy Burnham does have a track record of relationship building and cross party working. I would hope that he would bring people like Clive Lewis into his cabinet and maybe Ed Milliband as Chancellor, who has to be significantly better than Rachel Reeves.
Yes neoliberalism is a big problem but so is the growing inequality divide seen particularly starkly in our post industrial communities. You can argue the two are intertwined, but nothing happening in Westminster is currently making any difference to those at the bottom. Things like affordable integrated good quality public transport is relatively cheap to implement and does directly improve the quality of lives of such communities. Blair was neoliberal, but that didn’t stop a massive investment into public services taking the NHS to record satisfaction levels and building the Sure Start network. It’s downfall was the reliance on PFI which we are still paying for, but it was better than the current situation where the NHS in Devon is actively shedding clinical staff because of financial constraints despite desperate need.
We’ll have to disagree. Burnham is a continuity candidate now Starmer’s masters are no longer backing him.
Maybe, but given the constraints that Labour are in control and the PLP is extremely unlikely to elect a left winger like Clive Lewis, what are the legal options? We certainly don’t want a general election now when Reform might still win.
Other parties
Who are Starmers masters?
If they own Starmer won’t they own Burnham or anyone else as well?
Look ar Mandelson and McSweeney and Josh Simons.
And yes, they own Burnham already
They made the seat possible.
Who is “they” though???
“but under our electoral system Labour are in power”… are they? Does not look like it to me. Looks like – zero substantive diff from the Tories. The ONLY thing LINO is doing is preparing the ground for Deform & ensuring that they are wiped out. They deserve it. The totality of the cabinet are a combo of zionists and neo-libtards, there is not one person that is recognisably human = somebody that you could have a chat with and find some common ground. The UK is heading for a fascist government becuase of LINO, becuase of imbeciles like Burnham. Once Starmer got in power, the electoral rules (who could stand as leader) were changed t0 prevent any change (= don’t want another Corbyn!). That tells you all you need to know about LINO, Burnham and what will happen in 2029. Goodbye UK, it is being destroyed by the likes of Burnham.
Given Clive Lewis’s serious campaign against the water companies, I can’t see him being at all happy with Andy Burnham’s proposals.
I can understand why Burnham chose franchising for the Bee Network, it reduced the opposition from the Bus Companies and saved the complications and expense of setting up a large municipal operator from scratch.
But there are not many Companies who can compete for these franchises – or for that matter most other contracts let be Local and National Government and of course as Polly Toynbee pointed put many years ago as they dont operate any of these things themselves any more they dont have any idea what they should be paying for these contracts or whats actually needed.
What we are ending up with is a layer of shareholders who have to be paid being inserted into everything.
Agreed
If memory serves me right, the Tories ( Thatcher’s government) also passed legislation that forbids local authorities to set up bus companies.
That might explain why Burnham found it convenient to franchise the Gtr Manchester bus network.
Metro Mayors now DO have the power to run bus services. But amazingly, few have decided to do so. In WECA, our new Labour Metro Mayor, (an improvement on suspended MP Dan Norris) has recently decided NOT to use those powers.
Compare this…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy41ll4rl0jo
with this..
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/%27Not+a+priority%27+Weca+Mayor+cools+hopes+of+bus+franchising+in+region.-a0875487254
& https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/reform-buses-taking-over-dan-10420178
(same old LabourLINO story – vague hopeful noises then the fudge. Another few years wasted, while they plan a huge private construction contract for a tram system in 10 years time, but fail to grasp the nettle of bus franchising which she could do NOW.)
Of course, I’d prefer full public ownership when government enables and invests in it.
Thank you
What a fraud!
Doesn’t matter which Labour bigwig you vote for Neoliberalism will get back in
It’s like being back in 1980s when men spouted feminism to get into your knickers.
Public control and not public ownership. Burnham is a labour moderate. He chooses his words carefully. The labour left know he is not one of them. And the anti-labour rightwing media know that he is not one of them either. Burnham’s strong points are his willingness to talk about the problems of UK local politics. The Westminster FPTP system does not work. The downside is with Burnham is the same for many labour leaders. The unwillingness to talk about the failures of the UK National economy. I have some hope for Burnham but I have very little evidence to convince those who are skeptical. And perhaps I should be too. He is someone who is not massively going to change the UK political outlook. Someone who has more political experience than Starmer. Someone who knows he has made mistakes.
