Andy Burnham tried to present his great economic and social vision in the House of Commons yesterday, blaming Thatcherism and Brexit for the state that we are in. If that is how he wants to describe neoliberalism, I do not dispute his analysis. The trouble is, he then failed to present a coherent alternative.<\/p>\n
As I heard and read his comments, I think he set out five major policy proposals:<\/p>\n
Let me be clear, I am not arguing with these ideas. I am worried about the absence of detail on how they might be delivered, as that remains very unclear. I am always worried about what was not said, because that is always important when appraising any such announcement.<\/p>\n
As example, Burnham described the government as \u201can enabler of a more productive economy\u201d. He described water privatisation as a \u201cleaking monument\u201d to an economy run for the benefit of private interests. But he did not talk about nationalisation.<\/p>\n
Instead, he continued to focus on relatively small policy changes, such as a temporary VAT cut and a continuing commitment to a \u00a32 bus fare cap.<\/p>\n
He gave no spending figures, indication of financing programmes, or timetables for taking utilities into public ownership, even though that appears to be his desire.<\/p>\n
There was instead a recommitment to the government\u2019s fiscal rules whilst suggesting that cost-of-living measures should be \u201cre-prioritised within government\u201d.<\/p>\n
I came away with the feeling that, at best, we are going to see Andy Burnham reshuffle government spending. Whatever he commits to will, I suspect, be matched by suggested cuts elsewhere. I strongly suspect that all he is suggesting is being framed within 'the Treasury View ', which demands balanced budgets even if they are never delivered.\u00a0 That is because we heard no indication at all that he understands that the government creates the money that it spends and that when there are spare resources within the economy, the government can put them to use without creating the risk of inflation arising. Instead, on a day when the media was talking about rising government borrowing costs, he appeared to bow to the Bank of England's approach to controlling inflation.<\/p>\n
This was particularly reinforced by the fact that whilst Burnham said that mortgages, energy and living costs were too high, he did not challenge either the Bank of England\u2019s interest rate policy or its approach to quantitative tightening, which is ongoing with the deliberate goal of keeping interest rates in the UK as high as possible.<\/p>\n
Maybe that explains why there was no description of an investment programme in anything Burnham had to say, nor any hint of a new approach towards taxation, including stronger redistribution or an attempt to impose additional tax on excessive wealth, economic rents, unearned income, monopolies and tax abuse.<\/p>\n
As a consequence, there was also no indication of a plan to improve the actual income of those people who cannot afford the cost of living. As indication of that, nowhere did he discuss improved trade union rights, new approaches to collective bargaining and industry-level minimum pay negotiations or a new approach towards social security, all of which would have to underpin any policy for growth which he said he was announcing, but clearly was not.<\/p>\n
Nor did he at any point reconcile his growth plans with those for climate change. He nodded towards the issue, but saying that he will attend climate conferences is not the same as having a green transition strategy. There was no mention of a reindustrialisation strategy being designed around decarbonisation, energy security, adaptation and the rebuilding of national energy resilience.<\/p>\n
Nor was there any substantive indication of a new approach to Europe. He blamed Brexit for a lot, but he left off the table what he will actually seek to achieve in negotiations with Brussels.<\/p>\n
In fact, the potential impact of the international arena, from Trump to an AI crash, was all left for another day. And that is not an option Burnham now has. He could do that in Manchester. He cannot in Westminster, but it was, in essence, ignored.<\/p>\n
The consequence is that, although he spent a considerable time at the Despatch Box, the impression was left that he has not yet thought through what his premiership is to be about, as I have previously suggested. Nor is he prepared for the challenges it will present. It would appear that he wants to be the king of devolution, but devolution without a proper financial settlement is not only meaningless, but all it does is also devolve responsibility whilst leaving others to tackle the Treasury when he would appear to be unwilling to do so.<\/p>\n
The impression that Burnham is a man missing many of the ideas required to create, let alone deliver, a strategy was reinforced as a result.<\/p>\n
Words might come very easily to Burnham. Meaningful ones do not.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"