If you want a summary of Andy Burnham's new government, it is is this.
The top four ministerial posts in the UK are those of Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary.
Those filling these roles are a right wing Muslim women, tied to Blue Labour, who is seemingly out of touch with most in the Labour Party, and three white men, all of whom served as ministers in governments headed by Tony Blair.
That's the progressive point we have reached.
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!
A point not lost on many of us.
What PSR said.
Ironically it was under a Conservative Government that none of all 4 of the great offices of state were held by a white man
Never thought about it that way!
All compounded by BBC correspondents comparing the country’s finances with those of a household. Kevin Peachey, the BBC’s Cost of living correspondent, wrote (today):
“How to pay for it – something billpayers will recognise
[..] Of course, finding the money to cover a bill is something many energy customers will recognise.”
Not only is this incorrect and misleading, but the BBC itself noted that the household analogies “are dangerous territory, intensely contested, and can easily mislead”
Source: “Review of the impartiality of BBC coverage of taxation, public spending, government borrowing and debt” (Nov 2022) See the section “Note on household analogies”
See also: “BBC finally tells the truth about government borrowing” (YouTube, March 2021)
Agreed, but they ignore that report.
I’ve a sinking feeling that Andy Burnham will turn out to be another Completely Rubbish APproximation to a prime minister.
And I’ve rarely hoped so fervently that I’ll be proved wrong.
🙂
Perhaps this is not the best post on which to make this comment, but I wished to comment about the complaint I have just made to the BBC, which is:
____
I wish to complain about political and misinformation bias in Fiscal Islam’s piece on the cost of Burnham’s big ideas (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9357rlk494o).
This is one of the first pieces published after Burnham became PM and immediately reiterates the false narrative of his party political opponents.
In his first paragraph Fiscal says, “In other words, it would mean a tax rise or spending cut”. This is factually incorrect. The government is not funded by either tax or borrowing, a fact acknowledged by the Bank of England, amongst others, in 2014. It is based on the false neoliberal assertion that the government is like a household, funded by tax and borrowing, when this is not true.
If the BBC writes misleading articles like this one it should, at least, provide the contrary arguments. I thought that this was the BBC’s the explicit policy, to fairly represent both sides of a debate. Yet in this article, and many others, it represents one side of the argument as established fact. In doing so it is presenting misinformation and party political bias.
Please stop such biased reporting and at least try to cover both sides of the issue.
____
I don’t expect much response, but would ask that other readers make similar complaints (if they feel it justified), so that they hear the anti-neoliberal perspective.
Thank you, Tim
While all of us who follow this blog know the falsehood of this’household’ analogy, I have found in ordinary conversation how difficult it is not to fall into the trap myself. Only yesterday I found myself arguing with an irate neighbour ( a fellow farmer) who was complaining about high vet bills. As the parent of a vet! I found myself justifying their fees on the basis that, if the vet et al weren’t able to pay their taxes to the government, then the said government wouldn’t have the wherewithal to pay his subsidies … it shut him up, but I was annoyed with myself for having perpetuated the myth. What should I have said instead?
Don’t be too hard on yourself. We have all been brought up with the household analogy, and it is remarkably difficult to avoid slipping back into it. I do sometimes . People here pick me up.
I think I might have said something like this instead.
“Your vet’s taxes don’t pay for your subsidies. The government can always make the payments due in pounds sterling. What your vet’s taxes do is help create demand for the currency, reduce inflationary pressure, redistribute income and help ensure there is room in the economy for the government to spend.”
Or, more simply, and better:
“Your vet’s taxes don’t fund your subsidy. They help make the economy work. Your subsidy is a political choice made by government.”
That also has the advantage of making clear that if we want farmers to be supported, or the NHS to be properly funded, or pensions to be paid, the issue is not whether taxpayers have ‘put enough into the pot’. It is whether we have the real resources to deliver those things, and whether Parliament chooses to do so.
That, in my opinion, is the conversation we should be having. It is a much more honest one.
I think you quoted this before. “Welcome to the new boss. Same as the old boss.”
I would go further and say to all economists currently taking a salary for writing newspaper columns:
Economics is 80 per cent about resources, not money. It’s the optimum allocation of available resources to achieve the goals decided by the gov. Money is obviously important, but it’s mainly resources.