I certainly have quite a few reservations about Andy Burnham and you are right to critique his statements, Richard. At the same time, he must know both that the existing system of water ownership and regulation doesn’t work, and that people know that and are utterly fed up with it. And there is no doubt based on his record in Greater Manchester (where I live) that he has been successful in making changes that voters are happy with, so in that sense he is a canny operator with good political nous (unlike Keir Starmer). Because of all that, personally I would be surprised if he ended up proposing little change in the water system … but we shall see. He is certainly keeping his options open while signalling change (which from the point of view of being politically effective has a lot to commend it, I think).
Given the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the now certain economic turmoil that Richard has already discussed ( https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/05/16/this-could-be-as-bad-as-1929-and-maybe-very-much-worse/ ) it seems to me that, should Andy Burnham follow the policies he is now promulgating, the UK will simply cease to function as country.
We need a leader who can correctly diagnose the problems the country faces and the produce viable plans to provide for the whole population, from the bottom up. I have been wondering who, of those available, could meet the likely job specification. Is there anyone? I’ve drawn a blank irrespective of political party.
If there is someone then that name needs to be placed front and centre in the public domain.
Owen Jones in the Guardian, seems remarkably tolerant of Burnham – although he is concerned ‘about the firmness of his ideological commitments.'<p>
If Burnham is now entangled with the Labour Together conspirators – and has some kind of deal with Josh Simons – who was sacked in part because he tried to get the security services to target journalist Paul Holden – then there isn’t much hope<p>
John McDonnell is in despair at the prospect of Wes Streeting taking the Labour leadership – so maybe Burnham might get it as the least bad option.<p>
What a mess
I do not get Greens tacitly supporting Burnham
Burnham wants to get elected in a Leave-voting seat, so he’s ruling out EU membership. A key means to benefit the country, gone.
He wants finance sector support, so he’s maintaining the fiscal rules. The chance to improve employment prospects, repair crumbling infrastructure, and support an ailing industrial base, gone.
He doesn’t want to appear to leftist on ownership of utilities. So he proposes public oversight over public ownership of utilities. The chance to improve environmental conditions and reduce households expenses, gone.
Burnham is clearly not the leftist candidate.
The question is whether Labour seek to beat Reform by being more like Reform (a fools errand), or whether they can produce a redistributive, optimistic vision which supports average households and builds on increases in minimum wage and improving workers rights while recognising attacks on disability benefits were not justifiable.
The Iran war offered the perfect justification to temper fiscal rules, to increase spending on infrastructure projects and spending to supports employment and growth. If it targeted higher-rate pension contributions, BoE rates, quantitiative tightening, windfall profits, taxation of unearned income, etc, and spent this on cost of living, infrastructure projects and job creation (including grants to SMEs rather than large enterprises) then we could see real change. Labour’s support could then turn around.
Of course, that would involve someone to the left of the party, plus an unexpected willingness to stand up to the financial markets and compliant press. That may not happen, but a loss by Burnham to Reform would be a strong nudge in that direction.
Those trying to collapse Labour may push them towards sufficient change to regain a chunk of support while still having enough time to be noticed before a general election. Reform may lose whatever the by-election result.
You say Burnham “wants finance sector support”. Why? We need a government that will stand up to the finance sector. We are people, we need to be treated as such, with respect. The finance sector has the notion that it’s more important than (say) care professionals or teachers or creative thinkers. It needs to be disabused of that idea.
Jamie Driscoll absolutely nails it – https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19ABExQqvy/
Agreed.
I like Jamie.
It’s a brilliant article. Jamie speaks a lot of sense. He’d make a brilliant business secretary in a future Green/Progressive coalition led government.
