On Friday, Andy Burnham said this when accepting the leadership of the Labour Party:
Change starts with honesty.
We must recognise that this generation of politicians – myself included – have failed to challenge a political culture and an economic model that simply doesn't work well enough for ordinary people.
Four decades of the neoliberalism that began in the 1980s have not been kind to the places that built our Party, nor to the communities across the UK in rural and coastal areas.
Burnham claimed to reject neoliberalism, but words are cheap.
You cannot reject neoliberalism and remain committed to fiscal rules that embed it in your policy framework.
You cannot reject neoliberalism and maintain a commitment to Bank of England independence that sacrifices people, their jobs and businesses on the high altars of the City of London.
You cannot reject neoliberalism and remain committed to the private ownership of essential public services.
You cannot reject neoliberalism and do nothing to tackle the externalities that markets create, the impact of which we see in inequality, the environment, unemployment, alienated young people, lost communities and failing biodiversity.
You cannot reject neoliberalism and threaten, imprison, or seek to silence the views of those who oppose it.
You cannot reject neoliberalism and then appoint those who wish to embrace, advance and profit from it to positions of high authority in your Cabinet.
You can only reject neoliberalism by being seen to do so, by acting as if you have, and by taking the necessary and difficult steps to address the many harms it has caused, the existence of which you acknowledge, whilst accepting your role in creating them.
Andy Burnham needs to reject neoliberalism. Its toxic impact on our society is leading us to the edge of ruin. For too many, the ruin is already their daily lived experience. Nothing less than rejection will do.
So, the question is, does Andy Burnham mean what he said, or are meaningless words another form of neoliberal waste as far as he is concerned? I think we will find out this week.
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!
“have failed to challenge a political culture and an economic model that simply doesn’t work …………….. for ordinary people.”
There sorted. He’s doing a Starmer. Weasel words “well enough”.
Burnt-ham – neolibtardism does not & cannot work… for most people (ordinary or otherwise).
Burnt-ham is NOT rejecting neolibtarism – he’s going to make it work better… for ordinary people.
So having established Burnt-ham is Sooty or Sweep – who is the Harry Corbett this time around (it was McSwine with Starmer).
As a case in point, as someone who has experienced the care ava for dementia
You are right that words are cheap, and that action is needed to reject neoliberalism. Yet it is rare for politicians to explicitly reject neoliberalism. Burnham doing so is positive if not sufficient.
No, you can’t reject neoliberalism without rejecting the fiscal rules, independence of the Bank of England, privatisation of natural monopolies and the rest.
Yet Burnham is the leader of a party elected on a manifesto and subject to a hostile neoliberal media. If he doesn’t keep to the manifesto, including absurd fiscal rules, he should, in good faith, call an election. And if he calls an election it won’t be fair due to a hostile media.
But, he doesn’t have to do everything immediately. Indeed it cannot be done all at once. It will take time, longer than is left until the next election.
However, he can make a start. In my view that is what the electorate wants, to see progress in the right direction (away from neoliberalism). He doesn’t have to immediately abandon fiscal rules. If he did so he would face a hostile barrage from the media. He is wise not to do so. Instead he can start to correct another failure of neoliberalism, inequality, by reforming the tax system. He can’t within the manifesto, increase income tax, NI, or VAT, but he can still make an effective start.
Whether Burnham will, indeed, move away from neoliberalism is another question. We shall see more clearly on Monday when he appointments his cabinet. If, as likely, he appointments a neoliberal chancellor, we’re all in trouble. Even then we should see what they do, not what they say.
Chances are that some sort of compromise will be tried because the Neo-libs will just not cede any ground at all – they have everything already but always want more because it simply belongs to others – the logic of covetous Pleonexia.
Burnham will learn just how obdurate the Neo-libs are I feel – in fact lets call a spade a spade – the real extremists exist in many think tanks where the abuse of language and self-justification will be taken to new levels.
One of the biggest lies in Neo-liberalism is ‘trickle-down’ – how the rich fund start up businesses and employ others. Apparently anything the State does in this respect does not count at all (supposedly because of the mis-stated role of taxation which we are told wrongly funds states related employment etc). But there is one area where what the rich does DOES trickle down and that is inflation. Those large under taxed pools of money, the purchasing of assets (leading to the inflation of things like property markets) and other areas of the economy where money is being pumped into by the rich sniffing a get rich quick escapade – especially if rents can be extracted too.
Yes for sure – the REAL trickle down gift from Neo-liberalism is the cost of living crisis we endure because they need to keep themselves in the manner to which they have become accustomed: at the top, at the front, first inline for everything.
BBC reports don’t comment on what Burnham or indeed the body politic understands neoliberalism to be.<p>
As Richard says – Burnham seems running scared of even facing up to it – already trying to ‘calm the markets ‘ – and sticking to ‘fiscal rules'<p>
The Labour Together faction who installed Burnham is sponsored and funded by vested interests – builders, foreign lobbyists, and even maybe the security services – they will make sure he doesnt really challenge the system<p>
‘Market’ language permeates how we think about what used to be public services – NHS, Universities, Schools, all public utilities – with citizens /students/patients becoming consumers and market relationships being the only valid decision making process. The economy and society has been hollowed out , public assets almost non existent <p>
One just can’t imagine Burnham understanding how deeply and culturally embedded Neoliberal market thinking is – or indeed reversing it in any significant sense.