I watched Laura Kuenssberg's interview with Andy Burnham before the Labour Party conference started yesterday.
It was a dispiriting event that did neither of them any credit.
Kuenssberg asked all the usual questions.
She fretted about funding as if it was the only issue of consequence in this country.
Burnham emoted.
He said he would do politics differently. And then he did it exactly as everyone who has come before him has done of late.
He failed to answer the questions posed.
What he would not say is that to fund the services this country needs, he will run a deficit, and that it will increase.
That this is essential in the time of crisis in which we are living, as Keynes pointed out, is something he does not appear ot know.
As a consequence, he inevitably ruled in austerity.
Blair was ring-fencing the NHS.
Burnham is claiming he will ring-fence social care.
He did so entirely inside an analysis that focused upon the household analogy.
The only discussion was of money.
No one discussed whether we had the people, the skills, the facilities or the training to support the need that he rightly says exists. Apparently, it is money alone that is the issue of consequence, so unrooted from reality is our politics.
And so, another Prime Minister sets out on his path to failure.
That outcome is inevitable.
He does not know what he is doing.
He does not know what the job he has demands of him.
He does not understand what the country expects.
He cannot, therefore, deliver it.
He does not know how to govern. That is why I am now more than halfway through writing the first draft of this book. He needs it, very badly.
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!
He does not know how to govern because his advisors do not know how to govern. Everything is arm’s length these days isn’t it, farmed out.
It is dispiriting to think we have another avatar for a prime ‘minister’. It’s just a name now, not even totemic anymore in my opinion.
But let us be clear: the Labour party helps keeps economic Thatcherism alive as much as the party she dominated. That is what this is all about.
BTW – please send him a copy of your book when it is published.
I promise you, I will be.
Might it be that Mr. Burnham would not have becomePrime Minister if he thought outside the currently imposed Neoliberal/austerity for regular citizens and their children, silo?
But the government does exercise its powers of authoritarian suppression even if it won’t accept its other responsibilities.
According to Warfare Secretary Wes Streeting, the government doesn’t police domestic political protest. Which must be why large numbers of people were arrested yesterday outside the Labour Party Conference for crimes against cardboard.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/people-cheer-arrested-outside-labour-34679204
I’m not at all disappointed by Mr Burnham. He’s everything I knew he would be. Josh Simons must be very pleased.
Much to agree with
Burnham’s performance is what one might expect from a Cambridge-educated English Literature graduate. If he had not gone into politics he may well have ended up as an economics commentator in the media. Early signs suggest that with Burnham’s government, the more things change the more they remain the same. All very depressing.
Much to agree with
Thank you.
Like Sky’s Ed Conway.
🙂
I have some sympathy for Burnham though I agree he probably doesn’t know what he’s doing. 🙁
I’m sympathetic because, could he really say “I’m going to run an increasing deficit” (even though he should)? Had he done so, two things would have happened. The discussion would have degenerated into an debate about the household analogy. And the media would have picked up on it causing instability in “markets”. No, of course it shouldn’t have that effect but I think it would. And yes the Prime Minister, of all people, should be able to speak the truth. But the sorry state that we’re in is that he can’t 🙁
What should he do? He, with the Chancellor, should produce a conventional, “balanced” budget but one with truely progressive taxes (described in your taxing wealth report). Once that is in place he can then make structural changes to way government finance works.
We cannot forever have the country ruled by myths everyone is frightened to call out. The cost is too high.
I completely agree. The question is how to get there from here, given that the household analogy is so firmly embedded. Just coming straight out with the truth would frighten the horses.
My suggestion is, first, a good budget, in terms of being both progressive and balanced. Whilst neoliberals would rail against progressive taxes, it could not be criticised as being crazy even in terms of conventional economics. Such a budget would demonstrate “fiscal responsibility”. Shortly thereafter I would start to change the infrastructure. First by not paying interest on reserves, having national savings bonds for public works (reducing “dependence” on gilt auctions. And I’d change the rules about the use of the ‘Ways and Means’ account (either using Emergency provisions in the Bank of England act or “strong arming” the governor to agree), which would reduce the power of “bond vigilantes” (who, yes I know, don’t actually exist).