LINO is a failed party. Its cannot and will not deliver a fairer or caring country. It has completely sold out all of is progressive policies and people. To be frank and honest, it is a rotting corpse and as such is past resuscitation. Burnham is huffing and puffing (be clear, that is all it is). If he was serious about change and he really cared he would be vociferously challenging the status-quo namely Neoliberalism and Deform. Note, this byelection has been specifically chosen to provide the country with its next Prime Minister – so where is the Leadership material? The best result would be another Green win,
This is why Water and all utilities need to be brought into public ownership and control. This follows on too from Richards piece on the City yesterday. There are too many LINO links with City and US billionaires!!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/may/19/billionaire-trump-donor-in-line-to-make-millions-from-thames-water-bid
Owen Jones interviewed James Meadway (link below), who also questioned the soundness of Andy Burnham’s economic programme and whether it will address the real problems. However, this is my slightly sly way of flagging that Meadway might be referring to Richard (see around 17 minutes into the video) where he refers to the dangers of people around Zack Polanski advising that money can be made available by government to tackle the problems. I’m sorry to raise it but felt that it really deserves a response, preferably with Owen interviewing Richard – sorry to suggest more work!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFOp3NYydQ8
Agreed. I posted this on Richard’s YouTube video yesterday (not sure if he saw it as he didn’t reply): ichard, I’ve just watched today’s Owen Jones video where he talks to James Meadway about Andy Burnham’s economics where they sadly agreed that Burnham was wrong to talk about the government being in hock to the bond markets because it it pushed up bond prices, leading to higher interest rates, inflation etc (the usual neoliberal story) I posted the following comment (forgive me if my brief summary of your MMT inspired economics of care is not without errors): ‘Owen please invite Richard Murphy on to explain why James Meadway is totally wrong when it comes to challenging neoliberalism, controlling the bond markets, and increasing public spending. I urge you and everybody watching this video to also watch Richard Murphy’s video, posted this morning: ‘Why Andy Burnham’s Economics are Deeply Flawed. There are also excellent videos critiquing Meadway’s strange combination of Marxist and neoliberal theory. Zack and the Greens need to challenge the neoliberal orthodoxy that has ruled Western economies since the days of Thatcher and Reagan that has led to ever growing inequality and unchecked growth in wealth and power for the billionaire class across the world. Modern Monetary Theory exposes how public finances really work and MMT deniers like Meadway are making it more difficult for Polanski and the Greens to fight for economic policies that will release a future government from the neoliberal, market dominated straight jacket and bring an end to austerity and inequality of wealth and power.’ I hope Owen responds by inviting you onto his video (or perhaps you could invite him onto yours!)
Thank you, Richard, for an interesting critique. You may well be right. But I am curious to know on what documents or speeches you base your analysis of Burnham plans. You don’t mention any, other than by implication Burnham speech in which he affirms he will stick with the fiscal rules. But where does he articulate his vision of public ownership? And what other texts or evidence are you basing your understanding of Burnhamomics? Thanks
I looked at widely available information, what has happened in Manchester and recent comments. Anyone should be able to recognise that. If you can’t you are being wilfully blind.
That’s not a very friendly response, especially to a first time reader of your blog/channel who has appreciated your work on tax justice issues for years. I was merely asking a genuine and fair question about your sources, not so much to challenge you but out of a desire to know where I could find your evidence and make up my own mind. Is that not a fair thing for your readers to request? For that to generate an accusation that I must be wilfully blind is quite rude, and certainly doesn’t increase my trust in your scholarship. Do you expect your readers to accept your positions on faith? What a shame…
Alan K
Burnham is a shape shifter. I well remember the 2015 leadership election hustings, when all candidates spoke the same soundbite drivel, until it cam to Jeremy Corbyn, who sounded completely different. It was obvious to me at that time that Corbyn had something. What was also interesting in subsequent hustings, while all the other candidates, with the exception of Burnham, could not see how well Jeremy was coming across, Burnham was the one who tacked left. I believe he will say what you want to hear, whether he believes it or not.
Much to agree with
I read an article by Paul Knaggs at Labour Heartlands yesterday regarding the City of London and its machinations. Unless politicians and others have the guts to stand up to the banks and extreme wealth, then we will continue to be ‘stuffed’ at every turn. William the Conk had the vision back in 1067, before a democratic system was dreamed up, to make the rich and powerful untouchable, so it’s only been going on for nearly 900 years. Does A. Burnham have the guts to stand up and be counted a la Corbyn? I think not.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/05/19/andy-burnhams-economics-will-not-work/comment-page-1/#comment-1079915
@Kevin Lee
Kevin, I think you have misunderstood me? Perhaps you thought I didn’t understand MMT’s point about the real constraints of resources? I assure you, I do. But in making that point you are obscuring the significance of something far more fundamental – money creation.
The UK IS constrained by resources (and constraints such as inflation), but NOT by “money”, because it is a currency issuer.
Manchester is ALSO constrained by resources, but primarily by a finite limited supply of the UK-issued money. Manchester isn’t a currency issuer. It can’t create money. There isn’t a Manchester Bee Bank issuing Bee notes.
Consider how many local authorities have gone technically bust in recent years, because of exactly that difference – they have run out of money, the cost of their statutory obligations has exceeded their finite income and saleable liquid assets, and they can’t create money because they aren’t currency issuers. So central government has to send in administrators to stop complete collapse. (Eg: Northamptonshire et al)
No difference? When did the UK government last go bust? You need to radically rethink how you present MMT – you are seriously misrepresenting it at present.
If I’m wrong, then I’m in good company.