We have to come straight out.
There is no halfway house
For at least the last 30 years, the Labour party has been too frightened to do its job properly, fearing the markets. Surely it’s about time that they showed some guts and saw off the financial markets which are holding the country to ransom.
Nothing has changed with Labour.
From David Kynaston’s just released “Deep into the Sixties”. In early 1965 after a Cabinet meeting Richard Crossman observed how Callaghan, the Chancellor, and other working class ministers ” can be terrorized and how weak and pliable they are in the hands of the City and Bank of England”.
Kynaston’s history books in his series Tales of a New Jerusalem are excellent. His latest book is number six in the series.
I fear you are right.
But Burnham so far has been very good at making people feel good about him not answering the questions. <p>
He seems to have the knack of making people feel better because he wants a free ‘national care service’ as we all do – apparently the Labour conference is buzzing with optimism<p>
The BBC is being relatively benign towards Labour – presumably to help it beat Zolanksi in Holborn and St Pancras – which they probably will do.<p>
Labour has banned independent journalists (‘deClassified’) from its conference – very Trumpian<p>
Burnham is sort of ‘likeable’ – which makes him even more dangerous – giving him more political room for prolonging this disastrous austerity.
Thank you and well said, Richard.
I did not see that Laura von Kuenssberg interview, but have heard that, with regard to Ireland, he was equally hopeless.
Yesterday night, I saw a bit of Chris Bryant’s rabbit in the headlights act when, out and about with his husband, he was confronted by reporters about the Orange Order marchers.
Coverage of the Orangemen fails to mention that, when they last marched in 1997, three young Catholic children were burnt to death in their home. It’s outrageous that the colonial authorities at Hillsborough and in London failed to prevent the march and allowed the RUC (in disguise) to pull a fast one. No mention of Farage’s visit, either.
@ Richard: Your friend Steve Keen thought that, even before taking office, Burnham would not lead Labour into the next election.
Bryant was awful. Truly clueless. He could not even find a straw to clutch.
And Steve might be right.
I forgot to mention that, again from an old friend in Whitehall, there’s still some animosity towards the Irish and Catholics in Whitehall. My friend is Catholic. There’s a remnant of imperialists unable to accept that Blighty should move on from empire. There are also neo-cons.
Readers may not be aware of protests and social media campaigns against immigrants in Ireland. Most of the social media stuff is from the US, UK and even Israel. Some of the protestors visit from the UK and team up with west Britons.
Why is Ireland targeted? Ireland is neutral, but hosts a US base at Shannon. There’s pressure on the Irish government to join NATO. Much of that pressure comes from the US and UK. The west Britons are their proxies. Any cause will do, especially one that puts Sinn Fein on the backfoot.
One hopes Sarah pipes up from Ireland.
Much to agree with
I know only too well what has been cracking off in Ireland with regard to immigration as my brother lives there. Rather, he WAS my brother until he started backing anti-immigration stances.
This Orange march business is a truly retrograde step. It is thoroughly the wrong thing to do. The court must have been off its rocker to approve this. One can only shake one’s head and hope that someone sees sense.
The Orange Order and the DUP are natural allies of the far right.
A timely reminder about the DUPs “Christian values”…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Jeffrey_Donaldson
Sentencing delayed by further charges.
The comments about possible blackmail in the article are sobering. It reminds me of Johnson and his off-grid Italian trips.
Richard,
I sincerely hope that you publish your book before it’s too late?
Ian.
I am in discussion with publishers. March is the target, but let’s see.
Interesting fact: Frankie Burnham played criminal mastermind Harry Grout in the 1970s hit Porridge.
Peter Vaughn played Groutie in Porridge.
I heard on R4 Today this morning that Gordon Brown is part of Burnham’s inner circle and that his economic advice is taken very seriously. As it was GB who set out the ‘fiscal rules’ in the first place I doubt it he’ll be advocating their scrapping.
Agreed